21 ms·

The Uninhabitable Earth

238 points by yuvadam 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago
Why the hell is the author mixing Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees? Paragraph one: " for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal" Paragraph two: "At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat. " Same paragraph: "At present, most regions reach a wet-bulb maximum of 26 or 27 degrees Celsius; the true red line for habitability is 35 degrees" Paragraph three: " As I type that sentence, in the California desert in mid-June, it is 121 degrees outside my door. " Just....why?
- maze-le 9y ago
  I stumbled upon this one too. I suppose the author consulted various sources and forgot to normalize units afterwards.
- dmm 9y ago
  I'm an american and if you told me it was 27C outside I wouldn't know whether that was hot or cold until I reflected for a moment and compared that number to cpu core temps. Ignorance on my part, certainly, and not excusable but perhaps typical.
  - ancarda 9y ago
    Out of interest, why don't you capitalize "American"? Edit: I'm genuinely curious and not asking to annoy anyone; I might be misunderstanding grammar rules or rules of HN. I ask because I'm not sure this was a mistake; all over the web I see people who write with good grammar, but never capitalize "American". Is it considered rude to capitalize "American"?
    - gambiting 9y ago
      I don't know about OP, but in some languages(Polish for example) you capitalize proper nouns(so you would capitalize America) but not adjectives(so American or Polish or German would never be capitalized) - so it could be just a cross-language mistake.
    - YCode 9y ago
      HN frowns on meta discussion. For what it's worth, it should be capitalized but I suspect Americans don't formally discuss themselves in the third person enough to have that grammar rule down.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    I don't even mind the fact that he used one or the other, it's just that mixing units in a scientific article doesn't seem very....professional for me. Especially since increase by 12 degrees Celsius != increase by 12 degrees Fahrenheit. So in that paragraph where he talks about 11-12 degrees increase being lethal, you don't have all information necessary.
  - dexterdog 9y ago
    I never remember the formula, but I know that 0 is freezing and 20 is room temp so I fudge it from there and know that 27 is warm, but not really hot.
ancarda 9y ago
It sounds very grim, is there any chance/hope of us getting out of this situation or is it just beyond any action at this point? I get the feeling from the article we're doomed.
- phkahler 9y ago
  Don't worry, this is a pure climate alarmist. You can tell by this quote and others: "But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough." This person is literally saying we need to be alarmed. I really didn't understand the part where they said methane has 34 times the greenhouse effect as carbon over a period of time and then changes the timeframe to bring the multiplier put to 84 times. To me it felt a lot like when congress talks about deficits over a decade - well actually they talk about reductions over a decade so it's times 10 and increases are just annual. Anyway, there is a difference between methane and CO2 but to try to make it sound worse by talking about time is just another alarmist tactic. Regardless of your stance, this article is intended to be alarmist and even says so. IMHO it is not worthy of HN.
  - jackmott 9y ago
    your post reminds me of when actual bad guys call the investigation against them a witch hunt.
  - cbennett 9y ago
    >> This person is literally saying we need to be alarmed. And why shouldn't we (he) be doing that? Actually the author's goal is transparent, to shake up perception, to provide fodder in the imagination of folks to ultimately change how urgently we treat this in public forums. I thought this was a quite trenchant point (from the article): >>Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; Back to you: >>I really didn't understand the part where they said methane has 34 times the greenhouse effect as carbon over a period of time and then changes the timeframe to bring the multiplier put to 84 times. I also thought this statement was scientifically unclear, but I think the author was trying to say that the rate of methane release increases, thus, the impact on climate systems multiplies relative to an equivalent release of CO2 in that period (100 yrs v 24 yrs). If someone else can mention exactly how he got from 34x to 84x though, id love to hear it; i didn't get it.. I do want to mention, however the 30x GHG effect number is not set in stone. In fact, depending on the rate of release, there may be 'force multipliers' depending on how (quickly) ecosystems can absorb and use these gases. Ominously, this multiplier seems to go up anyways as temps rise. [1] [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7493/full/nature13164.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7493/full/nature1...
awjr 9y ago
This always reminds me of this cartoon https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" I think the key point that the article makes is that fossil fuels have enabled much of the industrialisation of the 20th and 21st century but it is also beginning to make certain areas of the world uninhabitable and yet we still seem to want to ignore the warning signs. A shift from fossil fuels and a focus on carbon capture technologies is hopefully not too late. PS: I do keep reminding my dad that he should sell his house on the Indian River in Florida.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  Your quote demonstrates that global warming is either not all that bad or you are not advocating enough stuff to fix it. If it really is an emergency and is that bad, we should be doing stuff that would make our world worse if we are wrong.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    Well, a lot of scientists do advocate to keep warming to below 1.5 C, but that is not seriously pursued because it is not considered to be economically realistic or politically viable. The Paris trajectory is aiming for 2C, and hoping that it won't end up being significantly more. That is, not making the okay the enemy of the good, or good the enemy of the perfect.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  like the hoax of recent satellite observations being remapped upward to show increased heat lead by a member who has no expertise in the area? it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, instead someone else stepped in and did so. hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. the trouble is there is so much money at stake that it corrupts research.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, Who has changed the numbers? Do you have sources for those predictions? > hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. I suppose that you can give some sources for those fraud accusations, isn't?
honestoHeminway 9y ago
Could methan escaping the permafrost be burned in a controled way?
panic 9y ago
An analysis of possible solutions: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Number 1 based on plausibility is refrigerant management. I have a story about that. Someone I knew in Eastern Europe working with large refrigeration equipment hoarded the bad kind of Freon knowing it would go up in price as the supplies dwindle. Then they charged an increasingly high price for it on the black market. Eventually equipment that uses that king of refrigerant will break down beyond repair but that might take a while. Industrial equipment like that often built reliably and is pretty maintainable. This is just one individual business owner. I am sure there are more. So officially on paper it might look it's all good and "we've eliminate CFCs" but with corruption mixed in things are not that simple.
  - yardie 9y ago
    Guys like the one you describe are a rounding error in modern industrial refrigeration. Like a major company may use him they transition to modern equipment but at the scale they need he would raise all sorts of red flags not just in government regulators but insurance and investors doing their diligence. They are going to want to know why an expensive line item is going out. TLDR; you're friends business model doesn't scale and relies on very unique edge cases.
latch 9y ago
It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. If you think climate change is a serious issue. If you're concerned that scientists are now talking about the low single-digit years we have to change. If you have kids. Why the *@#! aren't you taking drastic change?
- dota_fanatic 9y ago
  What kind of drastic change should one take? Not having kids, OK, drastic but doable. Cutting out meat, driving less, etc, OK. But what about the rest of the production chain that assumes you're the same as everyone else (whom continues to use and depend on that production chain), which is an ocean of waste compared to what any single person can do? We can individually push the needle very slightly, but it does nothing to push the needle on our behalf within the bigger economic machine. All those wasteful international processes are pushing forward faster than ever. It's like we're bleeding out and you just recommended dabbing the wound with a string of thread. What are some realistic things that an individual or group of individuals can do to prepare?
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Move north, I suppose, ahead of the great land rush to come.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      Although there might be opportunities for beach-front surf shops on tropical Baffin Island, good luck getting customers when the rest of the world has gone to hell.
