27 ms·

CO2 in the atmosphere just exceeded 415ppm for the first time in human history

500 points by wang42 7y ago

blablabla123 7y ago
This looks like the famous hockey stick curve
perfunctory 7y ago
This might be off topic but I just don't know what else to do. I don't understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life. We knew about climate change for decades. Scientists keep producing report after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. Yet the global GHG emissions just keep going up. Governments and politicians have failed to act. I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough. While we should keep fighting for systemic change, I begin to believe individual action is paramount and a prerequisite for any broader change to take place. The time for signing petitions is over. It's time to act. There are no low-hanging fruits here. There will be no silver bullet. There will be lots and lots of tweaks across the board. People don't like being told what to do. I get that. But I am not a politician telling you what to do. I am your peer crying for help. Please do something. Please don't say "most people" wan't sacrifice this or that. I am not talking to most people. I am addressing you, the HN crowd. So what an honorable member of the HN community can do - Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 - Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-divesting-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools https://fairfinanceguide.org https://fairfinanceguide.org - Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw... - I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I'll mention it anyway. Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat... Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population to take an active stance to cause a change (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w). I don't know how true it is or if it applies in all circumstances. But I want to believe it's true. That's what makes me tick.
- Slimbo 7y ago
  You know why. Most of the world has market economies that rely on growth. The measure of growth is GDP and put simply GDP doesn't measure how much you're wasting, just how productive you are. Short term political aims are in conflict with long term environmental stewardship. The current US president only cares about his numbers, not the mess he's leaving behind. We'll be in full panic mode when it negatively impacts GDP, which will of course be too late.
  - tty2300 7y ago
    The problem is the feedback cycle is far to long for us to handle. Most learning works by doing something, seeing a bad result and then stop doing the thing. Problem is by the time the bad result comes things will be so far gone there is no hope for fixing it. For a lot of older people alive today they will never see the consequences of their actions so the selfish option is to carry on.
  - badestrand 7y ago
    It is not about politics, it is about nobody doing anything. Just look on the streets, millions of cars all burning away litres of gas every day, releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere. Everyone knows it and noone does anything about it. It is not "the elite" who is ignoring the issue, it is literally 99% of the people who don't care enough to even take the bus or bycycle. I am not saying I am better, but is not anonymous "others" or our "GDP-based system", it is 7 billion people who don't care much.
    - Slimbo 7y ago
      Disagree. The reason fuel is so cheap to permit the cars burning gas is because it's priced artificially low. If you were to charge based on replacement value (it's almost priceless given the production time), the cost of fuel would go up massively, productivity would stop and Mr Trump (and all the other world leaders) would no longer be able to boast about their growing numbers. I'm not denying individual responsibility, that's vital too but the big change also has to occur at the top and a market that lives on growth is a problem.
Avalaxy 7y ago
What I don't understand is why this is so controversial. I clicked on a link in the article, leading to this article: https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-development-is-destroying-the-planet-at-an-unprecedented-rate/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-deve.... The comment on it is extremely dismissive about climate change. I see this on pretty much every news website nowadays. First of all I don't see how man-made climate change is even controversial with the amount of evidence we have, but furthermore I don't see why we shouldn't transition to renewable energy asap anyway. Even if climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway? Why would it be a bad thing to get rid of air pollution? Why would it be a bad thing to switch to an energy source that doesn't run out in ~20 years simply because it isn't renewable?
- k_ 7y ago
  I'd say because we're in a fucked-up world of short-term profit. I just can't come up with any other reason for such madness.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Comments on news articles tend to be very poor indicators of public views.
  - dpwm 7y ago
    And are an easy opportunity for lobby groups to get their message across unedited.
  - tty2300 7y ago
    Are you sure you aren't just in a bubble? After talking to more people it seems like the general public really is like this.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I'm increasingly starting to agree. "The genpop can't all possibly think like that" is how you get blindsided by surprising outcomes of elections.
maelito 7y ago
Are methane or black carbon converted to CO2 equivalents and included in that metric ? If not, why aren't they published along with the CO2 curve ?
lm28469 7y ago
Man the chinese are taking the hoax way too far. /s We need a major shift in our ways of producing/consuming and on our quest for progress at all cost. We're heading for major issues, even in the short term. Humanity is committing suicide and taking Life with her. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-reach-one-billion-2050 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-re... https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...
dana321 7y ago
Must be all the bitcoin mining!
- saagarjha 7y ago
  That accounts for some portion of it, for sure.
  - domoritz 7y ago
    A tiny fraction but it's important to realize what we personally contribute, and not only blame something outside of our control.
    - dana321 7y ago
      Currently stands at using more than double the electricity usage of Ireland. Its not a tiny fraction!
- chunkyslink 7y ago
  I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Mining is very inefficient
  - nudq 7y ago
    > Mining is very inefficient Compared to what?
newintellectual 7y ago
Only about 25,000 years ago (into the last ice age), atmospheric CO2 levels were at 180 ppm. That was the LOWEST LEVEL in the entire 4.7 billion year history of earth. This is something that the ice worshipping fanatics of today will not tell you. At 150 ppm, the enyzyme RuBisCo, existing in all photosynthetic organisms, basically stops functioning. At this point, all photosynthetic life dies off, followed by all other life given the food chain. It would be earth's greatest extinction event. Thank humanity for putting some CO2 back into the atmosphere and averting a global catastrophe. At 415 ppm, it's a small fraction of the highest levels reached in earth's history, at 8000 ppm. https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/ https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentr...
maypeacepreva1l 7y ago
This is scary because of our current political situation. Even when nature is on our side we have mindless headstrong morons heading nuclear states and we seem to be in verge of war. People do not trust science and still believe in afterlife and heaven or hell rather than believing in our planet and its current problems. Amount of CO2 is definitely going to trigger extreme climate change and that is going to destabilize our geopolitics, and we simply are not ready for that change. We should start making life style changes for the sake of millions of species that are getting extinct and also to start a culture of responsible citizen of earth.
chunkyslink 7y ago
I'm fairly sure that meat production and farming for human consumption is the best way to have a quick global impact on climate change, slowing deforestation and slowing species extinction. Fossil fuels are the wrong target for a quick win (which we need). Caveat: I eat meat once a week now.
- steve_taylor 7y ago
  You’re talking about changing most of the world’s diet. Good luck with that.
  - chunkyslink 7y ago
    There are no 'diets' on a dead planet. Good luck with choosing your diet then.
    - eMSF 7y ago
      Few care to have a discussion with hyperbolics.
  - rocgf 7y ago
    I really don't get this type of defeatist thinking, and I see this in basically every climate discussion. It's pretty simple - it either happens (along with renewables etc.) or we face the consequences. It either happens willingly or forcefully. And as a matter of fact, veganism/flexitarianism are on the rise, so it is happening. Some people just get it and act.
  - jsnider3 7y ago
    Beyond Meat seems to be doing well.
- piokoch 7y ago
  I've just look at some stats (a few first google results, no idea if they are correct) and it seems that in developed countries meat production has about 3% impact on CO2 the whole emission. It is also not clear how this number was calculated, as "deforestation" is mentioned as a factor that increases CO2 emission, I don't know how much it contributes to those 3% - maybe it would be enough to stop deforestation. The most harmful is beef production, pork or chickens seems to be much less important. So yes, maybe beef consumption will help, but only very little.
VMG 7y ago
This could have been avoided by using Nuclear power.
- kmlx 7y ago
  yes, but the anti-nuclear lobby as well as some recent disasters make this a non-starter in a lot of nations. unfortunately.
  - swarnie_ 7y ago
    You can see their point though right? We can use Nuclear power but have to except every 30 years or so an accident will happen causing a massive exclusion zone and clean up op. Doesn't sound like a fair price to pay to me (and a lot of others).
    - kmlx 7y ago
      we just continue burning coal then.
      - darkcha0s 7y ago
        Because that's the only alternative to Nuclear energy...
        kmlx 7y ago
        of course not. there's also natural gas and oil. check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption coal (30%) gas (24%) oil (33%) hydro (7%) nuclear (4%) other renewables (2%)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - VMG 7y ago
      Experts have studied this and came to the opposite conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
KingMachiavelli 7y ago
It's been pretty well established and even discussed on HN that higher CO2 levels impairs some facets of human cognition. I quick glance at some of the research suggests that this impairment can begin around ~700ppm. Having higher and still increasing atmospheric CO2 levels means indoor concentrations will make diffusion between indoor and the outdoor even slower. On the climate related side, the graph of CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years is very consistent, around 260ppm, up till recently. We should have just as concerned (or were) when it crossed 300ppm, 400ppm, etc. On a more political note, while some/most climate change deniers at this point are likely ignoring evidence - having graphs with non-zero axis can be called out as a bit misleading which makes the increase relatively larger than it actually is; visually it's at ~230% of it's normal level when it's actually 'only' 157% compared to baseline. Graph manipulation has been used to in the past to spread false information about global warming/climate change so I think it's especially important to make everything above board. It only takes a few people spreading the graph around with the axis cropped out and then everyone will cry 'fake news'.
- assblaster 7y ago
  Wouldn't increased production of bicarbonate in response to high CO2 offset and reverse any change in cognition?
  - phonypc 7y ago
    Pretty much my reading of it. Simply getting up and walking around would put far more CO2 into your blood than such a small change in atmospheric concentration. I don't really understand the level of credulity here on associations between CO2 and mental impairment.
Proven 7y ago
