Hacker News Reader

>Honest question: Why is Mainstream Media not covering this like it should be doing? Heck, this should be the breaking news every single day!!

Perhaps it is because of the influence of the largest industry in the world in terms of revenue: the petroleum industry. Money talks, or rather in this case, money hushes.

Where do you think the primary source of climate change denial propaganda comes from?

It's the job of every other industry that depends on the world existing to call them out on this and spend actual dollars as a protective measure. And the people and their governments, because the collective interest in fixing this can not be decided by a minority value holder. We have done this before with ozone issues and we can do it again but it's past due time to just collectively have the aha moment.

ExxonMobil: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-po...

Donald Trump: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/26589529219124838...

I don't know what to think anymore.

It makes complete sense in the 1984 style of Double Speak.

Russia Today (bear with me for a second) did a documentary [0] on how the climate and geography (!) of the region is changing. They also interview the local population and how they view the change in the ecosystem on which their whole lives are build.

[0] https://rtd.rt.com/films/the-permafrost-mystery/#part-1

It's not all that bad, we will have the opportunity to live in a Mad Max like environment for real ! If we, humans, - as a species - are unable to focus away from dirty politics and gossips, then we don't really deserve to survive. Maybe we need to go through a few centuries of post-apocalyptic landscape to transform ourselves and evolve ?

What about Earth's other life?

It just gets to go extinct? Shit deal for everything else living on this planet, maybe it should go "Zoo" on us in self defense.

Life on this planet has persisted through far worse. Sure, we may bring many species down with us, but life on this planet will go on.

As the late George Carlin once said: "The planet is fine. The people are fucked!"

Well, when dinosaurs disappeared, shit got real for everyone else too !

I'm pretty sure other species will found a very welcome relief in the disappearance of humankind.

Global warming is also extremely costly so it's a financial threat too, and also a problem causing political destabilization and increased tensions, radicalization from climate refugees crisises etc.

So yes it should be covered for many reasons.

If the media covered everything they should have to the standard of quality they should have over the last, oh, let's say twenty years, the world would be an incredibly different place.

Unfortunately they're too busy exploiting human nature for their own advantage than to exploit it for the good of humanity.

Has anything been published in international peer reviewed journals ? Are there scientists at NASA or ivy league universities who became concerned and verified it through modeling and simulations ? If the answer is no in both cases, why should the public be alarmed ?

Are you seriously saying only NASA and Ivy League universities matter?

--the most outrageous part of his comment, imo.

I share your craving for less noise, but:

- there's a whole lot of shades of grey between a hoax and a scientifically proven phenomenon.

- we don't need to be alarmed -- we can be just interested in something new and unusual.

Insufficient research to date does not mean the phenomenon doesn't exist or does not deserve attention.

P.S. This reminds me of the famous story about two economists walking down the street. One spots a $100 bill on the pavement and wants to pick it up. The other stops him saying: "that's just an illusion. If this were to happen, somebody would have picked it up already".

Well I am no expert, but there is google scholar. The first result searching for "siberian methane bubbles" is Walter &al. 2006 [1], furthermore a simple search for :siberian methane bubbles nasa" yields a rather interesting overview article from Nasa's Earth Observatory [2]. So while the presence of an media article not necessarily imply that there is research, in this case the article reports on an active area of study.

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107 /abs/nature05040.html

[2] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/

Yes, of course. There is a huge body of published research available. Data is collected, used to refine the models and then the uncertainties are researched to figure out where more measurements would help the most. Do you have a specific question? I'll throw some time at it.

I'm sure you meant 'research universities', not 'Ivy League universities'. That is, unless you really are implying that only Ivy League universities (and NASA) do impactful research (FALSE), you are hopelessly snooty, or you are trying to be sarcastic (e.g. jamming on the Ivy League school penchant for producing individuals that land positions in political and corporate governance that by and large want to ignore climate change).

If you're referring to the MSM in the US, I think it's because it's in Russia. Russia doesn't get much coverage unless it's about Putin.

Alaska might have a similar problem, though on a much smaller scale.

