26 ms·

Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

• 0n0n0m0uz 8y ago
  Chinese Hoax
• lucidguppy 8y ago
  1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan. 2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one. 3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work. 4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if it's a used car. We cannot mess around anymore. Governments always lag society - they never lead. So we need to push to make these changes more common.
  • fredley 8y ago
    Even if you don't want to go vegan, it's easy to eat less meat (and probably good for your health if you have a Western diet). My partner is vegetarian, I eat meat occasionally (and when I do I eat good meat, ethically and sustainably farmed). Reducing meat consumption is by far the easiest way to reduce your carbon footprint.
    • Flavius 8y ago
      That's the best way to do it. Going vegan it's not easy for everyone and possibly not healthy. But eating less meat it's a no-brainer.
      • paulie_a 8y ago
        I make an effort to reduce energy consumption simply from a cost basis. It is better for the environment obviously, but eating less meat is simply not going to happen.
        • Flavius 8y ago
          This makes no sense. Eating meat is just as expensive as energy consumption. Food can be just as delicious with 20% meat instead of 80% meat. Why would you insist on eating as much as possible?
          • paulie_a 8y ago
            I didn't say I was eating as much as possible. I said I am going to continue to eat it at the same rate I currently do. Personally I am not going vegetarian.
            • mercer 8y ago
              I've noticed you keep making posts that boil down to 'I do/am/believe <x>' without it offering much relevance or insight to the discussion. It seems like you're just live blogging on HN. I'm very curious what your reasons are for doing so. EDIT: I'm honestly curious. It doesn't bother me too much, and I'm sure I've made comments that I thought were valuable but in hindsight were probably just me wanting to be present. It's mostly the consistency of such comments from you that fascinates me.
              • paulie_a 8y ago
                It's a discussion thread. I add my input, maybe you find it relevant, maybe you dont. Maybe I don't add enough insight. Fair enough. But it's honestly fucking weird that you are tracking my comments.
                • thereare5lights 8y ago
                  I think it's more weird that you that behavior weird. Many people do that. Creepy perhaps, but it's not weird.
                • mercer 8y ago
                  I often click on the user's comment history if a comment stands out positively or negatively, and I realized that I'd done so more than once with yours. I don't think that counts as weird. That said, I did write a bunch of code that actually allows me to track a user's comments. But I wrote that mostly so I can get updates if infrequent but great commenters post something. Perhaps that is a bit weird.
    • rocqua 8y ago
      I believe that the climate impact of ethically raised meat tends to be a lot higher than that of mass-produced meat. The reason being that it simply takes more resources to ethically produce meat.
      • type-2 8y ago
        All meat is a incredibly wasteful way to grow food. Plus mass produced meat usually always is harmful to the animal's wellbeing and also due to the way they live in close cramped spaces, there is lot of antibiotic put into their feed to stop diseases. Being vegan is the best but sadly we love meat too much. I am myself no better
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • yostrovs 8y ago
          Nonsense. Grazing animals are part of the natural cycle that has produced grasses, the topsoil, and nutrients that tie them together. Vegetarianism breaks that cycle and leads to use of chemicals for growing edible plants.
          • cowsandmilk 8y ago
            > Vegetarianism breaks that cycle and leads to use of chemicals for growing edible plants. What? It is pretty clear cut that humans eating plants directly requires growing a lot less plants than humans eating meat, which ate those plants. Animals don't grow on sunlight, so they are basically a reactor for turning plants from one type of food into another. And the laws of thermodynamics tell us they aren't 100% efficient, so... eating meat requires more plants to be grown than eating plants themselves...
            • Yetanfou 8y ago
              What the commenter probably refers to is the fact that grazing animals eat plants which humans can not eat while vegetarians eat those which are suitable for human consumption. The grass eaten by herbivores 'just grows' while the cabbages, lettuces, beans and sprouts (et al) eaten by vegetarians (et al) don't "just grow", they need to be grown purposefully on soil which has been fertilised, they need to be protected from insects and vermin, etcetera. Had the herbivores been harvested from the wild this would all be true. In practice the herbivores are fed not just grass but beans, grains and other produce. Which has to be grown just like the vegetables eaten by vegetarians. Since the 'conversion factor' - the efficiency by which an animal transforms 1 kg of fodder into 1 kg of edible animal - varies from about 2 (insects) via 5-7 (chicken) via 9-11 (pig) to 14-18 (cow) it becomes clear that it takes a lot more grains, beans and such to feed a carnivore than it takes to feed a vegetarian.