Looking at that chart if some of you have alive for 100,000 years, this year you'd be celebrating "100,000 years of panic". Apart from few exceptions, CO2 ppm has been going up forever. Why 415 ppm is worse (and by how much) than 404 or 390, you can't explain. In the 90s we had until 2020 to turn things around, that prediction was an abysmal failure so now it's new scenarios and scares). I am most astonished that some people actually pay attention to this ludicrous nonsense. Most people are one or two paychecks away from personal extinction event and you're trying to persuade them they should pay more for "green" energy or support imposing limits on wealth generation and consumption. You can't even make the science work but that's the least of your worries. 10-20 years ago when (most) middle class westerners were idle and looked for ways to kill time, this would have worked. Now they are fighting against their own extinction. Simulate that. Regardless of my personal financial situation or average temperatures, I will never support any government program that purports to mitigate it. Period.
dana321 7y ago
https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels...
steve_taylor 7y ago
The Bible gives man dominion over the Earth. Presumably, that’s a license to do whatever we want with it without consequence. The Bible predicts an apocolypse driven by supernatural forces, not one of man’s making. There’s no room for both, therefore the one in the Bible is true and the one predicted by heathens is false. This is why Christians, specifically, tend to dismiss man-made global warming. Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs, especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs to smart jobs.
- lumberjack 7y ago
  Just want to point out that "Christians" in this context refers to some sects of Christianity in America and these beliefs are not the norm amongst Christians worldwide. Actually I hazard, not even the norm amongst Christians in the US.
  - steve_taylor 7y ago
    I wouldn’t dismiss conservative, Bible-believing Christians as merely a sect. Also, I shouldn’t single out Christianity. I just happen to know it well because it was a big part of my childhood. A lot of other religions also have a general disregard for science.
    - orbifold 7y ago
      They are by and large not Lutheran or Catholic Christians though, but belong to one sect or another.
      - lenticular 7y ago
        They're usually evangelicals. Evangelicals outnumber Catholics in the US, and also outnumber all mainline Protestent denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, etc) combined. They're fast gaining ground in Latin America as well. Not all evangelicals are so adamantly anti-reason, but I'd be very confident in saying most are. Evangelical Christianity in the US is lazy and cruel. The Bible is used to justify their worst impulses, while they ignore all the parts about loving your enemies, etc. It's not a demanding religion. It's easy. Their god doesn't care about charity or peace that take effort and compassion, but only that you are on His team.
ux-app 7y ago
I'm really depressed about climate change. There is no way to fix this from an individual point of view. Society is impossibly reliant on fossil fuels. Individuals going vegan, reducing consumption etc will have negligible effect. The only possible solution to all this is a technological solution that requires zero sacrifice from individuals. Technology got us into this mess, If we don't find a technological solution to this issue then all is lost. A true tragedy of the commons.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Dude, political action is possible, you just have to care enough to take part of it. Please, try to at least be honest enough to openly admit you don't care about climate change out of convenience for yourself.
  - ux-app 7y ago
    > Please, try to at least be honest enough to openly admit you don't care about climate change out of convenience for yourself. yes, it's true, I can't see myself going back to a pre-industrial quality of life for the sake of climate change, and be honest, neither can you. The resources used to produce the computer you typed your comment on probably equates to 50 years of resource consumption of someone from 1500AD. Not to mention your phone, car, earphones, public transport, roads, electricity, air conditioning, heating, Netflix, Youtube, datacenters, air travel, grocery shopping, insane supply chain that made your $50 Levis possible etc. etc. Add in billions of people who are aspiring to your level of affluence + billions more who will be born who will fight tooth and nail to experience the luxury of Netlix and chill and you see we are fucked. There is no way out of this and no amount of tree hugging will make things better. Joe average wants his SUV, cheap jeans and Happy Meal. Fuck you if you get in his way. It's a whirlpool of catastrophe and you can't get out of it even if you tried. Technology will save us or the species is finished. >political action is possible Your "Save the Whales" badge is part of the problem (literally, plastic + metal pin produced in a third world country). Your political banners and TV adverts are part of the problem. All by products of fossil fuels.
    - 7y ago
m12k 7y ago
There is a relatively small group of companies/people who know better, but would lose billions if this problem is addressed, they have an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative, and finally you have a huge undereducated part of the population who are already skeptical of 'elitist' scientists even before the manipulation begins. This problem also seems to be more extreme in the US compared to other western countries due to e.g. the prevalence of Fox News and decades of creationism leading the anti-science crusade. All in all, you can't really count on having a shared definition of 'reality' any more, as this has now been politisized.
- leereeves 7y ago
  There's a great deal of spin coming from the people warning about climate change too. End of the world stuff. Here's something to consider: during the Early Eocene period (roughly 50 million years ago) temperatures were 9C-14C higher than now and CO2 levels were 1000-2000 parts per million [1]. And yet according to science, Earth was covered in forests from pole to pole, mammals flourished, and the oceans were "teeming with fish and other sea life". [2] That's something you won't hear much about, because it doesn't fit the agenda. 1: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
  - akie 7y ago
    What about all the people living in coastal areas or close to major rivers? That’s like 50% of the population, in addition to much of our shared history (buildings). It will all be under water and cause large migrations, unsettling much of society. Is that not worth fighting for?
    - tim333 7y ago
      IPCC are projecting 26cm-98cm rise by 2100. So it's more tell the grandkids to build inland a bit.
    - cagenut 7y ago
mehrdadn 7y ago
Wondering what you can do? Especially for liberals? My idea of where to start: shame your company into phasing out business trips. I know we all like to travel but it needs to stop being seen as a work perk and start being seen as a liability. We put internet cables across the oceans and continents for a reason -- so we travel less, not more. Find a way to reward those who refuse to go -- maybe have a fun local hangout or whatever. Get your supervisor chain to stop making someone fly every month/week/whatever. Because every cross-continental/trans-atlantic flight (very roughly) emits around 20% [1] and 100% [2] of your entire year's worth of driving. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollutio... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/car...
torgian 7y ago
Ive almost lost hope at this point; while I will continue to support green movements and live closer to green, I don’t hold any faith that things will change. If they do, great. Otherwise, prepare your children for a world where their children may be less intelligent due to higher concentrations of Co2. Water will be expensive. People will wear masks everywhere and only rich people can afford houses with completely pure air. I truly hope it doesn’t come to this, but my fear is that when pollution gets to a certain point, those in charge will basically say “fuck it” and let things run their course.
- fifnir 7y ago
  >prepare your children If you're stressed about the environment you shouldn't be having children
  - neuronic 7y ago
    Yes, but maybe his children will contribute in massively positive ways that end up negating their negative climate impact. Every child is also a chance.
    - fifnir 7y ago
      And maybe I'll win the lottery and escape poverty, but playing it is irresponsible while I'm poor
    - IshKebab 7y ago
      Maybe but it's extremely unlikely. Think about the amount of damage a single person does to the environment. It would take a truly insane effort for someone to have a beneficial effect on it (assuming the live in civilisation).
- blisterpeanuts 7y ago
  Don't you think technology is helping? Hybrid and EV cars are becoming common and probably in 10 years, the average vehicle on the city roads will be an EV. Solar energy is coming down in price and residential adoption in the U.S. is booming. The average person today believes in recycling and cutting emissions. Battery technology is advancing. Also worth pointing out that in North America at least, vast reforestation has taken place. In a few years, we will be a lot closer to a zero emissions civilization, though probably we'll never actually get to zero but at least we'll reduce our impact substantially and then it will be a matter of waiting for ecosystems to move back into balance. There's no reason why for example the polar ice caps can't re-freeze, and there's even evidence of some of that happening in places. Don't give up hope.
MarkMc 7y ago
Here's an article with headline, "Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo... And yet it says, "The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming." So an extreme rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees could reduce US GDP by 2.4%? That's about 18 months of average growth. That doesn't seem like a crisis to me - what am I missing?
- conistonwater 7y ago
  I think you're reading that sentence as if that's the only effect on the US. Also assuming the effect is linear in the change in temperature (is it really?).
Bantros 7y ago
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!
novaRom 7y ago
Overpopulation is real. We moved from 4 billions in 1974 to current 7.7 billions in 2019. Projections are more than 11 billions around 2100.
- rocgf 7y ago
  Which is really the problem, isn't it? However, no politician says this publicly because Western economies are built on a gigantic Ponzi scheme where we need more and more people to be born and create wealth for our ever-increasing retirements. Am I simplifying things excessively here?
novaRom 7y ago
Basically all civilizations end like this. There were many before, there might be some in the future. If we'll destroy biology completely we still have a small chance a new type of existence can emerge - silicon based intelligent form, what we call AI right now. It probably can survive without oxygen, even without planet. But it's a big MAYBE yet.
orloffm 7y ago
Realistically, can anything be done without turning off electricity at the whole globe at once? "Going Amish", one might say? It's not just about burning coal or going green, we are also using resources which are not replenishable. Even if all cars become electric and we switch to nuclear power and start eating bugs, we'll keep producing plastic, chemical substances and so on.
nik61 7y ago
I'm no climate change denier, but there is a complexity to the effects which NASA has identified (and recently updated) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... In particular the Sahel, famously arid and increasing in size a few decades ago, is now becoming more fertile again to the extent that people are moving back there.
- rnentjes 7y ago
  So you're saying the climate is changing? But seriously, the article you link to is directly stating rising CO2 levels as one of the causes as CO2 is good for plants.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    The point is that a changing climate doesn't imply a specific policy must be adapted. The overall effect might even be positive.
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      The first half degree Celsius of human induced warming was quite probably a good thing on net. There's really no way that the fifth half degree will be anything but a catastrophe.
jo-wol 7y ago
Tomorrow it will be 416 ppm first time in human history!
nudq 7y ago
I think I've seen cute infographics on what a tiny, tiny fraction of earth history is "human history".
- consp 7y ago
  10-20 mil. years is enough for changes in the atmosphere to happen which is why this is relevant. Yes, it is a tiny fraction but is quite relevant in the sense of our 'recent' geological history.
diafygi 7y ago