      - 9y ago
acjohnson55 9y ago
And in the USA, we are led by people who seem almost uniquely incapable of grappling with our societies hard problems. Sad.
- crush-n-spread 9y ago
  Elon Musk leads America more than Donald Trump does, trust me. Don't get discouraged because Donny has become President. They hardly do anything interesting.
  - acjohnson55 9y ago
    I meant "led" on every level. Our president is a symptom of a much larger problem of know-nothingism and myopic greed. We're in a social tailspin, with no clear way out. And it's absurd to think that Elon Musk has more power or influence as an industrialist than the POTUS, Trump or not.
    - crush-n-spread 9y ago
      We're in a social tailspin because no one is willing to step up and make solutions for our enormous problems. Elon Musk is coming up with solutions, and if you exist in the sphere around him, the social tailspin is much, much less, because there is a purpose to life and a reason to commit yourself to your work. Donald will have a much, much smaller impact on the future of the USA than Elon will.
      - acjohnson55 9y ago
        I share your enthusiasm about Elon Musk's projects, but that strikes me as painfully naive. I'm skeptical we'll manage to exit the Trump era without irreparable harm. But it's beyond clear that the work that needs to be done to address our numerous ongoing crises isn't being done, and that's what's problematic, even if Trump doesn't launch the nukes. That's the worst-case scenario, and every official source indicates that it's Trump's prerogative alone to decide whether to unleash a nuclear assault. So unless Elon Musk has the ability to shutdown a nuclear war, your assertion is based on blind faith, and not on a rational evaluation of the situation. But even that's beside the point. We need a society that's oriented around bold ideas to set us on a sustainable track. In your language, far more Musks in business and government. One of them is not going to do the trick.
EGreg 9y ago
We need to accelerate our search for carbon capture technologies. AND prevent the effect of induced demand with carbon taxes! https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-in-china.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential... Or perhaps it came time to really have a conversation about which families are having 7-10 kids? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth
- germinalphrase 9y ago
  That article cites Muslim families as having 3.1 children compared to Christian families at 2.1 - which is obviously more but I didn't see a reference to 7-10 children as you suggest.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    That's the average. Some have more. I'm talking about those families, whether Muslims or not.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Why single out Muslims when other groups are doing the same thing, like the Christian "Quiverfull" movement? Remember the carbon footprint of 7-10 desperately poor people is almost nothing, while the footprint of a single typical American is enormous. Those American families with 7-10 kids are typically the wealthy sort, having kids is not cheap, and are a huge problem in terms of resource consumption due to lifestyle decisions. All those kids will have cars, they'll fly around for family vacations, and so on.
  - futun 9y ago
    > Why single out Muslims when other groups are doing the same thing, like the Christian "Quiverfull" movement? Because statistically the Quiverfull movement is irrelevant. Why not single out Muslims for things that they're doing that harm the future of the planet? Are you implying that doing so is racist? And Muslims are also more likely to pro-create with their cousins leading to genetic abnormalities. This too needs to stop.
thesmallestcat 9y ago
Well, one of the clearest consequences of global warming is that an entire continent becomes habitable as well as a large part of the northern Canada and Russia. Everything I've read about global warming indicates an increase in arable land even when accounting for desertification.
- cageface 9y ago
  The article specifically addresses and disagrees with this claim.
  - joloka 9y ago
    The article also claims that a rise in kidney disease in El Salvador is related to global warming without offering any evidence whatsoever. Correlation is not causation, right? I think that one specious claim undermines the entire article, quite frankly. El Salvador is a nation with all kinds of social problems including a population that is under-educated (to say the least) so I find it hard to believe that heat is the biggest problem there versus dirty water, ignorance of the need to stay hydrated, etc.
    - cageface 9y ago
      If you Google search on the El Salvador claim there seems to be a lot of other articles backing it up, like this one: http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kidney-disease-the-deadly-new-link-20170503-gvxzjz.html http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kid...
      - joloka 9y ago
        Nope, not a shred of evidence there, either. Just conjecture.
        cageface 9y ago
        Extensive data with multiple very strong correlations, a very plausible biological explanation, and a perfect animal model. There is way, way more here than conjecture.
DanielBMarkham 9y ago
This is an article to save and come back 20 years and read.
- buckbova 9y ago
  And in 20 years there'll be a whole new set of doomsday predictions and this'll be forgotten. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth%20day%20doomsday%20predictions#hl=en&q=earth+day+wrong|worst+predictions https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth%20day%20do...
  - justin66 9y ago
    Well, that's one way to bring up a bunch of sketchy information sources on a Google search result page.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Funny thing is that NONE of the links are scientific papers
brookside 9y ago
I'll ad hominem here - hey, an article by the host of the "NYMag Sex Lives" podcast!
grondilu 9y ago
If you feel like watching more hopeful content on the subject, there is Allan Savory's TED talk about how to stop desertification[1], and Freeman Dyson's speech called "heretic thoughts about science and society"[2]. Basically, those speakers suggest climate change is an issue that can be solved with better land management. Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%)? We just need to make sure the process does indeed happen. When one looks at the map of Earth, the vastness of the desert areas is scary. Yet there are reasons to believe this is relatively recent. The Sahara was wet few thousands years ago, the American deserts became so mostly because of the considerable environmental changes brought by Europeans. Desertification is much scarier than climate change, and it did not wait for the industrial revolution to happen. Reversing desertification is probably not impossible (after all it is being attempted already in many places around the world, like in Africa[3] and China[4]), and it might very well reverse climate change as a bonus. I personally wish more effort and public attention was diverted to it. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Pro...
- vram22 9y ago
  Re. reversing desertification: Came across this technique - imprinting - recently - seems interesting: Imprinting soils – Creating Instant Edge for Large Scale Revegetation of Barren Lands: 1) https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-creating-instant-edge-for-large-scale-revegetation-of-barren-lands/ https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-cre... Excerpt: [ Imprinting is a method for instantly adding what permaculturists call the ‘edge effect’ to soils, utilising a heavy and dimpled/wedged roller to ‘imprint’ soils with patterned depressions. The bottom of these depressions then become collection points for all the crucial elements needed for seed germination and soil building: seeds themselves, water, organic matter (including plant debris and animal manure) and wind-blown silt and clay particles. ] Check the before and after photos in the article. 2) http://imprinting.org/ http://imprinting.org/ Bio of Dr. Robert Dixon, who started this: 3) http://imprinting.org/biography.htm http://imprinting.org/biography.htm
futun 9y ago
Of course, if the supervolcano in Yellowstone erupts within the next ten years, then most of us will freeze to death instead.
anon1253 9y ago
