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

Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

today.oregonstate.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 504 posts

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#441

Post by bufferoverflow »

belter wrote: post #3

We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.

Temperature problem can be solved relatively easily and cheaply by putting a bunch of reflective film all over the planet (mainly deserts).

Getting CO2 out of the atmosphere is actually expensive. But we will have to do it. High concentrations of CO2 reduce IQ and make humans actually uncomfortable.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#442

Post by vasco »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #338
vasco wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know no single person on earth can do it all by themselves - all the mechanisms I'm aware of at least.

Tactical nukes are sometimes under the command and potential authorization of battlefield commanders who in theory could operate without the authorization of a president. Consider a risk of this happening in the context of a border war between two nuclear armed states with low spillover risk to the rest of the world - i.e. pakistan and india.

The commander cannot initiate it himself. No single person in the United States, that I know of (no access to classified info) can physically do it by themselves. The commander would have to order someone else to do it at least. This is a huge component of the whole doctrine as far as I'm aware.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#443

Post by abdullahkhalids »

card_zero wrote: post #420
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But why would you control for population? Because the amount of changes that a society has to make in how it lives to get to net zero is determined by how much each person emits. The average US person emits 15 tons CO2 every year (there is distribution about it). The average China person emits half that. So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. Of course, it is better to subdivid…

> So obviously the US has to make a larger change in the structure of society. That's not obvious at all. Suppose the difference in per capita emissions between country A and country C is that in country A they drive big cars and in country C they drive small ones. Well, both countries ought to stop using internal combustion engines. How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars? And…

> How is that a "larger change" for country A, just because they have larger cars?

We are never actually going to get to zero carbon emissions. There are many industrial operations that will emit CO2. The hope is that we can plant enough trees that the sucked CO2 is equal to those non-replaceable emissions to get to net zero.

In your specific case of cars, the production of cars does emit CO2. And production of larger cars does emit more CO2. Whether the electricity used for them is from solar, wind or nuclear, there are emissions associated with the production of panels, wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Constructing and maintaining roads also emits CO2, and larger cars require thicker and broader roads. So, a country with smaller cars will emit less CO2 ceteris paribus. Hence it is indeed better if the average car size is smaller.

Or if people start owning fewer cars and take the bus instead. And of course more people in the large-car country will have to switch to the bus than in the small-car country for the same reduction in emissions.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#444

Post by abdullahkhalids »

EasyMark wrote: post #412
feverzsj wrote: post #53

Climate change is unavoidable. People should start moving to highland now.

I'm covered, I live on a topological local maxima of 100 feet above the "major" local minima of "800ft" on essentually solid rock, assuming it doesn't become the next sahara, I should be able to collect plenty of rain water for personal needs and have methods to filter it. Currently have enough solar for off grid and backup generators as secondary. Hopefully well armed enough to stave off interlopers if it becomes th…

What happens if there is a drought in your area? How do you get water?

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#445

Post by trashtester »

baq wrote: post #400
trashtester wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So people will move out of those worst affected areas.

Exactly. Hundreds of millions of them.

Sure. That could happen. Or there could be wars/conflicts resulting in some of those not having anywhere to go.

Still, this scenario is quite different from human extinction, which is what I was responding to further up.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#446

Post by mrexroad »

trashtester wrote: post #397
mrexroad wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the above comment’s point about risk to stability in a chaotic system…

That part looked like gibberish.... Maybe rewrite to make it more clear?

Stability in a chaotic system is precarious. Changes, even if small or seemingly trivial, can cause massive cascading effects from positive/negative feedback loops.

Sigh, I don’t mean to sound like a dick, but if that’s gibberish then you might want to strengthen some of the foundational understandings around systems.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#447

Post by flir »

_yb2s wrote: post #418
krainboltgreene wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care about your opinions on academic literary analysis, it's OK to be wrong and have your own thoughts on the matter, but prepare to be confused when people don't agree that the Transformer movies are about the dangers of aliens turning into vehicles. For someone who doesn't care what Gibson thinks of his own artistic works you sure do have a strong opinion on Gibson's artistic work.

You are mis-representing people that intuitively understand that a phrase can have different meanings depending on context, as fundamentally confused and actually muddling the two concepts. Nobody would say "transformers are about the dangers of aliens turning into vehicles" but people would say it is "about aliens that can turn into vehicles." They might also say something like it's "about the the struggle to live d…

My son's just completed an essay on Marxist themes in Blake.

I think this guy's ideas of what literary analysis is and is not are pretty idiosyncratic, to be honest.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#448

Post by smallerfish »

goatlover wrote: post #164
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.

What happens in 15 years? It’s not a comet impact. It’s an ongoing problem where technology will help us adapt.

There's all kinds of tipping points that are plausible in the next decade that would lead to accelerating warming. Permafrost melting releasing large amounts of methane; gulf stream redirecting; extended drought in climate critical regions; large ice shelves collapsing, etc. It's gradual until it's not.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#449

Post by GeoAtreides »

trashtester wrote: post #377
dylan604 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> radius from likely thermonuclear targets which direction did you take it though? did you move to a place away from likely targets (which really, with as many nukes that are out there, what's not a target?), or did you move closer so that you'd be taken out in the first wave and spared the life of misery after? my dad used to say that one of the deciding factors where he chose to build the house I grew up in was bas…

I moved away from the most likely target, enough that I would be likely to survive a 400 kt nuke.

But how closed are you to post-nuclear logistical chains that would keep you fed and healthy?

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#450

Post by smallerfish »

mrexroad wrote: post #389
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that's it's comparable. The ozone required manufacturing changes, it didn't require an upheaval on how we live. Sure, it's "don't emit the bad gas", but the gases come from different sources.

The primary difference was that the ozone depletion didn't gain much traction as a political wedge and world leaders were able to take the threat seriously. 14 years after scientists published basic research warning of potential risk, the Montreal Protocol was signed. 25 years later there was a 98% reduction in release of ozone depleting substances and the ozone layer has begun to heal. Throughout all of that, DuPont…

I don't think that's the primary difference.

With the ozone layer, we already had alternatives to CFCs that were viable. A handful of companies lost out on product lines, but they're all still doing fine today. Individuals didn't have to do anything.

With the problem of CO2 emissions, lifestyle changes are required to fundamentally solve the issue, and people aren't willing to make them. Yes, it's possible that geoengineering can buy us some time. It's possible there will be a battery revolution. Renewable energy is increasingly widespread. But there's nothing right now that's a drop-in replacement. The only sure-fire solution that we have right now is a widespread reduction of consumption and mobility, and very few people are on board with that.

Post reply on HN