I used to work at a fitness tech startup, but then when it didn't work out (heh), I took a step back and wondered what industry I wanted to be a part of. I wondered if a software engineer could help contribute to fighting climate change, so I started asking around. I found a job in solar, then eventually started my own clean energy software company. Every day I wake up with the incredible feeling that I'm getting paid to fight climate change. If feels good, and I'd like to encourage you to consider joining the industry, too. It turns out there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need fuck tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid. For example, the California ISO is using neural networks to formulate the day-ahead markets, and recently started letting aggregated demand response providers (e.g. companies who manage smart thermostats) bid into the market as distributed generators. So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the fight. Also, feel free to reach out to me or read my previous comments on this topic. "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Can you give examples of data science used by companies to fight climate change? I mean how companies used data analytics to fight climate change, as I know academic/governmental research projects analyzing climate change have used data extensively.
  - diafygi 7y ago
    Sure! A good one is battery storage. When you install a battery in a building in order to manage load more effectively, how do you know when you should charge and discharge the battery? There's a ton of complexities going all the way from not hurting the battery by cycling it too much, to tariff complexities for optimizing the maximum dollar impact to the customer. Then throw on top of that new incentive programs that start to pay out for things like demand response, frequency control, and load shifting for the overall grid. The term in the storage space is called "value stacking", and it's a very hard problem that requires a ton of data and calculations. Sounds like a great gig for data scientist!
diafygi 7y ago
> an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative I've noticed on most of the climate change posts on HN that they 1. fall off the front page very quickly (due to systemic flagging?) and 2. every single comment that's pro-fighting-climate-change has a "skeptical" reply that hits all the denier FUD talking points. For example, your comment has a reply saying both sides exaggerate, thus muddying the point you're trying to make. Classic whataboutism talking point. What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in these threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but even in this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points. It is really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping shills.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a "shill" is hardly discussing the topic in good faith. And these topics fall off the front page because they get a lot of replies; Hacker News is designed that way. I think it's meant to have a calming effect.
  - diafygi 7y ago
    Howdy leereeves, I've seen you posts alongside mine in previous climate change threads, always on opposite sides. Would you mind having a conversation offline? I'm interested in learning more about your point of view outside of these HN threads. Feel free to email me at the email in my profile.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in these threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but even in this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points. It is really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping shills. People on HN are rational and thus see through most of the “pro-fighting-climate-change” posts, which address easy non-solutions. To keep the temperature increase to 2C, we have to immediately cut CO2 emissions by 19GT. That takes the world back to 1990. And if you don’t want India and China to be mired in extreme poverty like they were in 1990, you really have to take the developed world to zero. Under other models, we have to go to zero carbon emissions tomorrow world wide. You cannot “fight climate change” while buying vegetables shipped across state lines and coffee shipped from overseas. You can’t go on international vacations and post pictures on Facebook. You can’t live in trendy places like Austin that require year-around heating and cooling. You can’t participate in the mass consumer economy at all—25% of your carbon footprint is non-food stuff you buy. (Just the consumer stuff your average American buys amounts to 5-10x the total carbon output of your average Bangladeshi.) You can’t work in advertising—in a zero carbon output economy the consumerism that feeds advertising companies can’t exist. There is also the major problem of "climate change angles" on things that don't actually help avoid climate change. Take high-speed rail, for example. To offset the carbon realized by building California's HSR, the system would have to have over 10 million riders per year, more than the entire Amtrak northeast corridor: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... (It is ludicrous to expect that a rail link between two enormously car-dependent metro areas, that goes through extremely low-density areas in-between, would somehow have the ridership of the densest corridor in the country, connecting some of the cities with the most well-developed intra-city and commuter rail systems.) Then there is stuff like LEED construction: https://www.imt.org/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-the-embodied-carbon-of-new-and-existing-buildings https://www.imt.org/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-the-embodie.... Companies are patting themselves on the back, tearing down old buildings and putting up new, LEED-certified buildings. Except that it will take 25-75 years to offset the upfront carbon footprint of new construction versus reusing existing construction, for longer than current climate-change timelines allow. Unless you’re espousing these solutions, and present credible ways of achieving them, you’re not “fighting climate change.”
apo 7y ago
>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per million, reaching 415.26 parts per million, according to sensors at the Mauna Loa Observatory, a research outpost of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result - one that's open to question by anyone. Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano. Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally. Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's an obvious question every single person reading the article should have. Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation: > ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level. > ... > Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-... But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is scrubbed. The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.
- stirbot 7y ago
  This clever thought is common enough to have a page on Skeptical Science. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.ht...
  - apo 7y ago
    Unfortunately, that page says nothing about the corrections to the data that are required for the close proximity to active volcanoes. Again, it's a very obvious question that's simply brushed aside by most sources. I'd be interested in finding just one that talks in any meaningful way about the algorithm used to correct the data from Mauna Loa specifically.
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
Rising CO2 and temperatures is definitely a problem, but isn't technology making a difference already? There are millions of hybrid cars on the road just in the U.S., for example, and already over half a million EV's. China and India are poised to manufacture and use millions of EV's and we are about to see a flood of very low price electric vehicles from these countries. An electric truck maker is opening a plant in Ohio. Fracked natural gas, which is the "cleanest" fossil fuel, is replacing "dirty" coal in electric power plants. Residential solar is booming as prices drop and house batteries become a realistic way to store the power. In Massachusetts, for a few extra dollars a month you can now opt to purchase "green" electricity. Research into better batteries, better solar panels, and more efficient hybrid vehicles and EV's is proceeding apace. All of these technologies are bound to reduce greenhouse gas production not just in the developed countries but also in the places where it really counts--the billions of people of China, India, and Africa. People are composting and gardening at record levels in the U.S. Interest in composting and recycling is now widespread. If we accept that we have produced too much CO2 and need to scale back on burning stuff and allow the atmosphere and ecosystem to return to a status quo ante then some legislative efforts to institute and continue tax incentives to spur technology seems like the right thing to do.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > but isn't technology making a difference already? not really. If you look up emissions charts, they just keep going up.
alexandercrohde 7y ago
For those wanting to discuss solutions, and not just problems, how about a wide-ranging carbon tax? Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited). So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price. However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient. So perhaps a rollout schedule of: 2020 - 1% of recapture cost 2021 - 2% of recapture cost 2022 - 4% of recapture cost 2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on) Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty. The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.
- paraschopra 7y ago
  > This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives This is a clue on why just carbon tax won't do. An extra tax would hit the people who're most economically stressed while the top 10% will continue living their lives as is. Any tax on carbon should be accompanied with a negative tax or UBI for the low income earners. Moreover, since 50% of emissions are done by the top 10% income earners [1], there should ideally be a higher income tax which should direct go into funding R&D of carbon capture systems. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality
mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
Good site I came across from a ted talk, lists problems and solutions: drawdown.org
yjhoney 7y ago
This Ted talk gave me hope to reverse climate change and seems plausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s Does anyone know / have experience whether this actually works?
- perfunctory 7y ago
  That was a good talk but that alone will not be enough. No single solution will be enough. We need lots and lots of solutions across all sectors of economy. And while we are waiting for those solutions to materialise we should do our bit and start consuming less.
indigo62018 7y ago
and this is 416th comment... coincidentally
gavanwoolery 7y ago
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is a volcano the best place for an unbiased CO2 observatory? Even if dormant, I assume that CO2 vents out of the volcano naturally? Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical, this is just an honest question.
- calcifer 7y ago
  > Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical You may not be trolling but you are being skeptical. Specifically, the way you worded your question ("unbiased observatory") makes it sound like the scientists who put it there did so not for scientific reasons, but for some... agenda? Personally, since I'm not an expert on environmental sciences, I have no trouble believing the observatory is there for perfectly sound scientific reasons.
  - gavanwoolery 7y ago
    I assume they put the observatory at that site for a reason as well, I just want to learn why. I honestly have no agenda and personally do believe in anthropogenic global warming. :)
    - calcifer 7y ago
      Fair enough, it's probably the "unbiased" that kinda rubbed me the wrong way :)
      - gavanwoolery 7y ago
        I hear you, it is often hard to decipher intentions online - anyhow, I answered my own question using the power of Google: https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements.htm https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measureme...
        calcifer 7y ago
        Nice find! TLDR below: > Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. > But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out.
torpilla 7y ago
Plant life matters called. They said thank you.
agumonkey 7y ago
some study said that 150 trees per living human being would alter the atmosphere a bit let's get ready
polskibus 7y ago
Can anyone recommend a reliable, self calibrating CO2 sensors that could be used with raspberry pi and similar or that could transmit data via BLE or wifi?
- scaphandre 7y ago
  The 'Netatmo' home weather stations record CO2 level. Mine shares over wifi. I get around 400ppm with windows open for a while, or 1200ppm with windows closed. I don't know what the calibration mechanism is, nor the specificity. It's around $100 on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-for-Smartphone/dp/B0095HVAKS https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-for-Smartphon...
spsrich2 7y ago
Oh no! We're all going to die! Help!
nec4b 7y ago
I would really like to understand those who are angry, feel helpless or are depressed because climate is changing. What is the thing makes you feel bad: is it the change itself, the direction of the change or maybe the cause of the change?

