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

491–500 of 504 posts

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

#491

Post by fmobus »

goatlover wrote: post #416
onion2k wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that argument China should be releasing more CO2, unless you have a reason why Chinese people shouldn't have the same quality of life as Americans.

Or build more nuclear, solar and wind plants, which they're doing.

First, you said

> If Americans emitted the same per capita rate as China, they would have a lower standard of living.

Then, you said

> Or build more nuclear, solar and wind plants, which they[China]'re doing.

So... the US could reduce their carbon footprint massively by doing the same, while maintaining standards of living? Good to see we are in agreement, and China is not the problem atm.

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

#492

Post by Clamchop »

EasyMark wrote: post #409
mataslauzadis wrote: post #6

The title is misleading, the article does not claim the current rise is “natural”, they just compared it to prehistoric records which were natural

Humans are "natural". Many species have overpopulated and overused the resources they need to survive and eventually became extinct, we are extremely natural.

Natural is a word humans invented to distinguish the things they didn't do, make, or cause. Most of the time, a linguistic analysis is preferable to a philosophical one.

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

#493

Post by _yb2s »

nullstyle wrote: post #431
_yb2s wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unintended consequences of new powerful weapons falling into the wrong hands and new trade technology are very old themes in fiction even if the specific technical details are not.

I noticed you edited your initial response for tone before I could respond. Regardless, I'll respond to your initial statement to say that no, I'm not trying to make a snarky rebuttal. I'm trying to understand your statements better because my own personal experience and opinions disagree with what you claim and I'd like to integrate your perspective. I don't give a shit about internet points. You specifically mentio…

My apologies for the covert edit making you rewrite your reply.

Why is sci-fi useful when we could just look at technology history? It's the range of imagination involved- exploring big possibilities and unintended consequences that are unlike anything we've experienced before. A lot of it is also noticing how historical patterns could play out in a new context, and sharing those ideas.

I am reluctant to list out prescience examples, because on one hand they seem so numerous I couldn't do them justice with just a few, and on the other hand people will disagree with the importance of them.

Overall- I feel like it is a simple fact that lots of tech people and inventors love sci-fi, grow up reading it, and then it influences what they think about and choose to work on. I suspect we wouldn't have had rockets or space travel when we did, if we didn't have so many victorian era books imagining space travel. The numerous billionaire pet project space companies we have now seem a lot like people trying to live out fantasies from reading Heinlein. Even little things like the devices we have- my Kindle looks and acts exactly like the e-book readers in The Next Generation, for example.

When my son sees old Star Trek episodes very little is remarkable to him except the big things like warp drive and transporters. The "advanced tech" they use day to day is all stuff that is a normal part of his life- 3D printers, tablets, ebook readers, video conferencing, mobile communicators/phones, etc. Same with the "Back to the Future" movies- they travel to a future filled with various electronic gadgets that are very similar to those we now have, but didn't exist at the time... and my son doesn't see how remarkable that seemed to me as a kid, when those didn't exist.

As a researcher in biotech, some of my current research is definitely inspired by sci-fi, especially biotech and nanotech from Neal Stephenson books.

Edit: found this interesting list on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_existing_technologies_...

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

#494

Post by darksaints »

jmyeet wrote: post #220
darksaints wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You’ve never met someone with the “if I can’t have it, nobody can” mindset? Never heard of a custody dispute where the losing parent kills the kids in order to deprive the other parent of them? Vladimir Putin is exactly that kind of person. When backed into a corner and knowing he will die, he would rather nuke the whole world than accept his fate. And those orders will be carried out by people in heavily res…

So this is a learning opportunity for the differences between "idealism" and "materialism". "Idealism", which unfortunately underpins all mainstream political discourse, is simply that certain actors (people, states, etc) are good because they're good or they're bad because they're bad. It's really the Marvel view of the world. There are good guys and bad guys. Idealism is a completely inadequate way to view the worl…

Thanks for sharing your blogpost-level understanding of philosophy, while completely ignoring the fact that Putin has already said exactly what he is doing: trying to rebuild and even grow the Russian Empire. He has explicitly said this multiple times, and he even likens himself to Peter the Great. Land bridges to Crimea aren't an objective, they are merely strategic checkpoints in his long term goal of taking over as much of the world as he can.

