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

Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#91

Post by zaroth »

api wrote: post #77
abootstrapper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean to pick on you, but this question comes up in every single climate change post. Answering it is exhausting. We need a climate change FAQ. The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Vote, eat less meat, bike ride, strike, protest, invest in solar, boycott, reuse, buy less, telecommute, etc. Use your imagination. Do something, do everything, the end goal is we all stop releasing sequestered…

I call these kinds of suggestions abstinence based environmental policy and it will work about as well as shaming teens into not having sex. Abstinence based sex ed results in more STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. We've been preaching abstinence based environmentalism since the 70s. Load up the atmospheric CO2 graph and look at the plastic in the ocean and see that the result is basically the same. People pretend…

The replacement is well on its way. EVs in particular will usher in more renewables because the next generation of EV batteries will have cycles to spare, so they can be grid-tied and earn their owners money.

It will all naturally happens over the next several decades as the cleaner tech becomes technologically superior as well as cheaper.

The investment needs to be made as a way to improve infrastructure that provides better service at less cost, not as a “shut it all down” panic - or else the damage of forced switching itself will be measured in the trillions.

Any climate change that’s happening in the next 10 years is happening regardless of net CO2 emissions over those next 10 years. In reality, the solar minimum we’re in will significantly mitigate climate impact in the short term while the technology for cleaning up is rapidly advancing.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#92

Post by DoreenMichele »

abootstrapper wrote: post #89
api wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call these kinds of suggestions abstinence based environmental policy and it will work about as well as shaming teens into not having sex. Abstinence based sex ed results in more STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. We've been preaching abstinence based environmentalism since the 70s. Load up the atmospheric CO2 graph and look at the plastic in the ocean and see that the result is basically the same. People pretend…

> The answer is to replace fossil fuels with [renewables] I agree. > So poverty. Don’t be so dramatic. Would it kill you to turn the thermostat up while we convert our global power infrastructure to renewables? My list of example actions one could do to to fight climate change was not exhaustive or exclusive.

Passive solar design can improve comfort levels wile dramatically lowering energy use.

No real sacrifice involved -- other than giving up our entrenched mental models that dictate we can either be good or we can have satisfaction, but not both.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#93

Post by mdorazio »

Blackthorn wrote: post #24
seiferteric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why ocean fertilization isn't talked about much anymore? All the articles I found about it were from ~10 years ago, with some vague conclusion that we shouldn't do it because it might be bad for the life on the ocean floor or something. There are no good solutions though, nothing will be perfect.

Haven't read anything about it in a while but I believe the conclusion was it wouldn't work, basically because it would take way too much iron to even start to make a dent.

There wasn't a real conclusion because the tests were always small. Governments became afraid of triggering toxic blooms and otherwise messing up coastal ecosystems and then being liable for damages, so they put a moratorium on testing [1]. Then in 2012 someone illegally tried it again anyway, with mixed results [2].

Basically it's like most geoengineering projects - everyone is too afraid of negative consequences to really try anything at scale, so instead we get endless inconclusive studies. Personally, I think we're going to pretty quickly get to the point where we need to make decisions about what negative consequences are acceptable to prevent complete environmental catastrophe.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/453704b

[2] http://www.planetexperts.com/two-years-russ-george-illegally...

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#94

Post by jaakl »

pdonis wrote: post #43
falcolas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Everything I’ve heard indicates a fairly dramatic change in the weather patterns as our global temperatures rise by even 1-2 degrees. The atmosphere is not just the chemical makeup, it’s the weather it creates. The droughts. The flash floods. The unnaturally cold winters, and unnaturally hot summers. Or vice versa - neither is very good for us.

> Everything I’ve heard indicates a fairly dramatic change in the weather patterns as our global temperatures rise by even 1-2 degrees. These are not predictions based on data. They are predictions based on models--the same models that have been overpredicting warming for several decades now. The actual data says that extreme events have not been getting more frequent. Their consequences have been getting more severe…

Maybe some years ago it was just models. By now we have also a lot of direct data. Make yourself up to date with recent developments.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#95

Post by klingonopera »

Robotbeat wrote: post #70
pdonis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Build nuclear power plants. All the other things are fine, but if you really want to end fossil fuels, you need a non-fossil-fuel source of reliable base load power. Nuclear is the only one we have. Other sources are fine, but they can't produce reliable base load power. And, btw, I think we should end fossil fuels even if it turns out not to make much of a…

So... backed by about 24 to 48 hours of storage, and overbuilt by a factor of 2 to 3 (so you curtail most of your energy), wind and solar can produce reliable, baseload power. Particularly if you connect geographically separated regions and use wind/solar (and possibly geo/hydro) together. The cost is about the same as nuclear. We should do everything, though, including nuclear. i'm a big nuclear fan. All at once, ri…

If the cost is the same as nuclear, it should be preferred, as there is no nuclear waste.