500 points by wang42 7y ago

This looks like the famous hockey stick curve

This might be off topic but I just don't know what else to do. I don't understand why we're not in full-on panic mode yet. It makes me scared. Really scared. As in I've never been so scared in my life. We knew about climate change for decades. Scientists keep producing report after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. Yet the global GHG emissions just keep going up. Governments and politicians have failed to act. I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough. While we should keep fighting for systemic change, I begin to believe individual action is paramount and a prerequisite for any broader change to take place. The time for signing petitions is over. It's time to act. There are no low-hanging fruits here. There will be no silver bullet. There will be lots and lots of tweaks across the board. People don't like being told what to do. I get that. But I am not a politician telling you what to do. I am your peer crying for help. Please do something. Please don't say "most people" wan't sacrifice this or that. I am not talking to most people. I am addressing you, the HN crowd. So what an honorable member of the HN community can do - Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train. Don't think about it as not flying for the rest of your life. Rather, can we declare a moratorium on conferences for like three years? Let's hope by then Prometheus will give us carbon-neutral jet fuel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 - Shift your investments from fossil to green. If you can't find enough worthy greens, shift it to anything else. Some say it won't impact your returns http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-peril-of-divesting-from-fossil-fuels/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-mythical-per... Move your deposits and savings to a more sustainable bank. This might be one of the most underappreciated yet simple and powerful tools https://fairfinanceguide.org https://fairfinanceguide.org - Work less. Work part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-workshare-2013-02.pdf http://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-worksh... A firm lets its employees work four days a week while being paid for five. Everyone is happy, lower electricity bills, fewer cars on the road https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workweek-new-zealand.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/asia/four-day-workw... - I noticed that this one is quite controversial but I'll mention it anyway. Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. It's fine to not go fully vegan, but make meat a special treat, something you are looking forward to, not an everyday snack. They say these new vega burgers are not too bad. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climat... Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population to take an active stance to cause a change (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w). I don't know how true it is or if it applies in all circumstances. But I want to believe it's true. That's what makes me tick.