It's silly to think we're unable to change. Nearly all of the CO2 emissions were done in just a generation. Post-world war 2 industrialization, automation and globalization caused the vast majority of CO2. There are still people alive today who lived through WO2. Why are we talking like this is an insurmountable problem, that the momentum is just too big? It literally took /one/ average human life span to get where we are. It could take less than one to go back to pre-industrial levels. And it's not just a matter of better technology, it's mostly a matter of social adaptation. If we're dead set on infinite growth (in terms of consumption, GDP, population) we're going to have a problem with or without climate change. The fix is: a smaller population, less consumption, and less production. But that's contrary to /everything/ capitalism stands for. The problem is thus not so much technology, but rather the socio-economic paradigm we're in. How to change this without going all "you dumb communist beta cuck snowflake"? I don't know. But here are some ideas: - Incentivize less spending by "anti-ads" (could be interesting to add as an ad blocker), basically ads that signal that you /don't/ need what's advertised. Interesting AI problem that can piggyback off of all the stuff that's being done in the ad space itself - Implement economic incentives for CO2 scrubbing, by carbon-tax, subsidies or secondary effects (e.g. useful non-fuel biproducts, or things like greener living spaces / habitable deserts) - Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. Will it hike up the prices? Sure, but that's kinda the idea. - Look at the big picture first. Driving your car less, LED bulbs, sure…they kinda work. It's somewhat of a moot point with cargoships that almost burn raw oil, equivalent to the CO2 output of a small city. This is an optimization problem: try to do the big things first. - Slow down. We define the pace at which society moves. Do you /really really really/ need that stuff in 24hours door-to-door? Do you /really really/ need to commute 8 hours each day? These are human choices. The natural world is kinda reluctant about our endeavors. There's no reason why everything must be done /yesterday/ … helps with mental health issues too. - Incentivize a culture where "moon-shot" ideas are given a chance. There are many ways we can make a big dent, but often costing billions to build. We have no problem building 250 million dollar warplanes (and buy hundreds of them), no problems building half a billion dollar coal plants. Really, no problem with billion dollar sports matches. In fact, we seem to applaud these things. But when talking about rooftop solar, heliostat installations, CO2 scrubbing, planting trees it's all "cost cost cost". We need to rethink that. And be kind to all living things. We're in for a tough ride either way. Just try to show some compassion and help those who need it more than you do. Or that's what I try to tell myself when I'm utterly depressed about it https://joelkuiper.eu/change https://joelkuiper.eu/change
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. What works is "magic science." A solution that allows people to behave the way hey do, and we come up with a solution that just works. Birth control has resulted in a decline in teen pregnancies and population stabilization where it is available. The green revolution is able to feed people, without most people having to do anything different in how they eat. The other thing is that people don't really think this is a true emergency. An evidence for this is the quote "What if global warming is wrong and we made the planet better?" If it is a true emergency, we should be doing stuff that make the planet worse if it is wrong. We should be pushing nuclear power - even to the the point of reducing existing safety regulations. A Chernobyl every decade is preferable to global warming. Politically, we should be willing to trade existing environmental regulation for those which reduce CO2. For example, what if we traded the Endangered species act for a carbon tax? Third, we should be pushing for research and funding for climate adaptation at his point. The focus has been on mitigation, but it should switch to adaptation. We should be working on scaling up and testing models of carbon sequestration and Geo engineering. EDIT: Per cbennett's comment, changed prevention to mitigation and mitigation to adaptation to be more in line with official terminology.
- cbennett 9y ago
  Preliminary but important point: what you call prevention is typically called 'mitigation' by the UNFCCC, NASA, and other environmental orgs, while what you have called mitigation is typically 'adaptation' [1]. I know this is jargon, but if you have conversations with folks in the environmental/climate field it can in the best case provide instant rapport to at least be speaking the same language, and in the worst case, at least prevent serious mis-understandings. >>The other thing is that people don't really think this is a true emergency. An evidence for this is the quote "What if global warming is wrong and we made the planet better?" If it is a true emergency, we should be doing stuff that make the planet worse if it is wrong. We should be pushing nuclear power - even to the the point of reducing existing safety regulations. A Chernobyl every decade is preferable to global warming. Politically, we should be willing to trade existing environmental regulation for those which reduce CO2. -Human perception of danger/emergency has, from the evolutionary perspective, been optimized for concrete, near-term events/entities, eg terrorism, explosions, enemies. On the other hand ,it has not prepared us for preparing against abstract, medium to long term adversaries, eg planetary or physics scale changes that threaten civilization, malevolent ETs, malevolent super-intelligences [AIs].. etc etc. -Even if this weren't true and we didn't have these unfortunate cognitive bias, your argument about broad public wisdom of emergency relies upon a well-informed populace that is familiar with statistics, and the scientific methods. Unfortunately, that is not the case in almost every advanced Representative state on the planet. This broad ignorance renders the ambient public awarness point you have made quite moot. -Finally, I see the logic behind the 'what if global warming is wrong and the planet gets better' case as analogical to Pascal's wager, or the false postive; what you forgot to mention is the false negative, which is metaphorically relatively similar to the outcome of Pascals (Hell/Earth becomes like Hell). [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/ https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/
saiya-jin 9y ago
what about some semi-transcluent 'shield' that would end up lets say in lagrange point, would cover part of earth and would reduce say 2-5% of light? It would be gigantic, but any of these solutions are super-costly. Benefits - we can relatively easily manipulate it thus managing strength of the dimming; it has clear consequences compared to releasing vast amount of chemistry which might go into overdrive or have some unknown consequences. It seems much better rather than releasing some chemicals into atmosphere and end up in matrix-like situation. Or build one directly above earth, probably only around equator +- 1000km, easier to repair. It might clutter orbit with mess over time, but still better than boiling alive down here.
dustinmoris 9y ago
Average person's priorities: I > My family > My home > My life convenience > My country > Other human beings > Planet Earth. This is what the average person expects from other people: Planet Earth > Other human beings > Their country > their family > them And you wonder why we fail to combat climate change?
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  Because a lot of people seem to think that doing the best for themselves will end up as the best thing for society, or for the planet. Adam Smith dealt with this from the start, there is an amazing moral alchemy in capitalism which allows for improvements in your own life to drive improvements in society, but there are caveats and limits. And ideologues do not like dealing with that kind of nuance.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  Unfortunately the impact you have on any of these is in the same order as you list the priorities. That's making it so that if you prioritize planet earth over your family the only change you'll likely see is your family being less well off. That practically guaranteed inaction. That's why we need to enforce good behavior via laws not only on a national but on a global level. It's mindboggling to me that climate agreements are entirely voluntary.
m777z 9y ago
I wish articles like this that are backed up by tons of research, interviews, etc. would cite sources inline (in a manner similar to Wikipedia). I want to at least skim some of the background research, but I'm reducing to copying and pasting sections of this article into Google.
golergka 9y ago
Why is a world war, swiftly reducing populations and industrial output, is never considered among the solutions? While horrifying, it is still better than total extinction.
- mac01021 9y ago
  It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?
  - golergka 9y ago
    > It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. But it's better totally. > Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions? Never seen it discussed.
    - mac01021 9y ago
      Say we want to reduce our emissions 1/10 of their current rate. This would not be enough for long term climate stability but, if we did it soon, would greatly push back our deadline on elimination the other 10% to avert the bulk of the forecasted catastrophe. There are two ways to reduce humanity's rate of CO2 emissions: 1. Reduce the number of people emitting CO2. 2. Reduce the amount of CO2 that each person emits. You're complaining that noone ever considers option 1 which, as an approach to our desired 90% reduction in emissions requires that we kill off 90% of the world's population? Even for those lucky enough to be among the surviving 10%, fallout from the war and the loss of the other 90% will constitute a tremendous cost in terms of their standard of living. And it won't leave those survivors in a great position to figure out the (still necessary) elimination of their remaining emissions rate. I, for one, am unlikely to be in the 10%, and hope this approach is dismissed by those with the power to enact it.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      It's frequently discussed, just not as a solution to this particular problem.
stevebmark 9y ago
Well, it worked. I'm worried, and I'm turning off some electronics I normally leave on.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Are you going to stop eating meat?
  - sluggg 9y ago
    is there a way to significantly cut down on my carbon footprint by only eating certain animals?
    - nyolfen 9y ago