    • nhangen 8y ago
      Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as ethically farmed meat. If it’s killed for your plate, it’s still bad karma.
      • nerdponx 8y ago
        This is a matter of opinion, not fact. With dairy, you might have a point.
      • adrianN 8y ago
        You don't acknowledge an ethical difference between a pig that has never seen the sun and lived on barely enough room to stand and a pig that has been held in a way that accommodated its natural behaviors?
        • nhangen 8y ago
          There is an ethical difference yes, but it’s still a net negative. We don’t need to kill in order to eat. We just choose to.
          • xyzzy123 8y ago
            It gets ethically weird for me when I contemplate hypothetical pigs that had happy lives but would not have existed if they were not farmed. Kinda Logan’s run? But pigs. The utilitarian in me wants to see the existence of the pig as an ethical net positive overall.
        • johnchristopher 8y ago
          I think the argument that eating the pig raised in dark factory is better than the pig that had a life is valid.
          • nhangen 8y ago
            Sure, but that doesn't make it "ethical." It's still killed, and nothing wants to be killed.
    • pelario 8y ago
      This. I have seen and experienced how a radical view of vegetarianism (or veganism) deters people from doing anything about their meat consumption. Specially people who likes meat. After meeting a couple of "relaxed vegetarians", who said something like "I'm vegetarian, but if there is no vegetarian option, I can eat meat too" my partner became pseudo vegetarian: she allows herself to eat meet one weekend per month. As myself, I became indoors vegetarian, as we do not consume meet indoors.
    • hueving 8y ago
      >ethically and sustainably farmed There is no such meat in the beef or chicken industry. There are sustainable methods to raise and provide enough meat for the demand and there are ethical methods (e.g. cage free, free range) that are absolutely not sustainable given the demand for meat. There is no overlap.
      • fredley 8y ago
        > "...for the demand" If demand is lowered by the population at large consuming a lot less meat, then it's perfectly reasonable to produce meat ethically and sustainably. Chickens/eggs, etc.
    • agumonkey 8y ago
      Lots suggest shifting to chicken is already a good step
      • chewz 8y ago
        Not for the chicken
        • agumonkey 8y ago
          Well that's another debate
  • ehnto 8y ago
    We can do our part locally, but individuals have no control over industry. We need to force the hand of government to paint the big strokes that we can't. I feel like social change is going to be the slowest, a government may tend to lag but they can do the most in the quickest amount of time with industry regulation.
    • Normal_gaussian 8y ago
      That 'but' is an excuse. Government opinion will always lag the peoples opinion - its a reactive organisation. Making a change yourself and normalising it is a huge signal to those you come into contact with that they should do the same. Governments change when politicians realise they are growing out of touch with the people they are trying to coerce.
      • ForHackernews 8y ago
        > Government opinion will always lag the peoples opinion - its a reactive organisation. I don't think this is true. In the USA, incandescent lightbulbs were more-or-less banned in favour of energy-efficient CFLs and LEDs, and people whined and moaned like crazy. Then they very quickly got over it. If you'd waited around for everyone to convince their friends and neighbors to spend 300% more up front on light bulbs, that would never, ever have happened. We need political leaders to show real leadership. I am not optimistic.
      • mac01021 8y ago
        I've done all of the following at various points, and announced that it was for environment reasons: - Gone vegetarian - Bought a tiny used car instead on new one or one with more space. - Moved to a neighborhood where I could walk to work. - Declined for my employer to send me on an expenses paid trip to a conference 2000 miles away. This has had ZERO effect on the behavior of any of the witnesses. And if I voice too much disapproval of people's ecologically destructive behavior, all that will happen is that I will be branded as some weirdo puritanical eco-prude, who's opinions and values are too fringe to be given any weight.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Ive stopped eating red meat, and in a bad week 25% of my meals are vegan, in a good week 75% or more of my meals are vegan. I’ve read that a medium sized dog has the carbon footprint of a medium sized SUV, approximately. I have two small-medium dogs. They eat a lot of vegetables and legumes. 90% of their snacks / treats are sweet potato / carrots / apples. Their main meals consist of a mix of grated veggies, cooked brown rice, cooked and puréed split peas, and two or three tablespoons of kangaroo or chicken mince to flavour. Sometimes I leave out the mince, so their meals are vegan too. They love it! They can’t get enough of the split pea purée. With the added benefit that their poop is well formed and easy to pass, goes really well in the compost!
