Hacker News Reader

> “Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked. Just faster or slower, doesn't really matter.”

If I have a cancer, and a lifestyle change would make the difference between whether the cancer kills me in four years or forty… I definitely wouldn’t say “I’m fucked anyway, no point in doing anything unless the cancer can be permanently removed.”

Plenty people take exactly that view, when it comes to cancer.

The problem is, this is not cancer, and all the people who take the "fucked anyway" view are damning the rest of us

Living for forty additional years from 1983 (40 years ago) would have made a world of difference to your chances of survival for any type of cancer.

This is a very good metaphor. That's exactly what we are doing - we have a cancer and we are making a lifestyle changes, hoping that cancer will reconsider :) . The gas already in the atmosphere, just like cancer cells, doesn't care about good intentions, positive thinking and a number of "net zero" logos slapped on the heavily polluting hardware. It's doing it's work all the time, regardless of the emission rates were have on the ground, be they real or faked.

Sure, it's great that we are changing our society globally, it is beneficial for us. If we will ever decide to cool the planet then green energy is must have tech for that, because we can't sequester gas while emitting more of it, it's dumb. But we are talking about a long term estimate now, and that one unfortunately in my uneducated opinion didn't change much. The heating rate didn't change much because of a few Leafs and Teslas on the road, and some northern EU countries actually reducing emissions.

Unless we:

1: Discover some previously unknown method to directly recreate cheap and easy unlimited photosynthesis either electrically or mechanically or

2: Somehow create a fan system that can atomically slice the carbon atoms off of gaseous co2 particles

And the one that we create is ALSO cheap enough to deploy world wide en masse capable of equal or greater CO2 concentration reduction than the number of CO2 producing ICE engines in use and industries put out, it's not going to ever be a miracle fix.

or

3: Hijack a currently existing biological system to do the heavy lifting for us:

I imagine that with government incentive something like a self-regulating robotic rooftop duckweed farms being required for every vehicle owning household, but something like that would first need to be perfected and made available at an affordable price, like $400 or less with minimal maintenance expense which is a HUGE ask considering that duckweed propagation is not a solved part of agricultural science.

I chose Duckweed because it is the fastest growing plant in the world, which can double in mass almost daily under ideal conditions, uses photosynthesis to convert water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, and its dietary requirements are met easily, only needing a small amount of additives to common water and a ready source of carbon dioxide as could be handled by bubbling atmospheric air into the water.

Additionally, duckweed is edible by humans and animals, and if there were unconsumable excess as would be likely given 3 billion home duckweed farms, we could theoretically dry and burn it for carbon negative fuel (as the leftover carbon ash from the burn would count as sequestered carbon).

Alternatively, some genetically modified cyanobacteria could probably do the trick, but with risk of harm should it escape from its confines into the ecosphere.

Emissions are something we have (relatively) direct control over. Realize that these models do take into account cascading effects like triggering ocean methane releases. They do take into account nonlinear effects of different GHGs. They pick possible emissions scenarios, simulate as many of these effects as they can, and look at the spectrum of possible future results. Then we look at our emissions to try to guess which simulation results our future is most likely to resemble. It's not quite as tunnel-visioned as you make it out to be.

> Until we are actually removing gasses from the atmosphere permanently, the planet is fucked.

I happen to agree with this, but realize that's exactly the same metric: it's just negative GHG emissions. We would do the same thing: simulate potential future outcomes given an emission / capture balance that is overall negative, estimate what might happen, and then measure what we're actually doing to see whether we might actually be on that path or not. Once we start removing gasses, it's still useful to track overall emission balance.

>sedimentary ocean methane release

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

>While it may be important on the millennial timescales, it is no longer considered relevant for the near future climate change: the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states "It is very unlikely that gas clathrates (mostly methane) in deeper terrestrial permafrost and subsea clathrates will lead to a detectable departure from the emissions trajectory during this century".

Oh, and while we are it, I have problem with correlating author's graphs of emissions with this graph of actual gas in the atmosphere:

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

You don't even need to be a big wig scientist to test this assumption. Open the graph on the big monitor and put a ruler or anything straight like a piece of paper to the median points corresponding to years 2000-2010. If emissions were "level" in the last decade then we should have 2010-2022 datapoints at most at the same line or even below the line. But in reality we see that the curve is raising up faster, meaning that the rate of emissions increased between years 10-22 compared to years 00-10, which contradicts author's graphs.

It's very hard to argue without numerical data, but the graph on the Wikipedia version of the graph seems to increase linearly to my eyes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve (Edit: No, I can see what you mean; the graph is steeper from 2010–2020 than from 2000–2010.)

(To anyone a bit confused, the Keeling graph is the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so emissions are the first derivative of this graph.)

> ... so emissions are the first derivative of this graph

Not exactly. There is a net sink of emissions every year into the land & ocean, so d(CO2)/dt = emissions minus the net sinks, roughly. See the graph on CO2 partitioning [0]. A lot of research goes into whether these sinks continue at their current rate of removal.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle#Anthr...