And yes, he absolutely is the type of person who would destroy something if he can't have it. He did it with Grozny, he did it with Mariupol, he did it with Bucha, he did it with Bakhmut, he did it with Avdiyivka, and he will continue doing it with the rest of the world. So far, he has sent hundreds of thousands of Russians to their death, and they continue to do it. There are literally thousands of Russians that know they're gonna die, and they do it anyway. Your belief in the humanity of people running nuclear bunkers is already betrayed by their own actions in every conflict under Putin's watch, and somehow you think 100% (because it only takes one person!) out of the 3000+ nuclear silo operators will suddenly grow a conscience when Putin tells them to send the missile. It's fucking absurd.

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

#495

Post by deciplex »

tim333 wrote: post #452
deciplex wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they only stay suspended for 10 years or so And then what happens? Earnest question.

Back to the ground in rainfall I guess.

Yeah that's kind of what I was getting at: the implications of all these aerosols falling to earth later, and getting into everything.

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

#496

Post by nullstyle »

ns123abc wrote: post #488
nullstyle wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, could you recommend any Science Fiction written before the nuclear age that talks about nuclear proliferation? Or to take something from our present world, what Science Fiction stories would you recommend to talk about the effect of drone tech on trade and shipping?

Hindu mythology wrote about nuclear proliferation 5000 years ago

I'm assuming you're speaking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_(weapon):

Where would I go if I wanted to learn more deeply than wikipedia about how hindu mythology talks about nuclear proliferation? Any directions I should search?

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

#498

Post by AtlasBarfed »

b112 wrote: post #109
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin is backed in a corner. You are praying their arsenal isn't launch capable anymore.

Putin is quite old and will die soon. My concern is the chaos which follows, as Putin has killed all strong contenders for power. It shows how little he cares, for the best thing a leader can do for a nation is to ensure a strong successor. The resulting civil war in Russia is where the nukes may appear. Anyhow,

Honestly I wonder if a lookalike will simply continue on. I know it's conspiratorial but Putin has looked a lot healthier.

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

#499

Post by saagarjha »

trashtester wrote: post #482
saagarjha wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think that a couple of degrees just applies uniformly across the planet, or to a specific location, transforming somewhere cold into something which is now suddenly hospitable. That isn't how climate change works. It doesn't mean that Canada will suddenly be nice and balmy year-round; it means that the climate will fluctuate more wildly and wreak havoc on our agriculture, as described in the comment above…

> You seem to think that a couple of degrees just applies uniformly across the planet I don't believe that at all. I even studied the IPCC for how their various scenarios lead to different levels of increased heat in different places. When it comes to fluctuations, there are several types. An obvious one is wind, which will probably become noticeably more chaotic with more energy. Another is temperature. Temperature…

Ok, but I fail to see why we would want to increase extreme weather on average? Like, if we happen to make some part of the planet a little better for agriculture by accident, while ruining the rest of it, how is that a good thing?

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

#500

Post by trashtester »

saagarjha wrote: post #499
trashtester wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem to think that a couple of degrees just applies uniformly across the planet I don't believe that at all. I even studied the IPCC for how their various scenarios lead to different levels of increased heat in different places. When it comes to fluctuations, there are several types. An obvious one is wind, which will probably become noticeably more chaotic with more energy. Another is temperature. Temperature…

Ok, but I fail to see why we would want to increase extreme weather on average? Like, if we happen to make some part of the planet a little better for agriculture by accident, while ruining the rest of it, how is that a good thing?

Do you actually believe people think the warming is a good thing?

People want to drive their car, heat or aircon their house, go an vacation and use or consume all sorts of products that require energy to produce.

And even just scrolling facebook means a lot of energy is used in some data center.

This has side effects. Most cars will spew poisonous gas out the back, into the city where people live. Some of them die from those fumes, most don't. People still drive cars, because they think the benefits outweigh the costs.

Global warming is similar.

Post reply on HN