      look into farm to plate supply chains
    - mac01021 9y ago
      If you eat a lot of farm-raised beef and then start getting all those calories from chicken instead it will indeed be a significant reduction of your carbon footprint. If you give up air travel, while you're at it, you might cut it just as much again, or more. (depending, of course, on how much you fly).
    - hrydgard 9y ago
      Chicken is best, pork second and beef the worst. The difference is bigger than you'd expect.
    - philipkglass 9y ago
      Ruminant meats (beef, lamb, goat) have a higher GHG impact due to enteric fermentation producing methane. Numerically, you can't cut a lot of your GHG impact by reducing/switching meat consumption if you are living an ordinary middle class first world lifestyle in other respects. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Methane accounts for about 10% of warming from anthropogenic US GHG emissions. Enteric fermentation in ruminants accounts for 25% of that 10%, and agricultural manure another 10%. So you can cut maybe 25% of 10% (2.5%) from baseline-American emissions by eliminating red meat from your diet, or 35% of 10% (3.5%) by eliminating animal products altogether. It's similar in the European Union: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... Agriculture accounts for 10% of emissions, and meat production is just a portion of that. Personal dietary changes are at least quick and inexpensive, even if they don't lead to deep emissions reductions. I stopped eating red meat a few years ago because of a family history of heart attacks. It actually saved money on my grocery bills.
state_machine 9y ago
I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.
- dmm 9y ago
  My father certifies hospital gas systems in the US. He's measured CO2 levels in urban areas around 498ppm. Hospital air, the air piped to patients, has a limit of 500ppm. Soon hospitals will have to put CO2 scrubbers on their air supplies just like astronauts. Maybe head mounted CO2 scrubbers will become fashion accessories for the 1%.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    How is CO2 a problem in breathable air? To humans, it's a harmless and inert gas, just like nitrogen. The real problem is too little O2, which humans require for respiration. Obviously, too much CO2 could displace O2 and reduce O2 levels, but it's not the CO2 that's an actual problem (i.e., if the CO2 displaced only N2, and O2 levels stayed the same, you wouldn't have a problem). So having a CO2 scrubber doesn't seem to make any sense to me, you need something that keeps the O2 levels up. That may be a CO2 scrubber (pulling the carbon atom off the CO2), or it may be more feasible to just carry an oxygen bottle as many elderly people do today. I suspect the latter is the case; if it were feasible to have a portable CO2 scrubber to improve your O2 levels, they would have done it already for all these people.
    - fulafel 9y ago
      It is harmful in large concentrations as it displaces oxygen (cf. dry ice pool accidents).
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        True, and dangerous; this even happens naturally when volcanos displace oxygen and create lethal stretches of depressed ground. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku) But not the issue here. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and apocalyptic global warming happens well before O2 displacement becomes an issue. Bear in mind that humans can function effectively up to several thousand meters - the O2 loss from low pressure is vastly larger than any possible CO2 displacement. If CO2 is going to have physiological effects via the atmosphere, it's based on chronic exposure and high blood concentrations. There are some studies suggesting that causes cognitive harm, and others suggesting it doesn't.
sosodaft 9y ago
What we really need is WWII-style, society-wide action on this count--remember the days of Meatless Mondays, saving your cans to make bullets, mailing your binoculars to the Navy. Even if it's confined to the parts of society that actually believe global warming is a serious threat, making pro-climate living a social norm could have a tremendous effect.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  How about we just take the step and say that eating beef, in any circumstance, is morally wrong? Even if you can find some beef that you think is ecologically responsible, your are promoting the practice which is perhaps most central to global warming, after driving a large gasoline car.
sluggg 9y ago
The article worked... I am alarmed. Is there anything I can do with software that would make a difference? Currently, the only things that are coming to mind are simple carbon footprint calculators or infographics/visualization of data, which imo would not be that impactful. I would love to hear ideas
- mac01021 9y ago
  Earn as much money as you possibly can and donate it all to lobbying groups to put a price on GHG emissions or to preserve the amazon rainforest.
- gasbag 9y ago
  Bret Victor has a page on his site about this.[0] The first hit when I searched for "visualization" was: "The core technologies in energy storage tend to be physics-based, but software plays essential roles in the form of design tools, simulation tools, and control systems. My favorite example is the inexplicably gorgeous Materials Project, a database and visualization tool for material properties, funded by the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Program to help invent better batteries." It's a lengthy page with lots of good ideas, and seeds that might germinate more ideas of your own. [0]http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
  - sluggg 9y ago
    I will give it a read, thanks so much!
good_vibes 9y ago
Wish for the best, prepare for the worst. I've grappled with this for the last 7 years. I wanted to build a platform to address this problem but I eventually realized self-interest is the strongest force in the world and that most people are not ready to consider that they may be part of the problem AND own up to it enough to change their day-to-day lifestyle. It's much easier to point a finger at world leaders, corporations, or the developing world's use of coal. I've finally let go of eating meat. I don't buy things unless I need them and I use them until they are no longer usable. My hobbies are exploring the outdoors, improving my fitness/meditation routine each day, and creating brands, experiences, and campaigns. I am saving money for a cabin in the Rockies and a camper van to explore all of North America. I am building an agency to work remotely and accept clients that I feel I can help in a substantial way. I've given my ambitions of 'saving the world' or being a part of the world of SV or NYC.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a temporary golden period for the possibility of our form of life. Whether we burn ourselves out or wait for the environment to do it, the end result in a billion years is that there aren't humans in our form around anymore. So whenever climate action comes up I ask: What is the end state that you are seeking? Is the goal to permanently solidify an undefined homeostasis? For what group? Are you trying to make northern Africa green again? Again though, seems to be in vain cause it's all going to burn up in a few million years anyway. Climate action isn't TRULY long term thinking. We have a tiny window that we can possibly engineer ourselves into a new form of intelligence. Lets work on that so that these biological issues, and our fate as a (transitional) species aren't issues anymore. [1]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/398013/24076923/1387327371437/Sun.png?token=lBgC8gzFnsUMWh0mHw9WbSpxy4Y%3D http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/398013/24076923/138732...
- mac01021 9y ago
  Ok. Let's start by ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a livable environment in which to perform that work.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Agreed. The one caveat I would make is in a case where something accelerated singularity tech, but was worse for warming/volatility, I would do the former.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  Well, I'd argue it's all about buying time. Obviously nothing lasts forever, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. If we can buy our species another couple centuries on this planet, we can probably start looking at leaving. But if we continue on this accelerated doomsday course we won't have time to re-imagine the "form" of our species.
Animats 9y ago
Right now, some very hot areas are becoming uninhabitable, and low-lying coastal areas are being flooded. In the US, this has already hit a few areas hard, such as Phoenix AZ [1] and Miami FL.[2] Phoenix is breaking heat records again this week. The number of days of extreme heat each summer keeps increasing. Phoenix also has limited water sources; it's a city in a desert, after all. Miami now floods regularly. Levees and berms don't help much; the ground is too porous. Pumping helps; at least a dozen huge pumps have been installed, with many more to come. This is a stopgap measure, the mayor of Miami admits. [1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-phoenix-climate-adapt-20170327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-phoenix-climate-adapt-20... [2] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-agains...
jessaustin 9y ago
Commentary from a noted scientist: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1470539096335621 https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/14705390...
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  He quibbles a single data point and says, "Don't panic."

