Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#41

Post by NotPaidToPost »

adrianN wrote: post #35
mikelyons wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pragmatically its more a return to old-style living in many ways but will seem radical to groups addicted to modern lifestyles.

No, return to old style living won't save us, because the planet can't sustain our current population levels with old-style living. Unless you want to trigger civil unrest and kill many people, the solution has to be technological. Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency can do it, it just needs a few trillion dollars of investment.

Indeed, the major issue that is always conveniently forgotten is population growth.

Stopping it should at the top of our priorities along with renewable energies.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#42

Post by baron_harkonnen »

fearai wrote: post #38
aplummer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are more religious than some religious people about their science. There is no correlation between people concerned about high estimated damage using the current best effort science (warming of 3-4'C) and dogma without evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary you will have definitely earned that Nobel prize and million bucks.

what type of data do you prefer? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-cris... also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes.

But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Because there is apple evidence all around us and yet you seem determined not to see it, so what would change you mind? If nothing then there's really no point having a discussion.

[1]. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#44

Post by roter »

usrusr wrote: post #12

What happened in 1600 that made CO2 levels drop? Natural reforestation after European germs wiped out agricultural civilizations in the Americas?

Carbon dioxide and temperature are linked. 1650 was the height of the Little Ice Age [0]. Lots of interesting theories and research, e.g. [1], for the specific carbon dioxide drop.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#45

Post by Iwan-Zotow »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #42
fearai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what type of data do you prefer? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-cris... also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Be…

apple -> ample

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#46

Post by mikepurvis »

adrianN wrote: post #34
coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currencies based on "hard cpu work" should be forbidden for that alone...

I'd rather see a global tax on carbon. Suddenly Bitcoins mined with coal are no longer profitable.

Isn't that kind of what agreements like the Paris accord are supposed to accomplish? Individual nations retain sovereignty and can set their own precise laws, but as long as everyone's above some baseline you can't arbitrage by moving the polluting part of your business to Asia or Africa.

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#47

Post by fearai »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #42
fearai wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what type of data do you prefer? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/climate-cris... also we are supposed to be "sceptics" in the science community but your scientists like to manipulate language for political reasons and call sceptics "deniers", a very religious move: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Be…

totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise.

weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#48

Post by aplummer »

fearai wrote: post #47
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can watch the Arctic melt before your eyes[1] and we will very likely see an ice free Arctic for the first time in at least 100,000 years in our lifetime. Claiming that isn't happening isn't "skepticism" it is denying what you can easily verify with your own eyes. But let me ask you a very important question that will easily settle where the dogma lies. What would convince you that climate change is happening? Be…

totally believe the earth is getting warmer. never said otherwise. weaponizing weather for political gain is disgusting and not scientific. skepticism is a fundamental pillar of science but the we are told to call them "deniers" to swing sentiment and get votes. [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

seriously do the legwork and publish, then you won’t be a conspiracy theorist

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#49

Post by godelski »

legitster wrote: post #17

It's super depressing to see the acceleration of coal energy in 2000. Despite the rise of renewables, they haven't even been able to keep up with the rise of coal! And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to coal-fired electric.

While renewables are awesome and we should do everything we can to support their growth, they have a major problem (which is why they currently can't replace fossil fuels). Renewables are not constant energy providers and they cannot scale to demand (either up or down). The best bet with them is batteries. But that means that you have to produce at minimum enough to fulfill a full day's worth of energy demands within the time period they operate (solar: day, wind: windy parts of day, etc). Worse, tomorrow might be rainy, so you have to provide more than a few days. Unfortunately this problem is frequently left out. (And yes, we should also majorly be funding research into new batteries)

This is actually why people argue for nuclear. Not because they (we) want to replace renewables, but we want to replace fossil fuels. They compete in different areas. The more renewables you have (and battery tech) the less nuclear you need. But there still has to be something in the system to load balance and scale to demand. Because renewables currently can't tackle this problem we end up building more coal and natural gas plants (which are cheap! But they get much more expensive than something like nuclear once you price in emissions and health effects).

Re: CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions

#50

Post by ForHackernews »

rayiner wrote: post #6
ForHackernews wrote: post #3

> 1.5°C consistent: there are a range of emissions pathways that would be compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all would require a very urgent and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Is this polite data analyst-speak for "We're fucked"?

Seeing as how the 1.5C pathways require global emissions to go zero of negative within our lifetimes, yes: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-em... .

Two years old at this point: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos...

> This image should terrify you. It should be on billboards.

> As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the world has to zero out net carbon emissions by 2050 or so — for a good chance of avoiding 2 degrees, by around 2065.

Post reply on HN