    • Reason077 8y ago
      Is there any research on how doggies do on vegan or reduced-meat diets? I wonder they'd have any long term health benefits from a well-planned, balanced vegan diet?
      • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        I've read that dogs can be vegan. They're not obligate carnivores like cats. That's about all I know really.
    • didgeoridoo 8y ago
      You may want to look into supplementing the dogs’ diets with taurine. There is rising suspicion in the vet world that a diet high in legumes, pulses, and potatoes may suppress taurine absorption and increase the risk of developing dilated cardiomyopathy: https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmupdates/ucm613305.htm https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmupdates/u...
      • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Wow! Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to cycle them off the split peas. I wonder if sweet potatoes could be a problem too. Will look in to supplementing their diets. Thanks :)
  • commenter1 8y ago
    How about travel by plane? Are you willing to do that?
    • gambiting 8y ago
      And then - how about not having children? An impact of a single child is greater than lifetime of eating meat by a single person.
      • rbanffy 8y ago
        I totally support the idea people who deny climate change should not reproduce. For two main reasons: first, to save the environment and, second, to improve the human gene pool. I don't expect them to agree, however.
        • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
          >second, to improve the human gene pool. Yeah, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and we should prevent them from reproducing. /s I fully believe in climate change but your opinion that eugenics is part of the solution is out in left field and incompatible with the values of most people on this planet to put it charitably.
          • rbanffy 8y ago
            I probably should be more explicit when I joke.
      • christophilus 8y ago
        ...or you can raise them to have a net positive impact on the environment, like Ben Falk.
  • onion2k 8y ago
    If every single person on Earth did 1 - 4 it still wouldn't be enough. Change has to come from industrial polluters to have a real impact, and the only way to change industry is to stop driving growth through consumption. So... 5) Stop buying stuff.
    • LukaD 8y ago
      I think if every single person on Earth went vegan it would have a significant impact. It would force the meat industry to change.
      • conradk 8y ago
        Going vegan is essentially "Stop buying stuff" where "stuff" is meat. You should stop buying anything that pollutes a lot and/or has low value compared to alternatives: diesel cars, disposable plastic items, useless gadgets, etc. If you still want meat in your diet, start buying less beef and more eggs or chicken. That'll be a good start. https://timeforchange.org/eat-less-meat-co2-emission-of-food https://timeforchange.org/eat-less-meat-co2-emission-of-food
      • sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "I think if every single person on Earth went vegan it would have a significant impact." It will never happen. We need more practical solutions. Only 10% of people in developed countries would even think of making major changes to their lifestyle for such reasons ... And there are 5 billion people in poor countries who are rapidly becoming 'consumers' and they don't care, at all. They want cars, appliances and 'stuff' now. There's hope but I think it'll have to be really quite pragmatic, and more focused on supply and less on demand, i.e, solar, wind, a lot more nuclear and I wish we'd invest more in Fusion research.
    • pygy_ 8y ago
      To that end, in order to stop craving stuff, protect yourself form ads. Most ads are designed to make you want to buy something you don't need. They keep you in a state of permanent dissatisfaction to keep you on the consumption treadmill. Consequently they contribute to both global unhappiness and environment destruction.
  • SwellJoe 8y ago
    0) Address the fact that the vast majority of carbon, methane, and other contributors to climate change is produced by fewer than 100 international corporations. (Animal agriculture is a big part of it, as is the fossil fuel industry, but so is shipping.)
    • mac01021 8y ago
      Address it how? Stop buying goods from those companies?
      • SwellJoe 8y ago
        That doesn't seem like a realistic answer. It requires a lot more knowledge on the part of consumers than consumers have or can readily obtain, and puts the onus on those least able to affect the behavior of those companies and puts the cost of making the change on those who have little responsibility for the choices that led us here. We have environmental regulations, they just aren't strong enough and they often have loopholes specifically for the worst offenders (e.g. animal agriculture and shipping both externalize tremendous environmental costs on everyone). There's also differences between nations that make it possible to outsource environmental impact, which needs to be balanced. It's not realistic to tell consumers, "Don't buy products made overseas", because for most people in most parts of the world, most of the products they need are made overseas. I don't think it's a bad thing for manufacture to flow to where it is most efficient, but it is a bad thing when environmental impact explodes because of it. There needs to be pressure on the companies hauling those goods, from every nation they ship to, to reduce emissions dramatically. And, while I've been vegetarian or vegan for 24 years, and I encourage everyone to do so, both to reduce suffering and to reduce environmental impact, it turns out asking people to become vegetarian or vegan doesn't actually work. There have been organizations encouraging plant-based diets for decades, and yet only a small percentage of people eat a plant-based diet. The industry has to be made to internalize those costs, so they change their practices. It'll also raise prices to more realistic levels, which would shift consumption to plant-based alternatives which have orders of magnitude lower environmental impact (though still high, when talking about feeding a few billion people, but certainly more sustainable than feeding a few billion people beef).
