6 ms·
The Arctic may have crossed key threshold in a long-dreaded climate feedback
- aazaa 7y agoBogus Norton security alert. I'm outta there.
- abathur 7y agoDitto.
- ForHackernews 7y agoAlso on WaPo, but paywalled https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may-have-crossed-key-threshold-emitting-billions-tons-carbon-into-air-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may...
- cardamomo 7y agoOriginal source: https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019 https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019
- bamboozled 7y agoWil anything be done about it? Does any “world leaders” really care ? We have all the technology available to solve this issue, will we be given the political support and permissions to use it ?
- mrlala 7y agoI'm no scientist but it seems to me that bullying a teenager on twitter will fix this right up.
- bamboozled 7y agoYes, it’s a horrendously pathetic situation. If anything makes me hopeful, it’s improved technology driving down the price of renewables. And carbon sequestration tech which is actually deployed, see Climeworks. It’s certainly not Ronald McDonald in the Whitehouse.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here either.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here.
- john_moscow 7y agoIt is being gradually addressed. Battery technology, biofuels, renewables, electric vehicles, etc. have greatly advanced over the past decade and are continuing to improve. Also when the climate effects become more observable by an average person, the public interest in those areas will rise and we will likely see faster progress.
- ascii_only 7y ago100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. Projects that you have listed are important but more likely only help individuals to feel that something is being fixed instead of any real impact.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago"100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions" is referring to the fossil fuel energy companies. They're responsible for it in the sense that they pulled the carbon out of the ground. That doesn't mean that if you buy an electric car or replace your oil furnace with electric heat pumps there is no difference being made. They sold it but somebody bought it.
- ascii_only 7y agoLets do the math. We will assume that 100% individuals switched to electric cars and heat. Commercial and Residential Sector Emissions for US - 12% All Transportation for US - 29% (It includes rail and aircraft. Only 60% of it is light duty vehicle and I couldnt find what percentage of it is commercial transport) So we have 12%+ 29%0,6 = 32%. It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels. 32% (0.21) = 7% So even if all individuals will stop using fossil fuels for heat and will use electric cars for transportation. We will have less than 10% of reduction.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago> It is big number but now we have to produce same amount of energy in electricity. 79% of all electricity generation was fossil fuels. Where are you getting that number? It's 63.6% in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Moreover, most of the fossil fuel generation is natural gas, which emits less carbon per unit energy than gasoline and large scale generation is significantly more thermodynamically efficient than small gasoline engines. And heat pumps are significantly more thermodynamically efficient than oil furnaces. Meanwhile power generation from non-carbon sources is growing at a fast pace while coal is dying out, so that number will only improve over the lifetime of the vehicle/heat pumps, and if you want to get ahead of the curve you can install some solar panels on your roof.
- perfunctory 7y ago> Wil anything be done about it? Not if you and I don't demand it. And demanding takes more then simply voting.
- ForHackernews 7y agohttps://rebellion.earth/ https://rebellion.earth/ https://www.sunrisemovement.org/ https://www.sunrisemovement.org/
- lukifer 7y agoIf pitched properly (as a relatively conservative, "small government" alternative to the Green New Deal), I think a Carbon Dividend could be very popular, not least because it would be net-cash-positive for most working folks. It may not move the needle as fast as we want (need?), but if a price is set on carbon, behaviors will start to change, both from consumers and industry. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
- makerofspoons 7y agoPlease note that IPCC projections do not include carbon from permafrost in their projections: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/02/the-permafrost-bomb-is-ticking/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/02/the-permafros... As a result, the carbon budget for keeping warming under two degrees over postindustrial (widely thought to be catastrophic but survivable) has shrunk. Dr. Peter Carter, one of the IPCC's reviewers, explains how we are likely to miss 1.5 and 2 degree targets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s
- ForHackernews 7y agoMy impression (as a nonscientist who sometimes works with climate scientists) is that very few experts believe we have a realistic chance of holding to 2 degrees. Personally, I think the situation is likely much worse than reported in the mainstream media. There's a fear of scaring people too much, or making them give up in despair, so we keep hearing about how we "could" meet these increasingly farcical reduction targets, even as we're blowing past them.
- jlmorton 7y agoI watched the entire interview with Dr. Peter Carter. At about 19:50 in the interview, he talks about a "Massive! Massive increase in methane." He talks about an incredible eruption of methane, almost in apocalyptic terms, he says he knows of no other source it could be other than methane hydrates, and he is shocked that it hasn't received more media attention. He then kind of vacillates a bit when asked to quantify it. He talks about historic methane concentrations from ice core samples and then compares that to current methane concentrations in Barrow, AK, the site of the methane eruption. This was intriguing to me, so I tried to find the original report he's talking about. What it shows is absolutely nothing like he represents. Indeed, there has been large and rapid increase in methane concentrations in Barrow, Alaska over the past few years. But it's a change of about 5-10% [1]. And there were similar-scale eruptions in years past, such as in 2003. The change is certainly more rapid than the trend. It's probably noteworthy. Clearly something is happening in that area. But this sort of silly exaggeration is one of the reasons why so many dismiss climate science. If you want people to believe you, don't exaggerate the science. [1] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-methane-levels-reach-new-heights-data-shows/ https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/09/arctic-met...
- thebokehwokeh2 7y agoAssuming now that we are past the point of no return and the world has gone mad voting in people who will do the opposite of what is necessary, what is left to do? Do we all simply wait for the inevitable like frogs in a slowly boiling pot? I guess I could practice survival skills but I'd rather die than live in what I expect will be absolute hell come 20 - 30 years.
- perfunctory 7y ago> what is left to do? what people always do when they are dissatisfied with the government. organise with like minded people and rebel.
- Udik 7y agoRebel against the majority? Because the government doesn't act because the majority doesn't want it to, despite vague propositions. Want to tax your own fuel and heating? Want to stop flying? Want to put millions out of business in your country because the cost of energy and materials went through the roof? This is what we're talking about. Of course it's very satisfying to not want these things and spend the time blaming politicians for their inaction.
- perfunctory 7y agoIt may not seem like it, but poll after poll shows that the majority is concerned about climate change and supports government actions to tackle it. Worldwide. Just a few examples [0][1]. Also, you don't need to wait for the majority to rebel [2] [0] https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-h... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w
- Udik 7y agoAs I said, the majority "is concerned", but at the same time doesn't really want to take actions. Because being concerned is free, taking initiatives can be very, very expensive. Just look at what happened in France when the government decided to increase taxes on fuels.
- cryptonector 7y agoSpoiler: it's not about polar bears. Their numbers are through the roof.
- pacerwpg 7y agoYes, thanks to conservation efforts.
- agumonkey 7y agoClimate changes news are chokeful of "may" but one thing is for sure is the lack of actual human response to fix anything.
- core-questions 7y agoWhat am I supposed to go and do? Re-freeze Siberia?
- cdumler 7y agoWhatever you _can_ do. Consider your footprint and ask yourself what can you reduce in fuel, energy and water usage. An immediate contributor is eating meat, which is crazy energy intensive.
- reedx8 7y agoVeganism has no immediate effect - it takes a couple 1000 other people to do likewise for it to cause a change. It’s like voting - 1 persons vote changes nothing until several others do. If you want to make an immediate, large impact, without having to rely on other people’s actions, start taking public transportation everyday.
- geddy 7y agoIf you're really asking, the simplest way for all of us to help is to stop consuming meat, eggs, and dairy, for one.
- core-questions 7y agoAnd then what, wither away into a vegan? I'd honestly rather it get warmer.
- loopz 7y agoLacto-ovo vegetarism is viable