It looks to me like the graphs agree - emissions were growing 2000-2010, so the average emissions during that period (which roughly correspond to the gradient you're measuring with a straight edge) are lower than those from 2010 onwards, even if yearly emissions stayed constant after 2010.

Yes, to put it simply, the rate of emissions stopped increasing but we are still emitting what we were in 2010 (plus a bit) so the keeling curve goes straight instead of continuing to subtly bend upwards.

If you take the emissions from 2000 to 2010, the total is less than from 2010 to 2020. [1] Hence the keeling curve of concentration should be steeper in 2010 to 2020. [2] That indeed is the case.

1: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr...

2: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

Maybe I'm making some math mistake here, please correct me then. But I though that if a rate of addition is constant (horizontal graph), then the graph representing the sum total should be rising but linear. If the rate is negative, then the total graph would curve down. If the rate of addition is positive, then the total graph would curve up. And it's the last scenario which we see on the Keeling curve. Graph is curving up in the past decade, therefore rate of addition is increasing. No?

You're right except for the timescale of the claim that the graph is curving up in the past decade. Your observations show the graph curving upwards over the past 2 decades, during which we all agree that CO2 emissions were rising.

You're correct in general but you need to be more specific with the years if you think there's a discrepancy. One would assume that there's some time delay from mixing and some other sources of change. But I think there shouldn't be any if smoothed?

Easiest visually would be to integrate the emissions and compare it to the keeling curve, or differentiate the keeling curve and compare it to the emissions.

From just tracking temperature it may not be clear we are seeing climate change or weather variations. There are also cycles in the climate, like El Niño, which cause temporary increases in temperature. So I do think tracking emissions, or rather actual level of CO2-equivalents, is a much more reliable indicator of 'how we are doing' on the longer term. The CO2e levels are (a) cause of temperature, so it is the latter which is derivative of the former. But mostly, emissions are what we are directly responsible for and can influence, temperature increase is just the result of that and we have no direct control over.

Obviously we measure and study both and they both matter so the point is somewhat moot.

Except we can't directly/ immediately alter the global temperature, whereas we can alter emissions rates. If we bring them down to net zero quickly the planet will be warmer than it was 100 years ago but still at a temperature that's safe enough for humans to thrive in (though maybe not many other species, particularly corals etc.). And yes, we'll probably need to resort to some form of geo-engineering to further reduce CO2 levels and/or temperatures, but for now measuring emissions is the best way we have of monitoring to what degree we're doing enough to stave off a catastrophic future.

> the planet is fucked

The planet will be fine. It will be different, but that's a normal thing in its 4 billion year history.

Whether it will be habitable for humans is a different question. I suspect we'll adapt (like we did for the last ice age), but I'm no expert.

On the bright side, more heat and CO2 means more arable land and better growing environment. Veggies and grazing animals are all I need to get by, food wise.

More heat and CO2 means a higher sea level, which will lead to the loss of arable land, not gain

I've been unable to find a source either way. Can you help?

Just looking casually at topo maps and assuming the worst case I've seen (all land and sea ice melts, resulting in sea water rising 250'), the land we'll lose in coastal regions and major river basins is smaller than what we'll gain near the poles. Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over.

Edit: This isn't to say that worst case scenario wouldn't displace high percentages of the population or that that isn't a major issue; however, it's not an insurmountable obstacle given the gradual nature of the change.

Antarica is problematic since it is completely dark 4 months out of the year... and completely sunny the opposite 4 months.. and even then isn't it just rocks underneath that ice.. you would need to bring in soil etc.. but if all the ice melts will that even be above water at that point?

Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over.

I'd bet a paycheck that there's no top soil worthy of the name under all that ice. Same with when people yuk it up with, "we'll just farm Canada!" Have you seen the dirt in British Columbia? I don't think that soil could grow anything other than more dirt. (Though Manitoba and Saskatchewan would probably do better, dunno.)

You don't know what you are talking about. Some of the richest soil exists in the Canadian North. I have lived on a farm and planted and raised vegetables on a Canadian farm for multiple years.

People are misunderstanding George Carlin standup sooo much. Yes, "The Planet" will be fine. The ball of molten iron will be fine. It's just that current ecosystem will die out, but apparently it's "fine". We will adapt probably, but billions will die. A simple hypothesis - let's say due to the global warming rice crops will fail globally. Just imagine how many people would be affected and how many nuclear wars started for the remaining resources :) .

What climate change-induced mechanism could cause a global rice crop failure? Would it also cause global failure of grain, corn, beans, potatoes, etc? The hypothesis seems so far fetched to me as to be dismissible out of hand.

I can understand how, over a period of years, farms near the equator may become less tenable and land farther from the equator more arable, but, at the scales I've seen (single digit average degrees up over the next 100 years), we should be able to account for that.

Edit: I don't know the Carlin bit you refer to. Link?