  • DennisP 8y ago
    I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world. To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind of solar radiation management if things go too far. In short we need a global WWII-level effort. Instead we're encouraging people to ride bikes and eat their veggies.
    • andyjohnson0 8y ago
      > In short we need a global WWII-level effort. I agree. "It’s been a couple of weeks now since the IPCC report came out. You know what it says. If the whole damn species pulls together in a concerted effort “without historical precedent”— if we start right now, and never let up on the throttle— we just might be able to swing the needle back from Catastrophe to mere Disaster. If we cut carbon emissions by half over the next decade, eliminate them entirely by 2050; if the species cuts its meat and dairy consumption by 90%; if we invent new unicorn technologies for sucking carbon back out of the atmosphere (or scale up extant prototype tech by a factor of two million in two years) — if we commit to these and other equally Herculean tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.[1] We’ll only lose 70-90% of the word’s remaining coral reefs (which are already down by about 50%, let’s not forget). Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and “deadly heat” events. Only 130-140 million will be inundated. Global fire frequency will only increase by 38%. Fish stocks in low latitudes will be irreparably hammered, but it might be possible to save the higher-latitude populations. We’ll only lose a third of the permafrost. You get the idea. We have twelve years to show results. If we don’t pull all these things off— if, for example, we only succeed in meeting the flaccid 2°C aspirations of the Paris Accords— then we lose all the coral. We lose the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Shelf (not that it isn’t already circling the bowl, of course). Twice as many people suffer “aggravated water scarcity” than at 1.5°C; 170% more of the population deals with fluvial flooding. The increase in global wildfire frequency passes 60% and keeps going. Marine fisheries crash pole to pole. The number of species that loses at least half their traditional habitat is 2-3 times higher than would have been the case at 1.5°C. It goes on." [1] (Edit) Yet in my experience nobody is talking about this. A few weeks ago the IPCC told us we have a gun to our head and a decade to solve the problem. A few days ago we learned that "population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% globally between 1970 and 2014" [2]. And now we're on to the next thing and everyone is walking around like things are normal. People should be focussed on this and nothing else, but they're not. And also: how exactly do I explain to my children that the world they're growing-up in is in a dire state and soon may not even be able to support anything like a normal life for them? Ideas anyone? [1] The Adorable Optimism of the IPCC, by Peter Watts https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433 [2] https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018 https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018
  • kaddio 8y ago
    >Governments always lag society - they never lead. Eh? I have many examples that prove otherwise. Like, government mandating solar panels on new buildings. People aren't happy with those because of how expensive they are. Or government mandating certain cars cannot go through cities certain days. People aren't happy because they'd rather use their SUVs. Or government mandating you have to pay for plastic bags and in the end they will be banned altogether. Which sucks and is inconvenient.
    • humanrebar 8y ago
      Yeah, we have to be careful that we aren't just promoting, "Let them eat solar panels" solutions if we want actual progress.
  • Vinnl 8y ago
    I think there's a lot to be said for going vegan, but conspiracy literally is a conspiracy, and I'm usually not inclined to take conspiracies seriously. But yes, things need to change. And yes, that requires changes by governments and corporations, but all of that is set in motion by regular people. Change your habits, even if they don't make a difference on their own - they show others that this is important, and will influence them to make their own changes. It will spread, not just to our regular behaviour, but also to our consumption and voting decisions. People are more likely to do as you do than to do as you say.
  • johnchristopher 8y ago
    How should we got about people saying: "It's too late. It's now an open bar and I won't shoot myself in the foot by restricting my lifestyle or paying more than others for the same goods and services to soften the inevitable coming disaster. If this is the last ride and I have a seat I might as well enjoy it." Eg: "Why buy a green car if it's going to cost me way more than a good old diesel and the apocalypse is coming the same anyway ?"
    • ForHackernews 8y ago
      Are those people wrong? It's sure looking like we might as well get our boozing in before last call.