Slimbo 7y ago
You know why. Most of the world has market economies that rely on growth. The measure of growth is GDP and put simply GDP doesn't measure how much you're wasting, just how productive you are. Short term political aims are in conflict with long term environmental stewardship. The current US president only cares about his numbers, not the mess he's leaving behind. We'll be in full panic mode when it negatively impacts GDP, which will of course be too late.
- tty2300 7y ago
  The problem is the feedback cycle is far to long for us to handle. Most learning works by doing something, seeing a bad result and then stop doing the thing. Problem is by the time the bad result comes things will be so far gone there is no hope for fixing it. For a lot of older people alive today they will never see the consequences of their actions so the selfish option is to carry on.
- badestrand 7y ago
  It is not about politics, it is about nobody doing anything. Just look on the streets, millions of cars all burning away litres of gas every day, releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere. Everyone knows it and noone does anything about it. It is not "the elite" who is ignoring the issue, it is literally 99% of the people who don't care enough to even take the bus or bycycle. I am not saying I am better, but is not anonymous "others" or our "GDP-based system", it is 7 billion people who don't care much.
  - Slimbo 7y ago
    Disagree. The reason fuel is so cheap to permit the cars burning gas is because it's priced artificially low. If you were to charge based on replacement value (it's almost priceless given the production time), the cost of fuel would go up massively, productivity would stop and Mr Trump (and all the other world leaders) would no longer be able to boast about their growing numbers. I'm not denying individual responsibility, that's vital too but the big change also has to occur at the top and a market that lives on growth is a problem.

Avalaxy 7y ago

What I don't understand is why this is so controversial. I clicked on a link in the article, leading to this article: https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-development-is-destroying-the-planet-at-an-unprecedented-rate/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/06/new-study-shows-human-deve.... The comment on it is extremely dismissive about climate change. I see this on pretty much every news website nowadays. First of all I don't see how man-made climate change is even controversial with the amount of evidence we have, but furthermore I don't see why we shouldn't transition to renewable energy asap anyway. Even if climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway? Why would it be a bad thing to get rid of air pollution? Why would it be a bad thing to switch to an energy source that doesn't run out in ~20 years simply because it isn't renewable?

k_ 7y ago
I'd say because we're in a fucked-up world of short-term profit. I just can't come up with any other reason for such madness.
saagarjha 7y ago
Comments on news articles tend to be very poor indicators of public views.
- dpwm 7y ago
  And are an easy opportunity for lobby groups to get their message across unedited.
- tty2300 7y ago
  Are you sure you aren't just in a bubble? After talking to more people it seems like the general public really is like this.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I'm increasingly starting to agree. "The genpop can't all possibly think like that" is how you get blindsided by surprising outcomes of elections.

maelito 7y ago

Are methane or black carbon converted to CO2 equivalents and included in that metric ? If not, why aren't they published along with the CO2 curve ?

lm28469 7y ago

Man the chinese are taking the hoax way too far. /s We need a major shift in our ways of producing/consuming and on our quest for progress at all cost. We're heading for major issues, even in the short term. Humanity is committing suicide and taking Life with her. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-reach-one-billion-2050 https://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-migrants-might-re... https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/el...

dana321 7y ago

Must be all the bitcoin mining!

saagarjha 7y ago
That accounts for some portion of it, for sure.
- domoritz 7y ago
  A tiny fraction but it's important to realize what we personally contribute, and not only blame something outside of our control.
  - dana321 7y ago
    Currently stands at using more than double the electricity usage of Ireland. Its not a tiny fraction!
chunkyslink 7y ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Mining is very inefficient
- nudq 7y ago
  > Mining is very inefficient Compared to what?

newintellectual 7y ago

Only about 25,000 years ago (into the last ice age), atmospheric CO2 levels were at 180 ppm. That was the LOWEST LEVEL in the entire 4.7 billion year history of earth. This is something that the ice worshipping fanatics of today will not tell you. At 150 ppm, the enyzyme RuBisCo, existing in all photosynthetic organisms, basically stops functioning. At this point, all photosynthetic life dies off, followed by all other life given the food chain. It would be earth's greatest extinction event. Thank humanity for putting some CO2 back into the atmosphere and averting a global catastrophe. At 415 ppm, it's a small fraction of the highest levels reached in earth's history, at 8000 ppm. https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/ https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentr...

maypeacepreva1l 7y ago

This is scary because of our current political situation. Even when nature is on our side we have mindless headstrong morons heading nuclear states and we seem to be in verge of war. People do not trust science and still believe in afterlife and heaven or hell rather than believing in our planet and its current problems. Amount of CO2 is definitely going to trigger extreme climate change and that is going to destabilize our geopolitics, and we simply are not ready for that change. We should start making life style changes for the sake of millions of species that are getting extinct and also to start a culture of responsible citizen of earth.

chunkyslink 7y ago

I'm fairly sure that meat production and farming for human consumption is the best way to have a quick global impact on climate change, slowing deforestation and slowing species extinction. Fossil fuels are the wrong target for a quick win (which we need). Caveat: I eat meat once a week now.

steve_taylor 7y ago
You’re talking about changing most of the world’s diet. Good luck with that.
- chunkyslink 7y ago
  There are no 'diets' on a dead planet. Good luck with choosing your diet then.
  - eMSF 7y ago
    Few care to have a discussion with hyperbolics.
- rocgf 7y ago
  I really don't get this type of defeatist thinking, and I see this in basically every climate discussion. It's pretty simple - it either happens (along with renewables etc.) or we face the consequences. It either happens willingly or forcefully. And as a matter of fact, veganism/flexitarianism are on the rise, so it is happening. Some people just get it and act.
- jsnider3 7y ago
  Beyond Meat seems to be doing well.
piokoch 7y ago
I've just look at some stats (a few first google results, no idea if they are correct) and it seems that in developed countries meat production has about 3% impact on CO2 the whole emission. It is also not clear how this number was calculated, as "deforestation" is mentioned as a factor that increases CO2 emission, I don't know how much it contributes to those 3% - maybe it would be enough to stop deforestation. The most harmful is beef production, pork or chickens seems to be much less important. So yes, maybe beef consumption will help, but only very little.