And that's probably even also considering that both the actual cost of nuclear[0][1][2][3], as well as the risk of failure[4][5] and the therein resulting costs[6] are often wildly underestimated.

[0]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm

[1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cos...

[2]: https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-de...

[3]: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nucl...

[4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scie...

[5]: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-...

[6]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#96

Post by jaakl »

torpfactory wrote: post #51
blhack wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should we do?

Geoengineering is really the only realistic option if this is the case. Sulfate aerosol injection is by far the most promising. And cheap - maybe 5-8b per year [1]. I'm not claiming this is a good idea in any way. As they say: desperate times call for desperate measures. We could buy ourselves several decades to sort our (as humans) shit out. We don't understand the unintended consequences very well, but at least thi…

It could win you some time to resolve real issues, wont work as permanent solution as stopping would have quick devasting results.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#97

Post by hailk »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #62
LeoPanthera wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps you ought to realize how childish the "it's cold outside so global warming is a myth" argument sounds. It makes you sound willfully ignorant, which I'm sure isn't what you intended.

No it's not, but it's completely symmetric to the anecdote they were replying to, which was in fact the point. We've got 6 replies so far saying mikeb85's comment is silly, but only one saying that the comment he was replying to was silly, by EXACTLY the same arguments.

It's quite evident that it's agenda based rationalisation. It's fine as long as we're spreading misinformation or framing data in a manner that furthers what we think the world should do. Rest of the type of misinformation and framing are dumb and pernicious of-course and need to be vilified.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#98

Post by falcolas »

pdonis wrote: post #43
falcolas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Everything I’ve heard indicates a fairly dramatic change in the weather patterns as our global temperatures rise by even 1-2 degrees. The atmosphere is not just the chemical makeup, it’s the weather it creates. The droughts. The flash floods. The unnaturally cold winters, and unnaturally hot summers. Or vice versa - neither is very good for us.

> Everything I’ve heard indicates a fairly dramatic change in the weather patterns as our global temperatures rise by even 1-2 degrees. These are not predictions based on data. They are predictions based on models--the same models that have been overpredicting warming for several decades now. The actual data says that extreme events have not been getting more frequent. Their consequences have been getting more severe…

Yeah, let me get back to you on the overestimation of the severity and frequency of weather events after I make it through our second record breaking snow storm this fall.

Sure, this could just be an isolated event, but there sure have been a lot of record breaking isolated events these last couple of years.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#99

Post by flukus »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #79
flukus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a vast area, you could float and light the whole amazon rain forest and it would only make a small dent for a day.

In that case, maybe it'd be more effective to just drill for natural gas in the area and get it out of the ground before it has a chance to escape into the atmosphere? Might even turn out to be a profitable venture depending on how difficult it is to extract the gas in that area.

It's not a trapped gas deposit, it's methane in a solid form spread across vast areas of the world so there's nothing to contain it and nothing to drill into. It's unlikely to have any concentrations for high enough and long enough to ever be worth extracting.

Re: Sea 'Boiling' with Methane Discovered in Siberia

#100

Post by api »

abootstrapper wrote: post #89
api wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call these kinds of suggestions abstinence based environmental policy and it will work about as well as shaming teens into not having sex. Abstinence based sex ed results in more STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. We've been preaching abstinence based environmentalism since the 70s. Load up the atmospheric CO2 graph and look at the plastic in the ocean and see that the result is basically the same. People pretend…

> The answer is to replace fossil fuels with [renewables] I agree. > So poverty. Don’t be so dramatic. Would it kill you to turn the thermostat up while we convert our global power infrastructure to renewables? My list of example actions one could do to to fight climate change was not exhaustive or exclusive.

I understand, but when you lead with reduce people hear "rich elitists want me to be poor." They hear that because they have in fact been told that by clueless ideologues for decades.

That's true along the white/blue collar divide in the West and even more so between the developed and developing world. Think Africa is going to listen to the people who used to gather slaves from them and colonize them tell them they can't do what everyone else is doing because we need to save the Earth? The response will be "fuck you, we're poor."

Hell France's vast yellow vest protests were in part triggered by a gasoline tax. Egypt's revolution was in part triggered by rising food prices. Reduce = revolt. This is because anything that increases prices of consumables amounts to a strongly regressive tax. It hits the poor much harder than the rich.

So I get what you mean but I think that whole rhetorical line is actually counterproductive. Focus on replacing fossil fuels. That matters far more than little token reductions anyway. Replace coal with solar and gas cars with EVs and the carbon reduction is large and more importantly persistent.

Personally I like to frame it as progress. Solar could in fact scale much larger than fossil fuels. In the future it could actually provide cheaper more abundant energy.

Post reply on HN