    • francisofascii 8y ago
      A used Prius isn't that expensive. Or keep the diesel and consolidate/limit trips. I would argue if we all drove less people would have a better lifestyle due to less traffic, better health, less wasted time, etc. regardless of climate change.
  • weavie 8y ago
    What I am finding in my road to eating less meat is that vegetarian food seems to take a lot longer to prepare. I can knock up a steak with mushrooms and brocolli in about 10 minutes. I am finding to create something just as satisfying that's vegetarian is some form of pie or lasagne that is delicious but takes an entire evening to cook. What would the vegetarian equivalent to a quick steak be?
    • katzenjam 8y ago
      A salad with some pan-fried halloumi cheese and pine nuts is quick and satisfying, though probably too salty to eat every day. Halloumi works as a meat substitute in a lot of recipes. Lentils and onions over rice will fill you up, but it's certainly less fun than a steak. Stir fries are quick, fun to cook and satisfying. Slice a couple of hard-boiled eggs, add soy sauce and sesame seeds, and serve over the stir-fried veg.
      • weavie 8y ago
        Yes, halloumi is amazing!
    • MandieD 8y ago
      Pressure cookers are magic, turning 1.5-2 hr cooking times into 30-40 minutes. For red beans and rice, I soak the beans the night before, which reduces the needed cooking time.
  • ACC_investor 8y ago
    I don't think mass veganism is going to happen but it's clear that as climate change worsens, veganism will only continue to grow in popularity. Comments like yours are slowly convincing me that investing long-term in the vegan industry is a good idea.
    • mac01021 8y ago
      What do you think you'll be investing in?
      • ACC_investor 8y ago
        That's what I'm trying to figure out.
  • gonzo41 8y ago
    5. Have less or no children. ~Birth rates in the India, China and, Africa are an issue.
    • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      6. Don't have pets. Your dog is far from carbon neutral.
  • perfunctory 8y ago
    5) Work less. 3-4 days a week is plenty, especially for the HN crowd.
  • learnstats2 8y ago
    Many people here will have a much bigger effect by considering how to tackle environmental concerns in their workplace. Get into decision-making positions and advocate for energy saving on a corporate scale.
  • rebuilder 8y ago
    Those are all good, but if instead of asking "how can I reduce my carbon footprint" you ask "what should my carbon footprint be", I think you'll find the answer a bit discouraging. Basically, where I live, just my share of the cost of maintaining basic infrastructure puts me above the limits implied by the Paris accord, nevermind actually moving from place to place, having heating or eating things. Maybe that's why you don't see too much focus on telling people what their personal goals should be - the situation encourages defeatism if you actually try to find a personal solution to the problem. What we need is a wartime economy, geared towards surviving climate change. In my view, that could actually be very good for us - western societies haven't had a concrete goal to unify their citizens for as long as I've been around, at least. And this time, the goal wouldn't revolve around killing people! Now, how do we get started?
• ForHackernews 8y ago
  Yet more bad news on the climate change front. Based on previous discussions on HN, I'm sure there will be plenty of people proposing ambitious and creative technological solutions. I fear that there's an anthropic bias[0] at work where humans are convinced we will solve this problem because we've always solved other problems before. But we forget that if we hadn't solved those previous issues, we wouldn't be here to talk about it (and it has been very touch-and-go[1] before). That leads us to overestimate our chances of eventually sorting this out, too. But maybe this is start of the great filter? [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_bias [1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/close-calls-three-times-when-the-human-race-barely-esc-1730998797 https://io9.gizmodo.com/close-calls-three-times-when-the-hum... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
  • etaty 8y ago
    We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it, because of local incident risk. And because of this we are in the middle of a global incident. Technology available in 5 years are already too late.
    • prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >We just don't want to implement it, because of local incident risk. More likely due to capital. It's always capital. We're going to kill all life for capital.
    • spuz 8y ago
      > We already have solved the issue. We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. We just don't want to implement it That means we haven't solved the issue. The solution might require as much of a change in human psychology as a change in technology.
    • Diederich 8y ago
      > We know how to produce massive amount of energy, all day long. Are you hinting at nuclear power? If so, I (somewhat) agree with you. The environmentalists that I used to hang out with believed with a burning passion that nuclear power was an absolute evil. I understand that perspective, though I disagree with it. If one takes the position that The Main Future Threat is related to and rooted in human released greenhouse gases, then nuclear power is right back on the table, front and center, even given its challenges, risks and long-term side effects. About those, though: my understanding is that it has been possible, for some time now, to produce nuclear power plants that are exceptionally safe and cost effective. And with substantial research dollars, the plethora of possible 'next gen' fission reactor technologies would yield all kinds of fruit to, for example, mitigate or remove the long term side effects. Given all of that, I think solar+battery (along with hydro, wind and their up and coming friends) is now the way to go, given how much costs have come down. Going all into nuclear power probably made sense a couple of decades ago.