VMG 7y ago

This could have been avoided by using Nuclear power.

kmlx 7y ago
yes, but the anti-nuclear lobby as well as some recent disasters make this a non-starter in a lot of nations. unfortunately.
- swarnie_ 7y ago
  You can see their point though right? We can use Nuclear power but have to except every 30 years or so an accident will happen causing a massive exclusion zone and clean up op. Doesn't sound like a fair price to pay to me (and a lot of others).
  - kmlx 7y ago
    we just continue burning coal then.
    - darkcha0s 7y ago
      Because that's the only alternative to Nuclear energy...
      - kmlx 7y ago
        of course not. there's also natural gas and oil. check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption coal (30%) gas (24%) oil (33%) hydro (7%) nuclear (4%) other renewables (2%)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - VMG 7y ago
    Experts have studied this and came to the opposite conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

KingMachiavelli 7y ago

It's been pretty well established and even discussed on HN that higher CO2 levels impairs some facets of human cognition. I quick glance at some of the research suggests that this impairment can begin around ~700ppm. Having higher and still increasing atmospheric CO2 levels means indoor concentrations will make diffusion between indoor and the outdoor even slower. On the climate related side, the graph of CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years is very consistent, around 260ppm, up till recently. We should have just as concerned (or were) when it crossed 300ppm, 400ppm, etc. On a more political note, while some/most climate change deniers at this point are likely ignoring evidence - having graphs with non-zero axis can be called out as a bit misleading which makes the increase relatively larger than it actually is; visually it's at ~230% of it's normal level when it's actually 'only' 157% compared to baseline. Graph manipulation has been used to in the past to spread false information about global warming/climate change so I think it's especially important to make everything above board. It only takes a few people spreading the graph around with the axis cropped out and then everyone will cry 'fake news'.

assblaster 7y ago
Wouldn't increased production of bicarbonate in response to high CO2 offset and reverse any change in cognition?
- phonypc 7y ago
  Pretty much my reading of it. Simply getting up and walking around would put far more CO2 into your blood than such a small change in atmospheric concentration. I don't really understand the level of credulity here on associations between CO2 and mental impairment.

Proven 7y ago

Looking at that chart if some of you have alive for 100,000 years, this year you'd be celebrating "100,000 years of panic". Apart from few exceptions, CO2 ppm has been going up forever. Why 415 ppm is worse (and by how much) than 404 or 390, you can't explain. In the 90s we had until 2020 to turn things around, that prediction was an abysmal failure so now it's new scenarios and scares). I am most astonished that some people actually pay attention to this ludicrous nonsense. Most people are one or two paychecks away from personal extinction event and you're trying to persuade them they should pay more for "green" energy or support imposing limits on wealth generation and consumption. You can't even make the science work but that's the least of your worries. 10-20 years ago when (most) middle class westerners were idle and looked for ways to kill time, this would have worked. Now they are fighting against their own extinction. Simulate that. Regardless of my personal financial situation or average temperatures, I will never support any government program that purports to mitigate it. Period.

dana321 7y ago

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels...

steve_taylor 7y ago

The Bible gives man dominion over the Earth. Presumably, that’s a license to do whatever we want with it without consequence. The Bible predicts an apocolypse driven by supernatural forces, not one of man’s making. There’s no room for both, therefore the one in the Bible is true and the one predicted by heathens is false. This is why Christians, specifically, tend to dismiss man-made global warming. Also, there’s a lot of fear out there that renewable energy means less jobs, especially across the entire coal mining supply chain. There’s a fear that transitioning to a renewable energy economy means a transition from dumb jobs to smart jobs.

lumberjack 7y ago
Just want to point out that "Christians" in this context refers to some sects of Christianity in America and these beliefs are not the norm amongst Christians worldwide. Actually I hazard, not even the norm amongst Christians in the US.
- steve_taylor 7y ago
  I wouldn’t dismiss conservative, Bible-believing Christians as merely a sect. Also, I shouldn’t single out Christianity. I just happen to know it well because it was a big part of my childhood. A lot of other religions also have a general disregard for science.
  - orbifold 7y ago
    They are by and large not Lutheran or Catholic Christians though, but belong to one sect or another.
    - lenticular 7y ago
      They're usually evangelicals. Evangelicals outnumber Catholics in the US, and also outnumber all mainline Protestent denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, etc) combined. They're fast gaining ground in Latin America as well. Not all evangelicals are so adamantly anti-reason, but I'd be very confident in saying most are. Evangelical Christianity in the US is lazy and cruel. The Bible is used to justify their worst impulses, while they ignore all the parts about loving your enemies, etc. It's not a demanding religion. It's easy. Their god doesn't care about charity or peace that take effort and compassion, but only that you are on His team.

ux-app 7y ago

I'm really depressed about climate change. There is no way to fix this from an individual point of view. Society is impossibly reliant on fossil fuels. Individuals going vegan, reducing consumption etc will have negligible effect. The only possible solution to all this is a technological solution that requires zero sacrifice from individuals. Technology got us into this mess, If we don't find a technological solution to this issue then all is lost. A true tragedy of the commons.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Dude, political action is possible, you just have to care enough to take part of it. Please, try to at least be honest enough to openly admit you don't care about climate change out of convenience for yourself.
- ux-app 7y ago
  > Please, try to at least be honest enough to openly admit you don't care about climate change out of convenience for yourself. yes, it's true, I can't see myself going back to a pre-industrial quality of life for the sake of climate change, and be honest, neither can you. The resources used to produce the computer you typed your comment on probably equates to 50 years of resource consumption of someone from 1500AD. Not to mention your phone, car, earphones, public transport, roads, electricity, air conditioning, heating, Netflix, Youtube, datacenters, air travel, grocery shopping, insane supply chain that made your $50 Levis possible etc. etc. Add in billions of people who are aspiring to your level of affluence + billions more who will be born who will fight tooth and nail to experience the luxury of Netlix and chill and you see we are fucked. There is no way out of this and no amount of tree hugging will make things better. Joe average wants his SUV, cheap jeans and Happy Meal. Fuck you if you get in his way. It's a whirlpool of catastrophe and you can't get out of it even if you tried. Technology will save us or the species is finished. >political action is possible Your "Save the Whales" badge is part of the problem (literally, plastic + metal pin produced in a third world country). Your political banners and TV adverts are part of the problem. All by products of fossil fuels.
  - 7y ago

m12k 7y ago

There is a relatively small group of companies/people who know better, but would lose billions if this problem is addressed, they have an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative, and finally you have a huge undereducated part of the population who are already skeptical of 'elitist' scientists even before the manipulation begins. This problem also seems to be more extreme in the US compared to other western countries due to e.g. the prevalence of Fox News and decades of creationism leading the anti-science crusade. All in all, you can't really count on having a shared definition of 'reality' any more, as this has now been politisized.

leereeves 7y ago
There's a great deal of spin coming from the people warning about climate change too. End of the world stuff. Here's something to consider: during the Early Eocene period (roughly 50 million years ago) temperatures were 9C-14C higher than now and CO2 levels were 1000-2000 parts per million [1]. And yet according to science, Earth was covered in forests from pole to pole, mammals flourished, and the oceans were "teeming with fish and other sea life". [2] That's something you won't hear much about, because it doesn't fit the agenda. 1: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/early-eocene-period 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
- akie 7y ago
  What about all the people living in coastal areas or close to major rivers? That’s like 50% of the population, in addition to much of our shared history (buildings). It will all be under water and cause large migrations, unsettling much of society. Is that not worth fighting for?
  - tim333 7y ago
    IPCC are projecting 26cm-98cm rise by 2100. So it's more tell the grandkids to build inland a bit.
  - cagenut 7y ago

mehrdadn 7y ago

Wondering what you can do? Especially for liberals? My idea of where to start: shame your company into phasing out business trips. I know we all like to travel but it needs to stop being seen as a work perk and start being seen as a liability. We put internet cables across the oceans and continents for a reason -- so we travel less, not more. Find a way to reward those who refuse to go -- maybe have a fun local hangout or whatever. Get your supervisor chain to stop making someone fly every month/week/whatever. Because every cross-continental/trans-atlantic flight (very roughly) emits around 20% [1] and 100% [2] of your entire year's worth of driving. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollution-global-warming.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/climate/airplane-pollutio... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/car...

