5 ms·

As pointed above, there is also human survival tail risk to stopping global warming. How are you so certain to know which tail risk is larger, or likelier?

BlueTemplar 5y ago
Humans have already lived through several glaciations. But we weren't even around yet when the current ice age started 4M years ago.
lkrubner 5y ago
I don't think you read what I wrote. I never mentioned global warming. If we continue at current rates of fossil fuel use for another 200 years, the acidification of the ocean will start to endanger phytoplankton, which makes much of the oxygen we breathe. The loss of phytoplankton drove the most serious mass extinction in the Earth's history: https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction/ https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-... The article that started this thread on Hacker News suggested that the death rate goes up 10% in the winter, which gives some sense of what the tail risk is from cold weather. By contrast, the tail risk from the acidification of the oceans is something like the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. You ask "How are you so certain to know which tail risk is larger, or likelier?" We can be certain because one risk is many orders of magnitude worse than the other.
- georgewsinger 5y ago
  I don't think you read what I wrote. The tail risk I was speaking of was not a winter death rate increasing by 10%, but the risk of us receding into a deeper ice age over the next several centuries. The extinction event you're referring to was hypothesized by these researchers to have come from volcanic erruptions:[1] > During the eruptions, huge amounts of carbon dioxide and molten rock burst through the Earth's crust, burning through coal and limestone, and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That made oceans and rainwater more acidic, and dissolved more calcium from rocks into the ocean. So far, so analogous. But does it seem like you might be exaggerating a tad by comparing human fossil fuel usage to this level of carbon release? > Payne calculated that the eruptions, which lasted upward of a million years, released 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons) of carbon in the atmosphere. By comparison, scientists estimate we would release an estimated 5,000 gigatons of carbon if we used up all the fossil fuels in the Earth. AFAIK, we aren't even at 50% usage over the past 150 years. We can also check this theory against long-term carbon PPM charts, which show at various points in earth's history significantly more carbon concentration then either now or even 250 million years ago.[2] In any event, the researcher admits himself that the tail risk is not directly comparable to the Permian/Triassic mass extinction (though it's still an important consideration): > Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian Traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate. "We won't necessarily end up with a world that looks as bad as it did after the end-Permian extinction, but that event highlights the fact that things can go very, very wrong," Payne said. In any event, I think you have a point (in fact I think you've made the best point of all of the responses), but you've exaggerated it to make it as if it's the dominant risk factor in the net calculation as to whether global warming is long-term harmful or beneficial. I don't think this is so clear. Acting as if our current levels of fossil fuel usage is going to lead to a mass extinction comparable to the end of the Permian/Triassic era comes off as alarmist and motivated. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-extinction-042710.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-e... [2] The way to extend this conversation productively would be to estimate the rate at which these volcanic eruptions were dumping CO2 in the air and compare it to the rate at which we are.
  - lkrubner 5y ago
    I think you might be the type who regards themselves as very intelligent, but who then undermines that intelligence by arguing in circles. I could pick apart what you wrote, but I think you could also pick apart what you wrote, if you were motivated to do so. You simply aren't motivated to do so, which is interesting in its own way. To take one example: "AFAIK, we aren't even at 50% usage over the past 150 years" Yes, but the rate keeps increasing, yes? 50% of what's been used has been used since 1990. That's 25% of the total in 30 years. But I suspect you knew this, so it is curious you chose to ignore this.
    - georgewsinger 5y ago
      lkrubner-- I propose we deescalate this conversation. I just checked out some of your other writings (demodexio), and it looks pretty interesting (the Soviet Economy series in particular). Still amazed at the talent and perspectives HN attracts. I wish you and your projects the best.
      - lkrubner 5y ago
        Thank you for your comments regarding the material about the Soviet Union.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

Humans have already lived through several glaciations. But we weren't even around yet when the current ice age started 4M years ago.

lkrubner 5y ago

I don't think you read what I wrote. I never mentioned global warming. If we continue at current rates of fossil fuel use for another 200 years, the acidification of the ocean will start to endanger phytoplankton, which makes much of the oxygen we breathe. The loss of phytoplankton drove the most serious mass extinction in the Earth's history: https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction/ https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-... The article that started this thread on Hacker News suggested that the death rate goes up 10% in the winter, which gives some sense of what the tail risk is from cold weather. By contrast, the tail risk from the acidification of the oceans is something like the Permian/Triassic mass extinction. You ask "How are you so certain to know which tail risk is larger, or likelier?" We can be certain because one risk is many orders of magnitude worse than the other.

georgewsinger 5y ago
I don't think you read what I wrote. The tail risk I was speaking of was not a winter death rate increasing by 10%, but the risk of us receding into a deeper ice age over the next several centuries. The extinction event you're referring to was hypothesized by these researchers to have come from volcanic erruptions:[1] > During the eruptions, huge amounts of carbon dioxide and molten rock burst through the Earth's crust, burning through coal and limestone, and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That made oceans and rainwater more acidic, and dissolved more calcium from rocks into the ocean. So far, so analogous. But does it seem like you might be exaggerating a tad by comparing human fossil fuel usage to this level of carbon release? > Payne calculated that the eruptions, which lasted upward of a million years, released 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons) of carbon in the atmosphere. By comparison, scientists estimate we would release an estimated 5,000 gigatons of carbon if we used up all the fossil fuels in the Earth. AFAIK, we aren't even at 50% usage over the past 150 years. We can also check this theory against long-term carbon PPM charts, which show at various points in earth's history significantly more carbon concentration then either now or even 250 million years ago.[2] In any event, the researcher admits himself that the tail risk is not directly comparable to the Permian/Triassic mass extinction (though it's still an important consideration): > Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian Traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate. "We won't necessarily end up with a world that looks as bad as it did after the end-Permian extinction, but that event highlights the fact that things can go very, very wrong," Payne said. In any event, I think you have a point (in fact I think you've made the best point of all of the responses), but you've exaggerated it to make it as if it's the dominant risk factor in the net calculation as to whether global warming is long-term harmful or beneficial. I don't think this is so clear. Acting as if our current levels of fossil fuel usage is going to lead to a mass extinction comparable to the end of the Permian/Triassic era comes off as alarmist and motivated. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-extinction-042710.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-e... [2] The way to extend this conversation productively would be to estimate the rate at which these volcanic eruptions were dumping CO2 in the air and compare it to the rate at which we are.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  I think you might be the type who regards themselves as very intelligent, but who then undermines that intelligence by arguing in circles. I could pick apart what you wrote, but I think you could also pick apart what you wrote, if you were motivated to do so. You simply aren't motivated to do so, which is interesting in its own way. To take one example: "AFAIK, we aren't even at 50% usage over the past 150 years" Yes, but the rate keeps increasing, yes? 50% of what's been used has been used since 1990. That's 25% of the total in 30 years. But I suspect you knew this, so it is curious you chose to ignore this.
  - georgewsinger 5y ago
    lkrubner-- I propose we deescalate this conversation. I just checked out some of your other writings (demodexio), and it looks pretty interesting (the Soviet Economy series in particular). Still amazed at the talent and perspectives HN attracts. I wish you and your projects the best.
    - lkrubner 5y ago
      Thank you for your comments regarding the material about the Soviet Union.