• cft 8y ago
  Nuclear war can reverse global warming [1]. Some argue that since nuclear weapons exist, they will likely be used sooner or later. 1. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nucl...
  • gambiting 8y ago
    I thought it was almost decided recently(definitely later than 2011) that actually, nuclear war wouldn't cause global cooldown, or if it did it would be extremely temporary, definitely not on the scale of decades or centuries. Another interesting fact is that we have detonated nearly 2500 nukes since we first made them, and it had observably zero impact on climate, despite each one releasing gigantic amounts of energy into the atmosphere.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • cft 8y ago
      A global nuclear war will certainly reduce the subsequent CO2 emissions, even if nuclear winter model is incorrect
    • jeremyjh 8y ago
      Most of the purported cooling comes from the ashes of burning cities blanketing the atmosphere; so we would not expect any effect from tests. Still I think the methodology of the studies that produced this theory have been widely discredited.
  • Cieplak 8y ago
    The nuclear explosions would send massive clouds of dust high into the stratosphere, blocking so much sunlight that a nuclear winter would result. Global temperatures would plunge 20°C to 40°C for several months, and remain 2 - 6°C lower for 1-3 years. Up to 70% of the Earth's protective stratospheric ozone layer would be destroyed, allowing huge doses of ultraviolet light to reach the surface. This UV light would kill much of the marine life that forms the basis of the food chain, resulting in the collapse many fisheries and the starvation of the people and animals that depend it. The UV light would also blind huge numbers of animals, who would then wander sightlessly and starve. The cold and dust would create widespread crop failures and global famine, killing billions of people who did not die in the nuclear explosions. The "nuclear winter" papers were widely credited with helping lead to the nuclear arms reduction treaties of the 1990s, as it was clear that we risked catastrophic global climate change in the event of a full-scale nuclear war. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp
• moneytide1 8y ago
  If everyone knew how to grow food locally there would be less transportation waste, more community, & stronger immune systems from working the dirt with hands instead of exclusively machines.
  • misja111 8y ago
    It also would make the food more expensive.
    • moneytide1 8y ago
      Not if you shared a plot of land with neighbors and contributed to upkeep. Essentially free. Not practical in urban setting, which is why I avoid cities.
      • monochromatic 8y ago
        It’s only free if your time is worth zero. It’s net more expensive if you have a job that you wouldn’t be doing.
        • moneytide1 8y ago
          The benefits mentioned in the parent could potentially be worth allocated time. Growing food does not require a quantity of time that would interfere with work - bulk labor is required for planting and harvesting, but monitoring growth throughout the season is a great pre/post work activity to share with others.
• agumonkey 8y ago
  I keep asking. How to organize at the middle layer ? Not govt or nation wide, but smaller areas. I believe starting small reactions in parallel could accelerate things. Otherwise it's still talk.
  • ForHackernews 8y ago
    State level politics might help. California is trying to be carbon-neutral by 2045: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-california-achieve-a-ldquo-carbon-neutral-rdquo-economy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-california-ac...
    • agumonkey 8y ago
      Even that is too large IMO. At least in my view of things, I'm cool with states working on this. I wanted something like communities. I'll see.
      • Nasrudith 8y ago
        I'm curious why the small community emphasis?
        • agumonkey 8y ago
          half subjective reasons: - I'm bored by the system and jobless, and this would be an interesting thing to try as an activity for me - larger efforts are slow - I have this vision that bootstrapping small group efforts my heat up the system to help larger efforts. I may add that large changes are bouncing back and forth between 'people are responsible' and 'industries are responsible' without going much anywhere. And I'm fairly convinced that most of people's behavior is mostly pleasurable habits (and mostly individual at that) and that people can't really change because alone and inexperienced in a change makes anything harder; while in a group, with a few that have skills (nutrition, mechanics, etc) can turn this into a pleasant new habit.