torgian 7y ago

Ive almost lost hope at this point; while I will continue to support green movements and live closer to green, I don’t hold any faith that things will change. If they do, great. Otherwise, prepare your children for a world where their children may be less intelligent due to higher concentrations of Co2. Water will be expensive. People will wear masks everywhere and only rich people can afford houses with completely pure air. I truly hope it doesn’t come to this, but my fear is that when pollution gets to a certain point, those in charge will basically say “fuck it” and let things run their course.

fifnir 7y ago
>prepare your children If you're stressed about the environment you shouldn't be having children
- neuronic 7y ago
  Yes, but maybe his children will contribute in massively positive ways that end up negating their negative climate impact. Every child is also a chance.
  - fifnir 7y ago
    And maybe I'll win the lottery and escape poverty, but playing it is irresponsible while I'm poor
  - IshKebab 7y ago
    Maybe but it's extremely unlikely. Think about the amount of damage a single person does to the environment. It would take a truly insane effort for someone to have a beneficial effect on it (assuming the live in civilisation).
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
Don't you think technology is helping? Hybrid and EV cars are becoming common and probably in 10 years, the average vehicle on the city roads will be an EV. Solar energy is coming down in price and residential adoption in the U.S. is booming. The average person today believes in recycling and cutting emissions. Battery technology is advancing. Also worth pointing out that in North America at least, vast reforestation has taken place. In a few years, we will be a lot closer to a zero emissions civilization, though probably we'll never actually get to zero but at least we'll reduce our impact substantially and then it will be a matter of waiting for ecosystems to move back into balance. There's no reason why for example the polar ice caps can't re-freeze, and there's even evidence of some of that happening in places. Don't give up hope.

MarkMc 7y ago

Here's an article with headline, "Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-repo... And yet it says, "The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warming." So an extreme rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees could reduce US GDP by 2.4%? That's about 18 months of average growth. That doesn't seem like a crisis to me - what am I missing?

conistonwater 7y ago
I think you're reading that sentence as if that's the only effect on the US. Also assuming the effect is linear in the change in temperature (is it really?).

Bantros 7y ago

THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!

novaRom 7y ago

Overpopulation is real. We moved from 4 billions in 1974 to current 7.7 billions in 2019. Projections are more than 11 billions around 2100.

rocgf 7y ago
Which is really the problem, isn't it? However, no politician says this publicly because Western economies are built on a gigantic Ponzi scheme where we need more and more people to be born and create wealth for our ever-increasing retirements. Am I simplifying things excessively here?

novaRom 7y ago

Basically all civilizations end like this. There were many before, there might be some in the future. If we'll destroy biology completely we still have a small chance a new type of existence can emerge - silicon based intelligent form, what we call AI right now. It probably can survive without oxygen, even without planet. But it's a big MAYBE yet.

orloffm 7y ago

Realistically, can anything be done without turning off electricity at the whole globe at once? "Going Amish", one might say? It's not just about burning coal or going green, we are also using resources which are not replenishable. Even if all cars become electric and we switch to nuclear power and start eating bugs, we'll keep producing plastic, chemical substances and so on.

nik61 7y ago

I'm no climate change denier, but there is a complexity to the effects which NASA has identified (and recently updated) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... In particular the Sahel, famously arid and increasing in size a few decades ago, is now becoming more fertile again to the extent that people are moving back there.

rnentjes 7y ago
So you're saying the climate is changing? But seriously, the article you link to is directly stating rising CO2 levels as one of the causes as CO2 is good for plants.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  The point is that a changing climate doesn't imply a specific policy must be adapted. The overall effect might even be positive.
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    The first half degree Celsius of human induced warming was quite probably a good thing on net. There's really no way that the fifth half degree will be anything but a catastrophe.

jo-wol 7y ago

Tomorrow it will be 416 ppm first time in human history!

nudq 7y ago

I think I've seen cute infographics on what a tiny, tiny fraction of earth history is "human history".

consp 7y ago
10-20 mil. years is enough for changes in the atmosphere to happen which is why this is relevant. Yes, it is a tiny fraction but is quite relevant in the sense of our 'recent' geological history.

diafygi 7y ago

I used to work at a fitness tech startup, but then when it didn't work out (heh), I took a step back and wondered what industry I wanted to be a part of. I wondered if a software engineer could help contribute to fighting climate change, so I started asking around. I found a job in solar, then eventually started my own clean energy software company. Every day I wake up with the incredible feeling that I'm getting paid to fight climate change. If feels good, and I'd like to encourage you to consider joining the industry, too. It turns out there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need fuck tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid. For example, the California ISO is using neural networks to formulate the day-ahead markets, and recently started letting aggregated demand response providers (e.g. companies who manage smart thermostats) bid into the market as distributed generators. So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the fight. Also, feel free to reach out to me or read my previous comments on this topic. "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"

WhompingWindows 7y ago
Can you give examples of data science used by companies to fight climate change? I mean how companies used data analytics to fight climate change, as I know academic/governmental research projects analyzing climate change have used data extensively.
- diafygi 7y ago
  Sure! A good one is battery storage. When you install a battery in a building in order to manage load more effectively, how do you know when you should charge and discharge the battery? There's a ton of complexities going all the way from not hurting the battery by cycling it too much, to tariff complexities for optimizing the maximum dollar impact to the customer. Then throw on top of that new incentive programs that start to pay out for things like demand response, frequency control, and load shifting for the overall grid. The term in the storage space is called "value stacking", and it's a very hard problem that requires a ton of data and calculations. Sounds like a great gig for data scientist!

diafygi 7y ago

> an army of lobbyists and media companies to push the hoax/not-our-problem-narrative I've noticed on most of the climate change posts on HN that they 1. fall off the front page very quickly (due to systemic flagging?) and 2. every single comment that's pro-fighting-climate-change has a "skeptical" reply that hits all the denier FUD talking points. For example, your comment has a reply saying both sides exaggerate, thus muddying the point you're trying to make. Classic whataboutism talking point. What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in these threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but even in this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points. It is really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping shills.