238 points by yuvadam 9y ago

Why the hell is the author mixing Fahrenheit and Celsius degrees? Paragraph one: " for instance, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal" Paragraph two: "At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat. " Same paragraph: "At present, most regions reach a wet-bulb maximum of 26 or 27 degrees Celsius; the true red line for habitability is 35 degrees" Paragraph three: " As I type that sentence, in the California desert in mid-June, it is 121 degrees outside my door. " Just....why?

maze-le 9y ago
I stumbled upon this one too. I suppose the author consulted various sources and forgot to normalize units afterwards.
dmm 9y ago
I'm an american and if you told me it was 27C outside I wouldn't know whether that was hot or cold until I reflected for a moment and compared that number to cpu core temps. Ignorance on my part, certainly, and not excusable but perhaps typical.
- ancarda 9y ago
  Out of interest, why don't you capitalize "American"? Edit: I'm genuinely curious and not asking to annoy anyone; I might be misunderstanding grammar rules or rules of HN. I ask because I'm not sure this was a mistake; all over the web I see people who write with good grammar, but never capitalize "American". Is it considered rude to capitalize "American"?
  - gambiting 9y ago
    I don't know about OP, but in some languages(Polish for example) you capitalize proper nouns(so you would capitalize America) but not adjectives(so American or Polish or German would never be capitalized) - so it could be just a cross-language mistake.
  - YCode 9y ago
    HN frowns on meta discussion. For what it's worth, it should be capitalized but I suspect Americans don't formally discuss themselves in the third person enough to have that grammar rule down.
- gambiting 9y ago
  I don't even mind the fact that he used one or the other, it's just that mixing units in a scientific article doesn't seem very....professional for me. Especially since increase by 12 degrees Celsius != increase by 12 degrees Fahrenheit. So in that paragraph where he talks about 11-12 degrees increase being lethal, you don't have all information necessary.
- dexterdog 9y ago
  I never remember the formula, but I know that 0 is freezing and 20 is room temp so I fudge it from there and know that 27 is warm, but not really hot.

ancarda 9y ago

It sounds very grim, is there any chance/hope of us getting out of this situation or is it just beyond any action at this point? I get the feeling from the article we're doomed.

phkahler 9y ago
Don't worry, this is a pure climate alarmist. You can tell by this quote and others: "But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough." This person is literally saying we need to be alarmed. I really didn't understand the part where they said methane has 34 times the greenhouse effect as carbon over a period of time and then changes the timeframe to bring the multiplier put to 84 times. To me it felt a lot like when congress talks about deficits over a decade - well actually they talk about reductions over a decade so it's times 10 and increases are just annual. Anyway, there is a difference between methane and CO2 but to try to make it sound worse by talking about time is just another alarmist tactic. Regardless of your stance, this article is intended to be alarmist and even says so. IMHO it is not worthy of HN.
- jackmott 9y ago
  your post reminds me of when actual bad guys call the investigation against them a witch hunt.
- cbennett 9y ago
  >> This person is literally saying we need to be alarmed. And why shouldn't we (he) be doing that? Actually the author's goal is transparent, to shake up perception, to provide fodder in the imagination of folks to ultimately change how urgently we treat this in public forums. I thought this was a quite trenchant point (from the article): >>Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; Back to you: >>I really didn't understand the part where they said methane has 34 times the greenhouse effect as carbon over a period of time and then changes the timeframe to bring the multiplier put to 84 times. I also thought this statement was scientifically unclear, but I think the author was trying to say that the rate of methane release increases, thus, the impact on climate systems multiplies relative to an equivalent release of CO2 in that period (100 yrs v 24 yrs). If someone else can mention exactly how he got from 34x to 84x though, id love to hear it; i didn't get it.. I do want to mention, however the 30x GHG effect number is not set in stone. In fact, depending on the rate of release, there may be 'force multipliers' depending on how (quickly) ecosystems can absorb and use these gases. Ominously, this multiplier seems to go up anyways as temps rise. [1] [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7493/full/nature13164.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7493/full/nature1...

awjr 9y ago

This always reminds me of this cartoon https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" I think the key point that the article makes is that fossil fuels have enabled much of the industrialisation of the 20th and 21st century but it is also beginning to make certain areas of the world uninhabitable and yet we still seem to want to ignore the warning signs. A shift from fossil fuels and a focus on carbon capture technologies is hopefully not too late. PS: I do keep reminding my dad that he should sell his house on the Indian River in Florida.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Your quote demonstrates that global warming is either not all that bad or you are not advocating enough stuff to fix it. If it really is an emergency and is that bad, we should be doing stuff that would make our world worse if we are wrong.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  Well, a lot of scientists do advocate to keep warming to below 1.5 C, but that is not seriously pursued because it is not considered to be economically realistic or politically viable. The Paris trajectory is aiming for 2C, and hoping that it won't end up being significantly more. That is, not making the okay the enemy of the good, or good the enemy of the perfect.
Shivetya 9y ago
like the hoax of recent satellite observations being remapped upward to show increased heat lead by a member who has no expertise in the area? it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, instead someone else stepped in and did so. hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. the trouble is there is so much money at stake that it corrupts research.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, Who has changed the numbers? Do you have sources for those predictions? > hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. I suppose that you can give some sources for those fraud accusations, isn't?

honestoHeminway 9y ago

Could methan escaping the permafrost be burned in a controled way?

panic 9y ago

An analysis of possible solutions: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

rdtsc 9y ago
Number 1 based on plausibility is refrigerant management. I have a story about that. Someone I knew in Eastern Europe working with large refrigeration equipment hoarded the bad kind of Freon knowing it would go up in price as the supplies dwindle. Then they charged an increasingly high price for it on the black market. Eventually equipment that uses that king of refrigerant will break down beyond repair but that might take a while. Industrial equipment like that often built reliably and is pretty maintainable. This is just one individual business owner. I am sure there are more. So officially on paper it might look it's all good and "we've eliminate CFCs" but with corruption mixed in things are not that simple.
- yardie 9y ago
  Guys like the one you describe are a rounding error in modern industrial refrigeration. Like a major company may use him they transition to modern equipment but at the scale they need he would raise all sorts of red flags not just in government regulators but insurance and investors doing their diligence. They are going to want to know why an expensive line item is going out. TLDR; you're friends business model doesn't scale and relies on very unique edge cases.

latch 9y ago

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. If you think climate change is a serious issue. If you're concerned that scientists are now talking about the low single-digit years we have to change. If you have kids. Why the *@#! aren't you taking drastic change?

dota_fanatic 9y ago
What kind of drastic change should one take? Not having kids, OK, drastic but doable. Cutting out meat, driving less, etc, OK. But what about the rest of the production chain that assumes you're the same as everyone else (whom continues to use and depend on that production chain), which is an ocean of waste compared to what any single person can do? We can individually push the needle very slightly, but it does nothing to push the needle on our behalf within the bigger economic machine. All those wasteful international processes are pushing forward faster than ever. It's like we're bleeding out and you just recommended dabbing the wound with a string of thread. What are some realistic things that an individual or group of individuals can do to prepare?
- throwanem 9y ago
  Move north, I suppose, ahead of the great land rush to come.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Although there might be opportunities for beach-front surf shops on tropical Baffin Island, good luck getting customers when the rest of the world has gone to hell.
    - 9y ago

acjohnson55 9y ago

And in the USA, we are led by people who seem almost uniquely incapable of grappling with our societies hard problems. Sad.