          • 8y ago
• BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  At what level of crisis does one country with a large enough arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles target the largest population centres of the world as the last resort to reach sustainable levels of humanity? Is this being war-gamed at the highest level of any of the big three world powers that have this kind of arsenal? Countries that are net exporters of primary materials and foods would be more valuable than those which are net importers. Try to minimize effects on arable land and base ecosystems - limit the damage to the boundaries of worthless cement and asphalt. How many times in a row with the likeliest variables does the modeling have to result in "them or potentially everyone" before the decision is made to press the big red button? Who decides the variables? What population numbers are we talking? What about retribution? What about more subtle alternatives? Taking out an entire country's power grid under the guise of a terrorist act, let the ensuing chaos be it's own form of population control, then comes the big bang under cover of chaos it is more difficult to attribute. This sounds like a dystopian story which would get turned into a bad movie with a happy ending starring The Rock or Tom Cruise being reunited with their daughter who was at college in one of the targeted cities but as luck would have it was visiting less fortunate rural orphans when it all went down, and she still had her makeup clutch. I really don't know if I should have posted this or not. I've spent the last hour reading the other comments and the overwhelming feeling i get is that there's very little hope. Someone even quoted Peter Watts, so i can't be going too far thinking that this a real future option can I? I don't even know if i think its a remotely realistic scenario, but i do know that war is humanity's most effective population control with historic precedent.
  • _jarroda 8y ago
    I vote we start with your hometown.
    • me24u 8y ago
      Maybe just me, but unless I am mistaken you mean that if you are willing to call for the mass killing of other people's friends and families (for ANY reason, but in this case for the greater good) then you should be willing to start with your own friends and family. In the end, I don't think genocide is the solution for any problem large or small, but if you are going to suggest it as a solution you had better offer your own pound of flesh in the bargain. Did I read too much into your statement?
• verelo 8y ago
  So i assume we have all had homework at one point in time? Does this not just feel like homework for the planet, and we are Ll procrastinating because we think we can cram it out at the last minute? How do we shock ourselves into action? This is the question i keep asking myself.
  • mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
    If you consider the world a classroom and the problem homework then none of the 30 students are aware they have homework. The cockroach in the corner of the room knows but everyone else didn’t get the memo. My point being - I will argue that majority of the world is unaware of impending doom - either for reasons of lack of education and awareness or out of pure ignorance. People forget that modern life as you and I know it does not apply to a large population of this planet who are blissfully unaware or don’t have the resources and capacity to do anything about it if they were. It certainly doesn’t help that our political and value systems have been set up to promote greed and corruption. Look at Trump, he has to be reasonably educated right? But does he give a damn? And if not, why not? The same goes for all the senators.
• jahaja 8y ago
  This is also a crisis of critical thought. There's an utter lack and/or willingness to imagine any other reality than the current market economy. This goes even to the length of advocating some sort of scorched earth policies to decrease the earth's population since in their mind, the only human is the market-human and is as such inherently a terrible polluter. This is fundamentalism.
  • sunir 8y ago
    There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success. Also ironically it is a market of competing ideas to markets.
    • jahaja 8y ago
      If success would be a prerequisite of evolution it would grind to a halt.
      • sunir 8y ago
        That may have sounded profound but it comes off poorly because it gets the theory of evolution completely wrong. Success is the differentiator that allows for the selection part of natural selection. Also evolution cannot “grind to a halt” because it is an outcome of thermodynamics. Evolution isn’t a metaphor. It is still the underlying physical process even in selection of political systems.
        • jahaja 8y ago
          Did I though? Success is the differentiator post-mutation. If mutation itself ceases due to the prerequisite, evolution does too. But why do you feel the need to read and dissect an analogy so literally in the first place? It's not the point.
          • Sacho 8y ago
            > If mutation itself ceases due to the prerequisite, evolution does too. But then your reply doesn't make sense. Here's what parent said: > There are plenty of attempts to think about other systems, implement them, and advocate for change. They all lack something important: success. That part would imply that mutation is happening, just unsuccessfully. If you wanted to disagree with that, then your analogy was just confusing.
• viggity 8y ago
  The oceans have a mass 1000 times that of the atmosphere. So if they were predicting 2C increase in the heat of the atmosphere wouldn't that be .002 deg Celsius in the ocean? Can you even measure that give the vastness of the ocean?
  • skosch 8y ago
    It's more complex than that. To heat up by those 2C, water takes over 4 times as much energy as air does. On the other hand, most of the warming happens in the upper layer of the ocean, which is a big issue because it messes with the ocean's circulation.