As for the rice crop - afaik it requires a lot of water and right temperatures. If the temperatures will rise a lot, then crops will weaken and increased droughts will cut water supply for the fields. Famines are very possible I suspect in far future. Importing food from the north is possible but not very probable. First because north would also suffer, just differently, second because the population in question is insanely huge (whole Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, East Asia etc.) I don't think enough grain for example can be imported to supplant a loss of a staple crop like rice. And just where this additional grain can be raised in the north? Suitable farmlands are already in use for agriculture. And new lands are either in bad terrain or in bad climate zones.

The standup I've referenced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHgJKrmbYfg I've seen way way too many folks on the right who take it at face value, literally. Even his not so subtle references that humanity will die out don't phase people with an agenda.

"As for the rice crop - afaik it requires a lot of water and right temperatures."

You don't know enough. Stop watching Carlin and go learn something about growing things in your environment.

If you live in the Northern Hemisphere step away from the keyboard, get outside, breath some fresh air and soak in the sunlight while you dig in the dirt and plant some food for yourself. Then perhaps you can think clearly enough to make steps that make sense.

Worst case scenario they'll be farming on Greenland. Again.

I wonder how many people will understand what you're referring to.

The norm for planet Earth is for the environment to change drastically over millions of billions of years, though sometimes in mere moments (eg: asteroid smack). Life as we know it since its inception has also survived all of those changes.

So Earth will be fine and life will go on, the only thing that will destroy everything is when the Sun goes om nom nom many billions of years from now as it feasts upon its inner children to become a red giant.

> The norm for planet Earth is for the environment to change drastically over millions of billions of years, though sometimes in mere moments (eg: asteroid smack). Life as we know it since its inception has also survived all of those changes.

Life itself survives, but most living things die. It would be pretty disingenuous to say "hey, an amoeba survived, who cares all other life is dead" - because somehow every second commenter seems to have the incredible insight "but the planet earth will not literally be destroyed, so why should we care".

About one billion years, actually.

This is some really bizarre logic: "It's not the guy with then gun, it's the bullets, let's avoid them!"

I think the secondary things you describe are almost large scale weather events, not quite climate.

But most fundamentally, the 'primary driver' of temperature change is CO2 and that's that so of course we have to measure it.

And yes, it's far more fuzzy than they let on, which is not good they should be more open about that, or find a way to communicate it more effectively.

No, the planet is not all 'fucked' and CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air, and of course, if we want to start to decarbonize the atmosphere we can do that as well.

I wish they would use the term 'climate risk' - because risk all about less likely probabilities, than 'specific paths to the future'.

> CO2 levels will go down as we put less in the air

What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally.

I'm not against measuring emission rates, that's an important metric. I'm against making any far reaching assumptions based ONLY on the emission rates estimates. Because that's like cooking meat inside an opaque black box by measuring torque forces applied to the regulator over time. It loosely corresponds to the result, but the meat would be charred most likely, due to big amount of conversions and estimations. On the other hand measuring meat temperature with a thermometer inserted directly into it would give us a precision result.

> What? You are saying that if your are cooking meat on a skillet and turn the fire down from 3 to 1, or even to 0, then your meat temperature would start actively decreasing below the ambient temperature and freeze on it's own? Because that's what you are saying, literally.

Considering that nature provides carbon traps and that the Earth is ultimately in the void of the space, you cooking meat is a kitchen with opened windows and freezing weather outside, and you turn down the climate that was set to full throttle.

I believe they are claiming that various processes break down or passively absorb CO2 in the air, so if emissions stopped by some magic, CO2 levels would not be steady but decreasing, even without other interventions.

I have no proper knowledge about natural carbon sinks, their capacity and remaining capabilities. But from the amateur point of view I think there are 3 main possibilities - vegetation, ocean and permafrost.

Permafrost won't help because first the planet need to cool down a lot and start general cooling trend. And we will be heating up the atmosphere due to existing gasses. So it's a dead end.

Vegetation is a linear carbon sink. Because microbes decompose dead vegetation and release gasses back in the atmosphere, the most of the captured carbon in vegetation must be in the actual alive plants. And number of alive plants scales linearly with the area we humans leave for them. Since humanity is increasing in numbers and each human demands more and more land to be used, I highly doubt that we can spare a lot of arable land for a NEW vegetation. So that's also dead end.

And at last oceans. I have no idea what is the capture mechanism of an ocean and how much carbon on it's own it can capture permanently. Maybe yes, maybe no. But considering that a) we are acidifying oceans, b) overfishing them, c) raise sea levels, d) heat up oceans - all this together would probably hamper natural carbon capture capabilities of an ocean.

So maybe this is possible. But I haven't heard a lot about such possibility from scientists, and I doubt it's a solution for our problem. Until some research will be done at least.

Here are some numbers from the Guardian, mostly citing IPCC reports as far as I can tell:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...

Overall the OP's assertion seems to be only technically ture - it seems that CO2 is indeed absorbed, but only on a scale of decades to centuries essentially.

"Because that's what you are saying, literally."

You're having trouble with the meaning of word 'literally', but also analogies, and climate.

The earth has various mechanisms for absorbing CO2 over time.

“I’m literally never going to stop misusing this word”