Hacker News Reader

Comment by k_ | Hacker News Reader

I'm worrying; could it hide the effects of global warming? (or whatever name is used now)

I'm afraid this could result in even less support from the governments and/or less effort to reduce emissions and other climate-changing actions. Which could be disastrous at the end of the ~ 40 years...

View on HN

More optimistically, this could buy us a ~40 year stay of execution that'll be very useful in actually fixing the problems.

And what, pray tell, gives you cause to believe that we would spend those 40 years productively addressing said problems? Because all available evidence seems to point to the contrary.

And what, pray tell, gives you cause to believe that we would spend those 40 years productively addressing said problems?

I live in an apartment with a view over a port that maintains the ships that build offshore wind farms. They've been getting busier and busier over the past decade. I literally see people working on (a small part of) the solution every day.

I'm with you, but to be fair there are compelling reasons to ditch fossil fuels without global warming... poison smog, geopolitics, less good motors (as in not a powerful and not as reliable), noise...

People already are doing the work. I’m doing the work. We need time.

I like this point of view :) Sadly, I'm having trouble believing in it, but I would love being wrong on that.

Ironically, this could be the time extension humanity needs to wean off itself from fossil fuels before irreversible changes in ocean chemistry start killing ecosystems(such as oxygen producing plankton) and reducing oxygen% in atmosphere. ``Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere`` Ocean acidification is killing them, reducing our oxygen supply. The deforestation and modern agriculture cuts the rest of oxygen sources. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201094120.h... https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-Earths-free-oxygen-pro... The minimum oxygen concentration for human breathing is 19.5 percent. At below 17%, your mental abilities become impaired and you'll feel exhausted. It might not necessarily be fatal but for the young, old and weak, they might need special breathing apparatus, if the general public doesn't already need one.

"Ocean acidification is killing [phytoplankton]..."

Or promoting them...

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42231559/Inc...

"We show that under eutrophic conditions, productivity may double as a result of doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration"

Its more complicated, some species will benefit but most will try to escape to the lower temp water: ``or instance, the team used a numerical model to see how phytoplankton as a whole will migrate significantly, with most populations shifting toward the poles as the planet warms. ``

https://scitechdaily.com/impact-of-ocean-acidification-on-ph...

https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-...

http://environment.harvard.edu/ocean-acidification-and-marin...

http://www.planetexperts.com/ocean-acidification-toxifying-p...

I'm afraid this would get used as an argument against global warming...

It will be, but ocean acidification and growth of dead zones can't be hidden or dismissed. They will continue even if temperatures fall briefly with less solar activity.

People are very good at ignoring inconvenient observations. Or blaming them on scapegoats. Sometimes both at the same time.

I love these ex cathedra-like pronouncements on HN. Got quite a collection to date.

Don't worry. Its called "Climate Change" now. Its a nice catch all.

Yes, they had to rename Global Warming when the warming cycle from the cool 1970’s peaked in 2007, when all their predictions started failing - such as our children will never see snow - last year in the Alps we has so much snow, that we couldn’t get out of our resort. Tibet just had highest ever recorded snowfall in 1 week. CO2 levels have been way higher before, they are still a long way below optimmum for earth fertility. Earth has also been much warmer before, the whole premise that a few degrees warming, would cause a catastrophe is nonsense,made up by climate doomer cultists Won’t happen anyway, sun and planetary cylces all indicate imminent cooling. Sun has far more effect than the miniscule .04% CO2, H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. I prefer warm to cool, so I moved from UK to Portugal, amazing how so many seem to want cooler weather?? Climate models are all totally useless, too many variables involved. Go to weatherbell.com and listen to Joe Bastardi, he is a genius who knows more about the weather than any of the thousands of so called scientists that have jumped onto this crystal ball gazing bullshit gravy train.

You got it. Deniers like to focus on the effect of the sun. But the sun can’t make much difference in climate. It’s all co2 and some methane.

The sun has a direct influence on climate. You'll note that there is a strong correlation between distance from the sun and temperature, for instance. Or more trivially, imagine the climate without the sun. An 8% drop in solar irrandiance as predicted by the article should have a measurable effect.

Mercury mean temperature 340 K Venus mean temperature 737 K Pretty weak correlation if you ask me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com