    • viggity 8y ago
      <i know this is 3 days later, I'm sorry> So when I said that the ocean has 1000x the mass of the atmosphere, I did the math earlier to get the total mass of both. That is a different calculation than the below per unit of volume measurement. Sea water has a mass of ~1000kg/m^3. Sea level air has a mass of 1.2kg/m^3. How does it only take 4 times as much energy to heat up a cubic meter of seawater than a cubic meter of air? Wouldn't it be ~820 times as much?
• monochromatic 8y ago
  If they got this number wrong by 60% for all these years and just noticed, why should I trust anything else about all of their different, conflicting climate models?
  • alexandercrohde 8y ago
    You don't have to. Scientists could be wrong, they can always be wrong. But even if there's just a 1% chance of human existence being threatened for something, I'd err to the side of caution.
    • monochromatic 8y ago
      Is it 1%? Where did that figure come from? What if it’s only 0.00000001%? Is it still worth erring on the side of caution when there are real costs to doing so?
  • sunir 8y ago
    True, why trust anything. It is not as if there is some systematic way to over time iteratively improve a rational model that is testable and verifiable through a competitive process.
    • TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      How would you propose testing or verifying a non-falsifiable model? Each sample of future data we have tends to show our models to be simply broken except in the most broad sense of a longterm gradual increase in temperatures. For instance from 2001 and 2010 the warming slowed to 0.11C per decade. [1] For the 17 years before then was 0.17C. There was not a single model that predicted this and, in spite of a number of after the fact hypotheses for that apparent decline, there is still no decisive answer. Does this not kind of bother you? We might argue that well since they're getting the overall picture right, that they must be fundamentally correct, even if they don't perform so well on the micro scale. But I'm not sure this is a reasonable argument. In particular, the past 400k years of Earth [2] show a very regular waxing and waning of temperatures, with the scale increasing upwards of 10C from the frequently extremely rapid transition from the mins to the maxes. Not only is about now when you would expect to be entering a warming era, but we've yet to even hit the highs of temperatures the planet reached in relatively recent geologic history, though before humans even existed. This is no way suggesting that humans are not contributing to the current phase of climate change, yet at the same time is it really particularly insightful to propose that temperatures will continue to do as they've done for hundreds of thousands of years? As usual I'm sure people will just downvote this, but I genuinely have no clue why. It's as if its taboo to ask, what I think, are completely reasonable questions. At the same time it's completely kosher to freak out and suggest climate change could imminently end the very species of humankind, which is not a remotely realistic outcome even in the most catastrophic and near 0 probability level outcomes. [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warmin... [2] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...
• ablation 8y ago
  I find that the impending climate cataclysm is really starting to affect me and my day to day life in the form of crushing depression and anxiety. It's such a huge, nebulous, threatening issue that I can't even begin to think how we go about mitigating it (as preventing it entirely seems like a dead horse to flog at this point). I'd be really curious to know if anyone else is feeling like this? And how you may have gone some way to alleviating it through positive means? I'm always looking for practical things I can do to contribute towards a solution, even if they're small (e.g. vegan diet, strict recycling, cycling/walking nearly everywhere and so on). But it feels like a drop in the ocean. And it's really starting to weigh heavy on me mentally, as trivial as that may seem in the grand scheme of things where the future of our species might be a stake.
  • mercer 8y ago
    I'm doing very few of those things, and while it weighs on me, I think the net effect on my happiness is a drop in the bucket compared to any efforts to affect my direct surroundings positively. Do you do volunteer work, or anything in that direction? It might feel insignificant, but it's important to remember you're human, and likely to be affected more by 'direct' things, however pointless they might seem in the grander scheme. The way I see it, it's a bit like putting on your own oxygen mask first. I've been burned out on working on 'bigger things', and in hindsight I wish I'd made sure to have 'smaller things' alongside to provide me with positive energy.
    • ablation 8y ago
      You make a good point. I think most of the paralysis and dread I feel comes from the fact that this is such a huge issue. I've applied to volunteer at some conservation charities (Sea Shepherd, etc.) and am waiting to hear back how I can be useful to them. I just can't shake the dread and negativity that comes over me whenever I think about it.
  • androidgirl 8y ago
    I'm also really starting to feel the weight of it. I collect fossils, and it recently crossed my mind that the coral fossils in my collection may be all that's left of corals by the end of my lifespan. I've also given up on the idea of raising children, as much as I want to be a mother, because it doesn't seem right. It's a heavy weight, what helps me avoid it is just immersing myself in work. Hardly positive.