crush-n-spread 9y ago
Elon Musk leads America more than Donald Trump does, trust me. Don't get discouraged because Donny has become President. They hardly do anything interesting.
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  I meant "led" on every level. Our president is a symptom of a much larger problem of know-nothingism and myopic greed. We're in a social tailspin, with no clear way out. And it's absurd to think that Elon Musk has more power or influence as an industrialist than the POTUS, Trump or not.
  - crush-n-spread 9y ago
    We're in a social tailspin because no one is willing to step up and make solutions for our enormous problems. Elon Musk is coming up with solutions, and if you exist in the sphere around him, the social tailspin is much, much less, because there is a purpose to life and a reason to commit yourself to your work. Donald will have a much, much smaller impact on the future of the USA than Elon will.
    - acjohnson55 9y ago
      I share your enthusiasm about Elon Musk's projects, but that strikes me as painfully naive. I'm skeptical we'll manage to exit the Trump era without irreparable harm. But it's beyond clear that the work that needs to be done to address our numerous ongoing crises isn't being done, and that's what's problematic, even if Trump doesn't launch the nukes. That's the worst-case scenario, and every official source indicates that it's Trump's prerogative alone to decide whether to unleash a nuclear assault. So unless Elon Musk has the ability to shutdown a nuclear war, your assertion is based on blind faith, and not on a rational evaluation of the situation. But even that's beside the point. We need a society that's oriented around bold ideas to set us on a sustainable track. In your language, far more Musks in business and government. One of them is not going to do the trick.

EGreg 9y ago

We need to accelerate our search for carbon capture technologies. AND prevent the effect of induced demand with carbon taxes! https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-in-china.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential... Or perhaps it came time to really have a conversation about which families are having 7-10 kids? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth

germinalphrase 9y ago
That article cites Muslim families as having 3.1 children compared to Christian families at 2.1 - which is obviously more but I didn't see a reference to 7-10 children as you suggest.
- EGreg 9y ago
  That's the average. Some have more. I'm talking about those families, whether Muslims or not.
astrodust 9y ago
Why single out Muslims when other groups are doing the same thing, like the Christian "Quiverfull" movement? Remember the carbon footprint of 7-10 desperately poor people is almost nothing, while the footprint of a single typical American is enormous. Those American families with 7-10 kids are typically the wealthy sort, having kids is not cheap, and are a huge problem in terms of resource consumption due to lifestyle decisions. All those kids will have cars, they'll fly around for family vacations, and so on.
- futun 9y ago
  > Why single out Muslims when other groups are doing the same thing, like the Christian "Quiverfull" movement? Because statistically the Quiverfull movement is irrelevant. Why not single out Muslims for things that they're doing that harm the future of the planet? Are you implying that doing so is racist? And Muslims are also more likely to pro-create with their cousins leading to genetic abnormalities. This too needs to stop.

thesmallestcat 9y ago

Well, one of the clearest consequences of global warming is that an entire continent becomes habitable as well as a large part of the northern Canada and Russia. Everything I've read about global warming indicates an increase in arable land even when accounting for desertification.

cageface 9y ago
The article specifically addresses and disagrees with this claim.
- joloka 9y ago
  The article also claims that a rise in kidney disease in El Salvador is related to global warming without offering any evidence whatsoever. Correlation is not causation, right? I think that one specious claim undermines the entire article, quite frankly. El Salvador is a nation with all kinds of social problems including a population that is under-educated (to say the least) so I find it hard to believe that heat is the biggest problem there versus dirty water, ignorance of the need to stay hydrated, etc.
  - cageface 9y ago
    If you Google search on the El Salvador claim there seems to be a lot of other articles backing it up, like this one: http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kidney-disease-the-deadly-new-link-20170503-gvxzjz.html http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kid...
    - joloka 9y ago
      Nope, not a shred of evidence there, either. Just conjecture.
      - cageface 9y ago
        Extensive data with multiple very strong correlations, a very plausible biological explanation, and a perfect animal model. There is way, way more here than conjecture.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

This is an article to save and come back 20 years and read.

buckbova 9y ago
And in 20 years there'll be a whole new set of doomsday predictions and this'll be forgotten. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth%20day%20doomsday%20predictions#hl=en&q=earth+day+wrong|worst+predictions https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth%20day%20do...
- justin66 9y ago
  Well, that's one way to bring up a bunch of sketchy information sources on a Google search result page.
- Oletros 9y ago
  Funny thing is that NONE of the links are scientific papers

brookside 9y ago

I'll ad hominem here - hey, an article by the host of the "NYMag Sex Lives" podcast!

grondilu 9y ago

If you feel like watching more hopeful content on the subject, there is Allan Savory's TED talk about how to stop desertification[1], and Freeman Dyson's speech called "heretic thoughts about science and society"[2]. Basically, those speakers suggest climate change is an issue that can be solved with better land management. Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%)? We just need to make sure the process does indeed happen. When one looks at the map of Earth, the vastness of the desert areas is scary. Yet there are reasons to believe this is relatively recent. The Sahara was wet few thousands years ago, the American deserts became so mostly because of the considerable environmental changes brought by Europeans. Desertification is much scarier than climate change, and it did not wait for the industrial revolution to happen. Reversing desertification is probably not impossible (after all it is being attempted already in many places around the world, like in Africa[3] and China[4]), and it might very well reverse climate change as a bonus. I personally wish more effort and public attention was diverted to it. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-North_Shelter_Forest_Pro...

vram22 9y ago
Re. reversing desertification: Came across this technique - imprinting - recently - seems interesting: Imprinting soils – Creating Instant Edge for Large Scale Revegetation of Barren Lands: 1) https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-creating-instant-edge-for-large-scale-revegetation-of-barren-lands/ https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-cre... Excerpt: [ Imprinting is a method for instantly adding what permaculturists call the ‘edge effect’ to soils, utilising a heavy and dimpled/wedged roller to ‘imprint’ soils with patterned depressions. The bottom of these depressions then become collection points for all the crucial elements needed for seed germination and soil building: seeds themselves, water, organic matter (including plant debris and animal manure) and wind-blown silt and clay particles. ] Check the before and after photos in the article. 2) http://imprinting.org/ http://imprinting.org/ Bio of Dr. Robert Dixon, who started this: 3) http://imprinting.org/biography.htm http://imprinting.org/biography.htm

futun 9y ago

Of course, if the supervolcano in Yellowstone erupts within the next ten years, then most of us will freeze to death instead.