Until people undeniably feel it they will not believe they are the problem. It takes a lot for someone to change their minds in the face of "criticism".

I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations.

First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissions in a few decades, but I strongly doubt that that is what you want. On the other hand, renewables are surging even with our current level of technology. Any sudden technological breakthrough (be it batteries, fusion energy or room-temperature superconductance) will accelerate it even further, but it's not necessary for the transition. Humanity will surely switch to renewables in a century.

Second, consequences of rising global temperature are harsh, but in no way there are a "doomsday". Do you really believe that loosing Californian fertile grounds will end the humanity? We will adapt and so will the ecosystem in general. It may be costly and inconvenient, but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Not the end of the world.

Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.

All in all, I strongly believe that your asteroid analogy is an over-exaggeration.

For yours points:

1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming 2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming. 3. This may be something we'll have to do. But it wouldn't stop ocean acidification, for one. Sealife is already dying mysteriously.

Not to get into any of the massive unknowns of manually controlling the atmosphere. Or the political difficulties of doing so while countries face famines from farmland losses and droughts, leading to migration on a scale vastly exceeding what we have now.

1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option?

2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight.

3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries?

Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.

Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now"

1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would.

And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change.

But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods.

What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade?

I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement.

Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?

> but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska).

Presumably you're referring to Aboriginal Australians and Inuit/Eskimo peoples?

It might be useful to note that these groups of people are known for their utmost respect toward nature, and the fact that their communities are largely sustenance based.

> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.

If this were truly the solution to global warming, I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it.

Saying "can be cheap and easy to deploy" would lead me to think of this were actually true, Greenpeace would already be doing it.

I believe that your explanations don't stand up to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Climate change is accelerating, and it is a big deal for our and future generations.

I'm referring to places like Newman [0] or Norilsk [1]. Those places have nothing to do with "utmost respect toward nature", as they are settled for mining stuff. However, they are fine examples of people being able to thrive and support a modern western-level living even in harshest of environments. No need to ditch air conditioning or your favorite SUV.

> I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it

At this point there is no need to. The population that matters most politically (so-called "first world countries") are not affected by global warming enough to require drastic active measures. There is not enough political capital to be won in leading international talks on active Earth cooling. However, if the pain become real enough, talks will be held, rockets will be launched and the Earth will be cooled.

> Greenpeace would already be doing it

First, AFAIK Greenpeace is mostly against active measures. Second, "cheap and easy" is relative: it's "cheap and easy" as in "building a dam", not as in "occupying an oil rig".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk

Places like Norilsk are not self-sufficient. They are able to support a "modern western-level living" because of massive supporting infrastructure in more hospitable locations.

Where do you think their food comes from, for example?

> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy.

(Emphasis mine)

Isn't that basically the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory? The irony would be pretty entertaining if we ended up actually realizing that to combat climate change.

No, contrails are condensed water vapor, and they are shortlived enough they contribute ~.0001% warming effect observed.

Aerosols, usually a sulfate, are particles, which block sunlight, like the ash from volcanic eruptions. Most eruptions put the ash into the troposphere where it sinks to Earth relatively quickly. By placing sulfates into the stratosphere, they become 100x longer lived, and thus a small amount can have a strong cooling effect.

Someone just copy/pasted your comment to reddit. Congrats.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6163gu/7000_unde...

This keeps happening to me! I wrote a fairly obscure remark about SICP on HN and 2 days later I was on reddit with one of the top comments as my exact comment.

Some kind of spamming operation? I have no idea.

The user in question has also copied a comment about chili from HN, so it's not the first time. Maybe some attempt at providing reputation for his account, but as you say, what's the point?

Or maybe just some guy harvesting imaginary internet points.

It's an automated system for farming 'legit' looking accounts through comment arbitrage between platforms.

Hmm... the Reddit user has a 4 year old account, and the HN user has a 23 day old account. Are we sure about who copied who?

It would make the trillion dollar carbon tax industry look like a waste of money?

MSM doesn't mention the hundreds of thousands of underwater volcanoes either.