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

We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#71

Post by ozmodiar »

_red wrote: post #45
gerbilly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the vast majority of the earths history has been without ice on the poles. Yeah but the majority of human history has been with ice on the poles. We might have to reorganize a lot of things (agricultural practices, national borders, location of cities, ...) if that changes.

Totally agree that it will be a hardship. However the following things are all true: (a) There is a chance that "carbon taxes" will lead to just as much practical hardship on the poor, (b) There is no guarantee that these carbon taxes will work, (c) There is no guarantee that the poles will even melt. The layers of uncertainty are piled so high, that a rational response is "wait and see". I do recognize however this…

Wait and see what? What are we waiting to see and what do we do about it? Waiting implies not taking a course of action, but we either pump carbon or try not to, there’s no neutral action.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#72

Post by surge »

makerofspoons wrote: post #19

The loss of sea ice is stoking US heat waves: https://phys.org/news/2019-06-loss-arctic-sea-ice-stokes.htm... Intense heat is also predicted for Europe this summer: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweather-2019... James Anderson, the scientist from the article, also has linked ozone depletion with climate change: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-ozone-prob...

Also, food shortages incoming: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweathers-new...

tldr; the Midwest had gotten so much rain they're unable to plant crops

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#73

Post by toyg »

resoluteteeth wrote: post #58
assblaster wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. Please don't misrepresent claims that "we have X years to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible" as "the earth will be uninhabitable in X years."

To be honest, it’s obvious that we’re already too late for “reversing” anyway: there is no practical way to dramatically change how 7.5bn people live and work, in just 4 years. Even if we all dropped what we’re doing this very minute and started looking for other ways to live, in 4 years we would’ve barely scratched the surface of the problem. At that point, whether we have 4 or 2 years before the tipping point, is fundamentally irrelevant.

Maybe we should just accept that change is coming, and brace for it.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#74

Post by assblaster »

KirinDave wrote: post #65
assblaster wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended Can you explain why people like you who come here to post "the world won't end in 4 years" consistently do not read the article, and consistently set the bar at "literally the oblate sphereoid we are on explodes" as opposed to "the climate is so radically different it threatens every aspect of huma…

You're not understanding the article, and you are making the same dramatic predictions ("even more mass extinctions". The prediction is that we're heading for catastrophe, something that we'll never be able to handle. It ignores the geologic temperature record (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_C...).

You mention mass extinctions, but you don't mention that previous mass extinction events were due primarily to asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#75

Post by jefflombardjr »

rawrmaan wrote: post #49
Dumblydorr wrote: post #23

There's little chance of transitioning our energy system in time, so let's start considering how to cool our planet. Can we block or reflect sunlight? That seems the brightest future, cooling the planet artificially while decarbonizing and capturing the carbon already released.

I don't know if anyone is researching this, but couldn't we manufacture stupidly large floating reflective tarps and start deploying them anywhere sea ice is melting? Seems like this would be a high benefit for relatively low cost.

Yeah! The Swiss are doing this on a much smaller scale: https://www.livescience.com/61951-swiss-glacier-blanket.html

I would think floating tarps would seriously mess with the marine life though.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#76

Post by ahje »

_red wrote: post #36
artimaeis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Earth's history made it a completely uninhabitable place for humans. Seems like it would be in our combined best interest to prevent it from becoming that way again.

+2.5C increase will render earth uninhabitable? Or will it upset insurance coverage of high dollar coast lines?

+2.5C will not render the World uninhabitable, but it will do nasty stuff to the weather patterns in many parts of the globe, and it is expected that this will result in decreased food production and rising sea levels.

Most of the people on HN will be fine; we'll be alive, we'll still have jobs, and we'll have food and energy albeit at a higher price. Our societies may end up a bit poorer and the standard of living will probably be on a level that your grandparents had in the 70s.

Hundreds of millions of other people will be less fortunate.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#77

Post by jrochkind1 »

jeanperrot wrote: post #62
sasasassy wrote: post #40

Another wild prediction. This person's wild claim is that if go on with the current path the ocean's will rise 7 meters and there will be worse storms. You can visit http://www.floodmap.net/ and see how 7 meters is nothing, even discounting that we can adapt and protect against flooding. Worse storms are bad, but if the alternative is "World War II-style transformation of industry", what alternative is that? How can…

At 7 meters, much of Florida is gone. Regardless, global warming will impact poorer (and tropical) countries disproportionately. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and I know it is a pretty good place to be as it warms up. Bangladesh, less so. You can't expect Bangladesh to lead the decarbonation of industrial production - but the US can, and there are good arguments that it will yield an increase in wealth and standar…

This is a crucial point. The huge changes to the ecology will make some places difficult to inhabit and destabilize food production, which will destabilize economies, which will lead to large social disruption and conflict.

It is the poor who will be least able to protect themselves from this destabilization. Not just because poorer/tropical countries will be disproportionately effected, but it's because it's the rich (globally or locally) who have the resources to protect themselves. With technology, with mobility, with "security".

Some who are now rich (globally or locally) will also find themselves less so.

When I see the standard the U.S. is setting for how refugees are treated, I'm terrified, even on just a self-interested level. Many more of us will be refugees in the future.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#78

Post by weberc2 »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #23

There's little chance of transitioning our energy system in time, so let's start considering how to cool our planet. Can we block or reflect sunlight? That seems the brightest future, cooling the planet artificially while decarbonizing and capturing the carbon already released.

Pretty sure we've considered sulfur dioxide or similar, which has in the past been released from large scale volcanic eruptions that have cooled the earth. One such event was the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which caused global crop failure due to low temperatures. Freezing temps persisted into June in Europe and North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

Related: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9805/would-...

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#79

Post by bryanlarsen »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #68
snarf21 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his four years is too fast but I also don't think we can totally destroy the planet (aside from nuclear destruction). We know too much and have too much technology. Some (small?) fragment of civilization will survive while the earth recovers. For example, methane has a half life of seven years so it will take some time. The more immediate threat seems to be around food and water. The Ogallala Aquifer is dryin…

Oh, we can't destroy the planet , but we can make life for humans much more painful and/or impossible. (Along with lots of other species, but humans are the ones I care about most).

Humans could be fine. We've got the capability to turn energy into food in a purely artificial environment. (Google vertical farming). The price of food would go up significantly and society never does well when that happens, but our economy is big enough to feed 7-10 billion people that way if it actually had the will to do so.

Rats will probably also do well; they're pretty urban adapted.

Any other species? Questionable.

Post reply on HN