anon1253 9y ago

It's silly to think we're unable to change. Nearly all of the CO2 emissions were done in just a generation. Post-world war 2 industrialization, automation and globalization caused the vast majority of CO2. There are still people alive today who lived through WO2. Why are we talking like this is an insurmountable problem, that the momentum is just too big? It literally took /one/ average human life span to get where we are. It could take less than one to go back to pre-industrial levels. And it's not just a matter of better technology, it's mostly a matter of social adaptation. If we're dead set on infinite growth (in terms of consumption, GDP, population) we're going to have a problem with or without climate change. The fix is: a smaller population, less consumption, and less production. But that's contrary to /everything/ capitalism stands for. The problem is thus not so much technology, but rather the socio-economic paradigm we're in. How to change this without going all "you dumb communist beta cuck snowflake"? I don't know. But here are some ideas: - Incentivize less spending by "anti-ads" (could be interesting to add as an ad blocker), basically ads that signal that you /don't/ need what's advertised. Interesting AI problem that can piggyback off of all the stuff that's being done in the ad space itself - Implement economic incentives for CO2 scrubbing, by carbon-tax, subsidies or secondary effects (e.g. useful non-fuel biproducts, or things like greener living spaces / habitable deserts) - Stop subsidizing fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. Will it hike up the prices? Sure, but that's kinda the idea. - Look at the big picture first. Driving your car less, LED bulbs, sure…they kinda work. It's somewhat of a moot point with cargoships that almost burn raw oil, equivalent to the CO2 output of a small city. This is an optimization problem: try to do the big things first. - Slow down. We define the pace at which society moves. Do you /really really really/ need that stuff in 24hours door-to-door? Do you /really really/ need to commute 8 hours each day? These are human choices. The natural world is kinda reluctant about our endeavors. There's no reason why everything must be done /yesterday/ … helps with mental health issues too. - Incentivize a culture where "moon-shot" ideas are given a chance. There are many ways we can make a big dent, but often costing billions to build. We have no problem building 250 million dollar warplanes (and buy hundreds of them), no problems building half a billion dollar coal plants. Really, no problem with billion dollar sports matches. In fact, we seem to applaud these things. But when talking about rooftop solar, heliostat installations, CO2 scrubbing, planting trees it's all "cost cost cost". We need to rethink that. And be kind to all living things. We're in for a tough ride either way. Just try to show some compassion and help those who need it more than you do. Or that's what I try to tell myself when I'm utterly depressed about it https://joelkuiper.eu/change https://joelkuiper.eu/change

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. What works is "magic science." A solution that allows people to behave the way hey do, and we come up with a solution that just works. Birth control has resulted in a decline in teen pregnancies and population stabilization where it is available. The green revolution is able to feed people, without most people having to do anything different in how they eat. The other thing is that people don't really think this is a true emergency. An evidence for this is the quote "What if global warming is wrong and we made the planet better?" If it is a true emergency, we should be doing stuff that make the planet worse if it is wrong. We should be pushing nuclear power - even to the the point of reducing existing safety regulations. A Chernobyl every decade is preferable to global warming. Politically, we should be willing to trade existing environmental regulation for those which reduce CO2. For example, what if we traded the Endangered species act for a carbon tax? Third, we should be pushing for research and funding for climate adaptation at his point. The focus has been on mitigation, but it should switch to adaptation. We should be working on scaling up and testing models of carbon sequestration and Geo engineering. EDIT: Per cbennett's comment, changed prevention to mitigation and mitigation to adaptation to be more in line with official terminology.

cbennett 9y ago
Preliminary but important point: what you call prevention is typically called 'mitigation' by the UNFCCC, NASA, and other environmental orgs, while what you have called mitigation is typically 'adaptation' [1]. I know this is jargon, but if you have conversations with folks in the environmental/climate field it can in the best case provide instant rapport to at least be speaking the same language, and in the worst case, at least prevent serious mis-understandings. >>The other thing is that people don't really think this is a true emergency. An evidence for this is the quote "What if global warming is wrong and we made the planet better?" If it is a true emergency, we should be doing stuff that make the planet worse if it is wrong. We should be pushing nuclear power - even to the the point of reducing existing safety regulations. A Chernobyl every decade is preferable to global warming. Politically, we should be willing to trade existing environmental regulation for those which reduce CO2. -Human perception of danger/emergency has, from the evolutionary perspective, been optimized for concrete, near-term events/entities, eg terrorism, explosions, enemies. On the other hand ,it has not prepared us for preparing against abstract, medium to long term adversaries, eg planetary or physics scale changes that threaten civilization, malevolent ETs, malevolent super-intelligences [AIs].. etc etc. -Even if this weren't true and we didn't have these unfortunate cognitive bias, your argument about broad public wisdom of emergency relies upon a well-informed populace that is familiar with statistics, and the scientific methods. Unfortunately, that is not the case in almost every advanced Representative state on the planet. This broad ignorance renders the ambient public awarness point you have made quite moot. -Finally, I see the logic behind the 'what if global warming is wrong and the planet gets better' case as analogical to Pascal's wager, or the false postive; what you forgot to mention is the false negative, which is metaphorically relatively similar to the outcome of Pascals (Hell/Earth becomes like Hell). [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/ https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

saiya-jin 9y ago

what about some semi-transcluent 'shield' that would end up lets say in lagrange point, would cover part of earth and would reduce say 2-5% of light? It would be gigantic, but any of these solutions are super-costly. Benefits - we can relatively easily manipulate it thus managing strength of the dimming; it has clear consequences compared to releasing vast amount of chemistry which might go into overdrive or have some unknown consequences. It seems much better rather than releasing some chemicals into atmosphere and end up in matrix-like situation. Or build one directly above earth, probably only around equator +- 1000km, easier to repair. It might clutter orbit with mess over time, but still better than boiling alive down here.

dustinmoris 9y ago

Average person's priorities: I > My family > My home > My life convenience > My country > Other human beings > Planet Earth. This is what the average person expects from other people: Planet Earth > Other human beings > Their country > their family > them And you wonder why we fail to combat climate change?

Brakenshire 9y ago
Because a lot of people seem to think that doing the best for themselves will end up as the best thing for society, or for the planet. Adam Smith dealt with this from the start, there is an amazing moral alchemy in capitalism which allows for improvements in your own life to drive improvements in society, but there are caveats and limits. And ideologues do not like dealing with that kind of nuance.
ajmurmann 9y ago
Unfortunately the impact you have on any of these is in the same order as you list the priorities. That's making it so that if you prioritize planet earth over your family the only change you'll likely see is your family being less well off. That practically guaranteed inaction. That's why we need to enforce good behavior via laws not only on a national but on a global level. It's mindboggling to me that climate agreements are entirely voluntary.

m777z 9y ago

I wish articles like this that are backed up by tons of research, interviews, etc. would cite sources inline (in a manner similar to Wikipedia). I want to at least skim some of the background research, but I'm reducing to copying and pasting sections of this article into Google.

golergka 9y ago

Why is a world war, swiftly reducing populations and industrial output, is never considered among the solutions? While horrifying, it is still better than total extinction.

mac01021 9y ago
It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?
- golergka 9y ago
  > It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war. But it's better totally. > Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions? Never seen it discussed.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    Say we want to reduce our emissions 1/10 of their current rate. This would not be enough for long term climate stability but, if we did it soon, would greatly push back our deadline on elimination the other 10% to avert the bulk of the forecasted catastrophe. There are two ways to reduce humanity's rate of CO2 emissions: 1. Reduce the number of people emitting CO2. 2. Reduce the amount of CO2 that each person emits. You're complaining that noone ever considers option 1 which, as an approach to our desired 90% reduction in emissions requires that we kill off 90% of the world's population? Even for those lucky enough to be among the surviving 10%, fallout from the war and the loss of the other 90% will constitute a tremendous cost in terms of their standard of living. And it won't leave those survivors in a great position to figure out the (still necessary) elimination of their remaining emissions rate. I, for one, am unlikely to be in the 10%, and hope this approach is dismissed by those with the power to enact it.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    It's frequently discussed, just not as a solution to this particular problem.

stevebmark 9y ago

Well, it worked. I'm worried, and I'm turning off some electronics I normally leave on.

