Hacker Read

jbooth · 2010-08-20 18:22:26+00:00

Yeah, except as noted above, it's a pretty solid prediction. We're mandated to sell all of this stuff by 2015.

Absent a change in the law, it seems like a good guess that we'll sell it by 2015.

This is not climate science, you don't have to have a chip on your shoulder -- you can objectively evaluate this evidence if you choose to do so.

reply

locallost | karma 2778 | avg karma 3.1 · | 2024-06-19 18:42:25

With the caveat that these are estimates. But I think we'll get there before 2030 and I feel it's conservative to say.

01100011 | karma 7985 | avg karma 3.41 · | 2022-06-13 01:07:14

Right. But we aren't setup to extract all that much of it yet. 5 years from now? Maybe. Next year? No.

bryanlarsen | karma 33883 | avg karma 3.16 · | 2018-03-05 12:09:42

I predicted the same thing about 10 years ago. I believe we'll both be right, eventually. But I'm afraid that your 5 year estimate is too optimistic.

motters | karma 3585 | avg karma 3.0 · | 2009-11-20 09:38:52

This is nice, but it's a very conservative estimate of the near future. Many of these things already exist to some extent, or seem likely to happen within five years or so.

nickthemagicman | karma 251 | avg karma 0.08 · | 2021-10-24 08:08:10

Interesting. That sounds a little ominous.

Are there projections that predict time frames with any precision until we finish the remaining supplies?

Are we talking a century or a few decades?

reply

jdavis703 | karma 7391 | avg karma 2.93 · | 2021-08-04 17:36:45

They say they’re 9 years away. That’s a long enough date that I’d be skeptical of any government that was giving a prediction for nearly a decade out.

tyingq | karma 59102 | avg karma 3.47 · | 2017-11-10 00:36:55+00:00

Interesting. Wonder why he predicts it so far out....not until 2050.

Not clear if that's because of cost, regulations, or something else.

reply

digitcatphd | karma 381 | avg karma 1.14 · | 2021-10-08 13:25:39

This is historical data based on the current environment, the argument is that within the next 10 - 20 years, it will grow to become irrelevant.

smortaz | karma 1709 | avg karma 4.94 · | 2016-01-04 19:57:18+00:00

I'm with you. I'd love for us to get there, but the predictions are highly highly optimistic imho. 15+ years for limited scenarios at best.

bryanlarsen | karma 33883 | avg karma 3.16 · | 2016-03-21 00:20:29+00:00

Sure, you may be right. But those are a few years out, and then it will take a few more to move from bleeding edge to main stream where it significantly impacts the economy. That's why the OP data his prediction is for the next twenty five years only.

ghiculescu | karma 2111 | avg karma 3.8 · | 2021-04-04 01:07:47+00:00

I think your timelines are a bit off, the article claims it’ll be gone in 2100. Your kids will be fine, regardless of your views on if it’s true or not.

mypastself | karma 1619 | avg karma 2.65 · | 2021-08-18 03:36:31

Thanks, that is essentially how I understood the article, except the author errs on the side of optimism, especially in the short term.

As the other commenter said, the science is still a moving target. Any article making these types of predictions should still probably be taken with a grain of salt.

reply

guerrilla | karma 7914 | avg karma 1.95 · | 2022-06-01 08:59:31

It's not a few years away, you're just confounding different messages. It's past the point of no return for 1C and for getting extreme weather. NOW what's not that far away is 1.5C.

pier25 | karma 12682 | avg karma 2.35 · | 2019-06-25 08:54:19

I don't think agentultra is being hyperbolic.

There is a great uncertainty about feedbacks. It may very well be the case that we don't even have 5 years and we have already passed the point of no return.

Even disregarding that, the 2ºC statement is also very probable. See my comments from the other day:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256598

reply

areyousure | karma 786 | avg karma 1.97 · | 2016-03-09 18:01:26

Thank you for the source. I believe this is a good written example of how conservative estimates were as recently as May of 2014.

Nonetheless, the quoted estimate in the article (mentioned twice, including in the second sentence) is "I think maybe ten years", ie 2024, which while inaccurate is probably "in our lifetimes".

reply

asdfasgasdgasdg | karma 10442 | avg karma 3.65 · | 2022-02-08 00:06:56

Note the "current outlook" section, where the TL;DR: is that this is not happening and there is pretty good reason to believe it won't over predictable time-frames.

adrianN | karma 29995 | avg karma 2.78 · | 2022-05-19 07:50:10

There are many people mentioning future dates. It's just that it's mostly scientists telling us how many years we have before something terrible happens if we don't change our ways radically right now.

AnimalMuppet | karma 25021 | avg karma 1.24 · | 2018-02-19 14:12:25

The quote is dated 1999. 11 years to go, and I'm rather skeptical that it will happen.

nicoburns | karma 22847 | avg karma 3.29 · | 2023-11-17 18:51:26

Yeah, I would guess 2035 is probably a little early for them to be actually scarce, but I would expect the downward trend to be well on its way by then.