leereeves 7y ago
Accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a "shill" is hardly discussing the topic in good faith. And these topics fall off the front page because they get a lot of replies; Hacker News is designed that way. I think it's meant to have a calming effect.
- diafygi 7y ago
  Howdy leereeves, I've seen you posts alongside mine in previous climate change threads, always on opposite sides. Would you mind having a conversation offline? I'm interested in learning more about your point of view outside of these HN threads. Feel free to email me at the email in my profile.
rayiner 7y ago
> What I don't understand is if HN mods see this going on and can tell if the person is a shill or an actual climate denier. Statistically, replies in these threads should skew heavily towards pro-fighting-climate-change, but even in this post, it seems like every other reply is denier talking points. It is really starting to make me think that HN doesn't care about stopping shills. People on HN are rational and thus see through most of the “pro-fighting-climate-change” posts, which address easy non-solutions. To keep the temperature increase to 2C, we have to immediately cut CO2 emissions by 19GT. That takes the world back to 1990. And if you don’t want India and China to be mired in extreme poverty like they were in 1990, you really have to take the developed world to zero. Under other models, we have to go to zero carbon emissions tomorrow world wide. You cannot “fight climate change” while buying vegetables shipped across state lines and coffee shipped from overseas. You can’t go on international vacations and post pictures on Facebook. You can’t live in trendy places like Austin that require year-around heating and cooling. You can’t participate in the mass consumer economy at all—25% of your carbon footprint is non-food stuff you buy. (Just the consumer stuff your average American buys amounts to 5-10x the total carbon output of your average Bangladeshi.) You can’t work in advertising—in a zero carbon output economy the consumerism that feeds advertising companies can’t exist. There is also the major problem of "climate change angles" on things that don't actually help avoid climate change. Take high-speed rail, for example. To offset the carbon realized by building California's HSR, the system would have to have over 10 million riders per year, more than the entire Amtrak northeast corridor: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... (It is ludicrous to expect that a rail link between two enormously car-dependent metro areas, that goes through extremely low-density areas in-between, would somehow have the ridership of the densest corridor in the country, connecting some of the cities with the most well-developed intra-city and commuter rail systems.) Then there is stuff like LEED construction: https://www.imt.org/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-the-embodied-carbon-of-new-and-existing-buildings https://www.imt.org/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-the-embodie.... Companies are patting themselves on the back, tearing down old buildings and putting up new, LEED-certified buildings. Except that it will take 25-75 years to offset the upfront carbon footprint of new construction versus reusing existing construction, for longer than current climate-change timelines allow. Unless you’re espousing these solutions, and present credible ways of achieving them, you’re not “fighting climate change.”

apo 7y ago

>For the first time in human history — not recorded history, but since humans have existed on Earth — carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has topped 415 parts per million, reaching 415.26 parts per million, according to sensors at the Mauna Loa Observatory, a research outpost of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. I find the tone of these articles very counterproductive. The article hyperventilates over the number, but fails to treat it as a scientific result - one that's open to question by anyone. Case in point: like most articles on this topic this one totally ignores the fact that the Mauna Loa station lies just 4 miles from an active volcano. Active volcanos spew CO2 into the atmosphere naturally. Given these simple facts, how can this observatory's data be trusted? That's an obvious question every single person reading the article should have. Nevertheless, you have to dig for the answer. Here's an explanation: > ... The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level. > ... > Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-... But even this article is vague about how interference from volcanoes is scrubbed. The politicization of the issue of human-induced climate change has wrecked our ability to discuss this as the scientific phenomenon that it s. This leads to the very antithesis of science: facts that can never be questioned.

stirbot 7y ago
This clever thought is common enough to have a page on Skeptical Science. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm https://skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.ht...
- apo 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that page says nothing about the corrections to the data that are required for the close proximity to active volcanoes. Again, it's a very obvious question that's simply brushed aside by most sources. I'd be interested in finding just one that talks in any meaningful way about the algorithm used to correct the data from Mauna Loa specifically.

blisterpeanuts 7y ago

Rising CO2 and temperatures is definitely a problem, but isn't technology making a difference already? There are millions of hybrid cars on the road just in the U.S., for example, and already over half a million EV's. China and India are poised to manufacture and use millions of EV's and we are about to see a flood of very low price electric vehicles from these countries. An electric truck maker is opening a plant in Ohio. Fracked natural gas, which is the "cleanest" fossil fuel, is replacing "dirty" coal in electric power plants. Residential solar is booming as prices drop and house batteries become a realistic way to store the power. In Massachusetts, for a few extra dollars a month you can now opt to purchase "green" electricity. Research into better batteries, better solar panels, and more efficient hybrid vehicles and EV's is proceeding apace. All of these technologies are bound to reduce greenhouse gas production not just in the developed countries but also in the places where it really counts--the billions of people of China, India, and Africa. People are composting and gardening at record levels in the U.S. Interest in composting and recycling is now widespread. If we accept that we have produced too much CO2 and need to scale back on burning stuff and allow the atmosphere and ecosystem to return to a status quo ante then some legislative efforts to institute and continue tax incentives to spur technology seems like the right thing to do.

perfunctory 7y ago
> but isn't technology making a difference already? not really. If you look up emissions charts, they just keep going up.

alexandercrohde 7y ago

For those wanting to discuss solutions, and not just problems, how about a wide-ranging carbon tax? Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited). So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price. However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient. So perhaps a rollout schedule of: 2020 - 1% of recapture cost 2021 - 2% of recapture cost 2022 - 4% of recapture cost 2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on) Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty. The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.

paraschopra 7y ago
> This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives This is a clue on why just carbon tax won't do. An extra tax would hit the people who're most economically stressed while the top 10% will continue living their lives as is. Any tax on carbon should be accompanied with a negative tax or UBI for the low income earners. Moreover, since 50% of emissions are done by the top 10% income earners [1], there should ideally be a higher income tax which should direct go into funding R&D of carbon capture systems. [1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality

mrhappyunhappy 7y ago

Good site I came across from a ted talk, lists problems and solutions: drawdown.org

yjhoney 7y ago

This Ted talk gave me hope to reverse climate change and seems plausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=163s Does anyone know / have experience whether this actually works?

perfunctory 7y ago
That was a good talk but that alone will not be enough. No single solution will be enough. We need lots and lots of solutions across all sectors of economy. And while we are waiting for those solutions to materialise we should do our bit and start consuming less.

indigo62018 7y ago

and this is 416th comment... coincidentally

gavanwoolery 7y ago

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but is a volcano the best place for an unbiased CO2 observatory? Even if dormant, I assume that CO2 vents out of the volcano naturally? Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical, this is just an honest question.

calcifer 7y ago
> Please note I am not trolling or trying to be skeptical You may not be trolling but you are being skeptical. Specifically, the way you worded your question ("unbiased observatory") makes it sound like the scientists who put it there did so not for scientific reasons, but for some... agenda? Personally, since I'm not an expert on environmental sciences, I have no trouble believing the observatory is there for perfectly sound scientific reasons.
- gavanwoolery 7y ago
  I assume they put the observatory at that site for a reason as well, I just want to learn why. I honestly have no agenda and personally do believe in anthropogenic global warming. :)
  - calcifer 7y ago
    Fair enough, it's probably the "unbiased" that kinda rubbed me the wrong way :)
    - gavanwoolery 7y ago
      I hear you, it is often hard to decipher intentions online - anyhow, I answered my own question using the power of Google: https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements.htm https://skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measureme...
      - calcifer 7y ago
        Nice find! TLDR below: > Why Mauna Loa? Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. > But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out.

torpilla 7y ago

Plant life matters called. They said thank you.

agumonkey 7y ago

some study said that 150 trees per living human being would alter the atmosphere a bit let's get ready

polskibus 7y ago

Can anyone recommend a reliable, self calibrating CO2 sensors that could be used with raspberry pi and similar or that could transmit data via BLE or wifi?

scaphandre 7y ago
The 'Netatmo' home weather stations record CO2 level. Mine shares over wifi. I get around 400ppm with windows open for a while, or 1200ppm with windows closed. I don't know what the calibration mechanism is, nor the specificity. It's around $100 on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-for-Smartphone/dp/B0095HVAKS https://www.amazon.com/Netatmo-Weather-Station-for-Smartphon...

spsrich2 7y ago

Oh no! We're all going to die! Help!

nec4b 7y ago

I would really like to understand those who are angry, feel helpless or are depressed because climate is changing. What is the thing makes you feel bad: is it the change itself, the direction of the change or maybe the cause of the change?