Daishiman 9y ago
Are you going to stop eating meat?
- sluggg 9y ago
  is there a way to significantly cut down on my carbon footprint by only eating certain animals?
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    look into farm to plate supply chains
  - mac01021 9y ago
    If you eat a lot of farm-raised beef and then start getting all those calories from chicken instead it will indeed be a significant reduction of your carbon footprint. If you give up air travel, while you're at it, you might cut it just as much again, or more. (depending, of course, on how much you fly).
  - hrydgard 9y ago
    Chicken is best, pork second and beef the worst. The difference is bigger than you'd expect.
  - philipkglass 9y ago
    Ruminant meats (beef, lamb, goat) have a higher GHG impact due to enteric fermentation producing methane. Numerically, you can't cut a lot of your GHG impact by reducing/switching meat consumption if you are living an ordinary middle class first world lifestyle in other respects. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Methane accounts for about 10% of warming from anthropogenic US GHG emissions. Enteric fermentation in ruminants accounts for 25% of that 10%, and agricultural manure another 10%. So you can cut maybe 25% of 10% (2.5%) from baseline-American emissions by eliminating red meat from your diet, or 35% of 10% (3.5%) by eliminating animal products altogether. It's similar in the European Union: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... Agriculture accounts for 10% of emissions, and meat production is just a portion of that. Personal dietary changes are at least quick and inexpensive, even if they don't lead to deep emissions reductions. I stopped eating red meat a few years ago because of a family history of heart attacks. It actually saved money on my grocery bills.

state_machine 9y ago

I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

dmm 9y ago
My father certifies hospital gas systems in the US. He's measured CO2 levels in urban areas around 498ppm. Hospital air, the air piped to patients, has a limit of 500ppm. Soon hospitals will have to put CO2 scrubbers on their air supplies just like astronauts. Maybe head mounted CO2 scrubbers will become fashion accessories for the 1%.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  How is CO2 a problem in breathable air? To humans, it's a harmless and inert gas, just like nitrogen. The real problem is too little O2, which humans require for respiration. Obviously, too much CO2 could displace O2 and reduce O2 levels, but it's not the CO2 that's an actual problem (i.e., if the CO2 displaced only N2, and O2 levels stayed the same, you wouldn't have a problem). So having a CO2 scrubber doesn't seem to make any sense to me, you need something that keeps the O2 levels up. That may be a CO2 scrubber (pulling the carbon atom off the CO2), or it may be more feasible to just carry an oxygen bottle as many elderly people do today. I suspect the latter is the case; if it were feasible to have a portable CO2 scrubber to improve your O2 levels, they would have done it already for all these people.
  - fulafel 9y ago
    It is harmful in large concentrations as it displaces oxygen (cf. dry ice pool accidents).
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      True, and dangerous; this even happens naturally when volcanos displace oxygen and create lethal stretches of depressed ground. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku) But not the issue here. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and apocalyptic global warming happens well before O2 displacement becomes an issue. Bear in mind that humans can function effectively up to several thousand meters - the O2 loss from low pressure is vastly larger than any possible CO2 displacement. If CO2 is going to have physiological effects via the atmosphere, it's based on chronic exposure and high blood concentrations. There are some studies suggesting that causes cognitive harm, and others suggesting it doesn't.

sosodaft 9y ago

What we really need is WWII-style, society-wide action on this count--remember the days of Meatless Mondays, saving your cans to make bullets, mailing your binoculars to the Navy. Even if it's confined to the parts of society that actually believe global warming is a serious threat, making pro-climate living a social norm could have a tremendous effect.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
How about we just take the step and say that eating beef, in any circumstance, is morally wrong? Even if you can find some beef that you think is ecologically responsible, your are promoting the practice which is perhaps most central to global warming, after driving a large gasoline car.

sluggg 9y ago

The article worked... I am alarmed. Is there anything I can do with software that would make a difference? Currently, the only things that are coming to mind are simple carbon footprint calculators or infographics/visualization of data, which imo would not be that impactful. I would love to hear ideas

mac01021 9y ago
Earn as much money as you possibly can and donate it all to lobbying groups to put a price on GHG emissions or to preserve the amazon rainforest.
gasbag 9y ago
Bret Victor has a page on his site about this.[0] The first hit when I searched for "visualization" was: "The core technologies in energy storage tend to be physics-based, but software plays essential roles in the form of design tools, simulation tools, and control systems. My favorite example is the inexplicably gorgeous Materials Project, a database and visualization tool for material properties, funded by the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Program to help invent better batteries." It's a lengthy page with lots of good ideas, and seeds that might germinate more ideas of your own. [0]http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- sluggg 9y ago
  I will give it a read, thanks so much!

good_vibes 9y ago

Wish for the best, prepare for the worst. I've grappled with this for the last 7 years. I wanted to build a platform to address this problem but I eventually realized self-interest is the strongest force in the world and that most people are not ready to consider that they may be part of the problem AND own up to it enough to change their day-to-day lifestyle. It's much easier to point a finger at world leaders, corporations, or the developing world's use of coal. I've finally let go of eating meat. I don't buy things unless I need them and I use them until they are no longer usable. My hobbies are exploring the outdoors, improving my fitness/meditation routine each day, and creating brands, experiences, and campaigns. I am saving money for a cabin in the Rockies and a camper van to explore all of North America. I am building an agency to work remotely and accept clients that I feel I can help in a substantial way. I've given my ambitions of 'saving the world' or being a part of the world of SV or NYC.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a temporary golden period for the possibility of our form of life. Whether we burn ourselves out or wait for the environment to do it, the end result in a billion years is that there aren't humans in our form around anymore. So whenever climate action comes up I ask: What is the end state that you are seeking? Is the goal to permanently solidify an undefined homeostasis? For what group? Are you trying to make northern Africa green again? Again though, seems to be in vain cause it's all going to burn up in a few million years anyway. Climate action isn't TRULY long term thinking. We have a tiny window that we can possibly engineer ourselves into a new form of intelligence. Lets work on that so that these biological issues, and our fate as a (transitional) species aren't issues anymore. [1]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/398013/24076923/1387327371437/Sun.png?token=lBgC8gzFnsUMWh0mHw9WbSpxy4Y%3D http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/398013/24076923/138732...

mac01021 9y ago
Ok. Let's start by ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a livable environment in which to perform that work.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Agreed. The one caveat I would make is in a case where something accelerated singularity tech, but was worse for warming/volatility, I would do the former.
mfoy_ 9y ago
Well, I'd argue it's all about buying time. Obviously nothing lasts forever, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. If we can buy our species another couple centuries on this planet, we can probably start looking at leaving. But if we continue on this accelerated doomsday course we won't have time to re-imagine the "form" of our species.

Animats 9y ago

Right now, some very hot areas are becoming uninhabitable, and low-lying coastal areas are being flooded. In the US, this has already hit a few areas hard, such as Phoenix AZ [1] and Miami FL.[2] Phoenix is breaking heat records again this week. The number of days of extreme heat each summer keeps increasing. Phoenix also has limited water sources; it's a city in a desert, after all. Miami now floods regularly. Levees and berms don't help much; the ground is too porous. Pumping helps; at least a dozen huge pumps have been installed, with many more to come. This is a stopgap measure, the mayor of Miami admits. [1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-phoenix-climate-adapt-20170327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-phoenix-climate-adapt-20... [2] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-agains...

jessaustin 9y ago

Commentary from a noted scientist: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1470539096335621 https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/14705390...

kerbalspacepro 9y ago
He quibbles a single data point and says, "Don't panic."