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

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#481

Post by zizee »

amarant wrote: post #95

We have to expand nuclear power. Many don't like it but at this point we have no other choice. Let solar drive the phasing out of nuclear reactors instead of coal power plants! Sadly in my country (Sweden) nuclear is not only taboo but it's illegal to perform research of the subject.. Laws passed by a severely misinformed "green" movement...

Does anyone have any numbers on what battery prices need to get to before Wind/Solar are cost competitive with nuclear? Double internet points if you account for direct/indirect subsidies given to both Wind/Solar/Nuclear (including if nuclear would have to purchase insurance for accident cleanup and a secured deposit for decommissioning costs, and likewise for solar's environmental damage from manufacturing).

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#482

Post by zizee »

enugu wrote: post #444
Reason077 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with nuclear (at least in countries like the UK and USA) is not so much public perception or misinformation but the cost , particularly once eventual decommissioning and long-term waste storage costs are accounted for. It's increasingly difficult for nuclear projects to compete with things like renewables, inter-connectors, and carbon-taxed gas turbines. The one project that has gone ahead recently in the…

Yes, but as this article shows, there are much higher costs coming up for us. If we came to a consensus that this technology is important and devoted resources to this, we would see a lot of improvements in these parameters. The problem is that neither the market nor governments work well for these long term decisions. We are spending lot of resources on trivialities due to our short term mindset.

I think Reason077 is arguing that it is quicker and cheaper long term to invest in wind/solar rollout and storage solutions than nuclear. i.e. it is a better solution all round.

It is a valid point. Once batteries are cheap enough, it solar and wind become an obvious solution, with little political backlash.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#483

Post by mirimir »

hwillis wrote: post #456
mirimir wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, major extinction event. No doubt about it. But killing off plants? Can you cite something for that? It seems to me that preventing collapse of human civilization is the thing to focus on. It's what most people will care about, right? And it's far more likely than total global ecosystem collapse. I mean, we may see the first signs within a few years. The "end of all life on this planet" is something that humanity…

The next sentence in the page is "It is also the only known mass extinction of plants". I didn't include it because it says citation needed, though. Every scenario in which life is endangered globally involves harsh feedback loops and is therefore extremely hypothetical and unstudied, but the possibilities do exist. Climate change simulation is a best case of a best case scenario- how could you possibly account reali…

I suspect that the dynamic will look like 1) non-human species extinction from habitat loss; 2) disruption of human civilization and possible collapse from food shortages and conflict; 3) human and ecological recovery; 4) recovered or new human civilization; 5) more ecological recovery.

With luck, we'll only get part way into 2, and it won't be too bad. But those positive feedbacks are frightening.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#484

Post by PeterisP »

lpolovets wrote: post #12

Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? The graph in the article shows that Canada has 5x the per capita CO2 extraction of China, but on the other hand China has 40x as many people. (For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do mo…

Do note that it's CO2 extraction not consumption - it's counting oil that's extracted in Canada but burnt elsewhere; reducing local consumption wouldn't change that number, it's about the global oil production.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#485

Post by PeterisP »

aoeu345 wrote: post #19
diafygi wrote: post #13

Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries ar…

Hi, I don't see anything in your list about carbon sequestration. Can you point me to any companies investing in advanced robotics to assist in silicate mineral crushing & spreading, as it's the only sensible, achievable sequestration technique? Thanks. For readers interested in carbon sequestration, please check out the following paper: "Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric…

All the other technologies satisfy some currently existing demand, but there's no demand for carbon sequestration - as in, nobody is willing to pay for large scale carbon sequestration.

It's currently fit for theoretical research only. There's no political will in sight to do that in the coming decade(s?), so it's too early to start practical R&D.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#486

Post by PeterisP »

pg314 wrote: post #42
SamReidHughes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the high end of predictions aren't expecting an increase in intense weather events bigger than what you might get if you were a bit unlucky over the next century.

Any citations for that? Why would insurance companies like Munich Re be studying and preparing for climate change then [1]? [1] https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index...

A large reinsurer has to evaluate trends in weather and the associated risks of e.g. storm damage, as for them every percentage point is meaningful.

However, you can treat them as an information source about risk - if there would be a significant increase in likelihood of extreme weather, then you'd see it reflected in the insurance rates, and if not - well, they have done the homework and are betting literal billions that the worry is just an exaggeration for now. If the insurance rates aren't doubling, then the risks haven't doubled for sure.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#487

Post by schoen »

pg314 wrote: post #186
SamReidHughes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent [1]. The high end is that they get more frequent -- but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky. Your second paragraph isn't talking about weather events at all. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-...

As far as I can tell the link you provide argues exactly the opposite of what you're saying: > In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. > In a warmer future climate, most Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness…

I imagine it's the sentence "Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally...", which represents a decrease in one particular (important) kind of extreme weather event, although it says that in this case the tropical cyclones that do occur could be more intense. However, that might be the only kind of extreme weather event that the linked document mentions might become rarer; it also mentions other kinds of events for which it only mentions increased likelihoods, not decreased likelihoods.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#488

Post by PeterisP »

qwtel wrote: post #268

> Limiting the global mean temperature rise to below 2°C with a probability of 66% would require an energy transition of exceptional scope, depth and speed. It seems that sovereigns don't quite think like individuals: If this was a personal decision, I'd just put my hopes in boarding a plain that has a 66% chance of making it to its destination (or at least that's what the pilot, in an effort to look respectable, is…

First, like in Prisoner's dilemma, if some sovereigns take drastic action, they pay the price but don't achieve the goal anyway unless almost all others are cooperating.

Second, the interests are not aligned - those who'd need to take the largest investment are those who'd suffer the least from consequences; and those who need the goal the most can't change that much.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#489

Post by Jare »

PeterisP wrote: post #465
Jare wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Horrible catastrophe" works, but it doesn't stop there. How are humans and our political and military structures going to react? It is debatable how close we have been, during various past crisis, to an actual large-scale nuclear conflict. I don't think we can deny our raw capability to cause a near-extinction-level with our existing technology (nuclear, biological or otherwise). Our political and military ecosystem…

It's worth noting that only USA-Russia full "mutually assured destruction" nuclear exchange has the potential to come anywhere close to an existential threat. A limited nuclear exchange using up the arsenals of all other states does not; a nuclear escalation that results in USA or Russia nuking a non-nuclear state does not, etc. As long as USA and Russia (who between them hold almost all global nuclear weapons) keep…

Yes, and what I'm saying is that MAD is far from an unthinkable outcome of the stress and conflicts arising from the worldwide "horrible catastrophe" caused by rapid climate change.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#490

Post by antisthenes »

harwoodleon wrote: post #474
antisthenes wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even nearly as bad as long commutes and having to drive everywhere, thanks to poor infrastructure decisions made by the US in the 50s and 60s. But, unlike transport, where you at least have an alternative (live in the city, ditch the car), if I have family on another continent, flying is the only way I can see them. A poster above you posted a source that flying is responsible for around ~3% of global emissions,…

Those aren't fake facts. They are facts. I don't really dispute their legitimacy, they could be absolutely correct and I could be wrong. It's my own view, you don't have to hold it for me. However, this is not either or, which fact is correct or not, this is a sum game. We all add to the problem. Have those facts true or not, helped in any way to reduce the carbon output. 2-3% might seem insignificant - it may be the…

Well said.

But, given the choice, I would rather remove my 2-3% of emissions by cutting meat consumption by 90% and/or driving.

Your original post was just yelling at people to stop flying, as if there were no other ways to alter a personal consumption pattern. That's what people took issue with.

Post reply on HN