7 ms·

Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse Global Warming

115 points by biz84 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fleevy 9y ago
Do people really still unironically believe in global warming? I mean how gullible can you possibly be.
- malchow 9y ago
  What do you mean? The planet is burning to a crisp. As predicted: – Mt. Kilimanjaro no longer has snow – As CO2 emissions keep rising, global temperatures keep rising, too, without any weird ten-year pauses at all – Intense storm incidence has increased – The Arctic has become ice-free – Polar bears are now extinct
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    New cross-polar shipping routes are being explored for the first time in our history, drastically shortening the distance which boats travel between China and Europe.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sctb 9y ago
    Can you please not troll, or feed the trolls, or whatever is happening here?
- dagss 9y ago
  I am curious: Can you define a set of measurements and a year which, hypothetically, if measured, would convince you that global warming is happening? I.e., if we were to make a bet that both you and an IPCC-groupie like me would be convinced of winning, what would that bet look like? Or would any measurement that shows warming by definition come from a conspiracy?
  - fleevy 9y ago
    I'd need to see a double-blind randomized controlled experiment with tens or hundreds of Earth-like worlds, some with human activity and some without. No n=1 observational study with potentially infinite known and unknown confounding variables can give credible scientific evidence.
    - meltaway123 9y ago
      And you mean to tell me the grant money isn't just pouring in!?
  - meltaway123 9y ago
    Miami could be under water but if some jowly blowhard tells them everything is fine and it's all just Big $cience trying to fleece you then they'll believe it.
    - meltaway123 9y ago
      In other words: nothing will convince them, because there is more than enough available evidence. It's not a matter of lack of evidence, it's a matter of belief. If evidence were any match for feelings the Dark Ages would've been a bit brighter.
  - meltaway123 9y ago
    Belief is a hell of a drug.
  - graycat 9y ago
    Let's see, water vapor, CO2, and methane are greenhouse gasses which means that they absorb Planck black body infrared radiation from the surface of the earth. Since we can't see those gasses, they don't absorb visible light. There is CO2 from volcanoes. Since 70+ percent of the surface of the earth is covered by water, first-cut, ballpark 70+ percent of the volcanoes and CO2 from the volcanoes are under water, commonly 3-7 miles down. We know that ocean volcanoes are important because they are responsible for a major fraction of all the smaller islands in the oceans. We know that there is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and that cooler water absorbs more CO2 and warmer water, less. So, first-cut, we have to suspect that warming of the surface of the oceans, from any source at all, will release CO2 into the atmosphere and cooling of the surface of the oceans will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. We know from the ice core samples going back 800,000 years or so that about 800 years after the start of some significant warming, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased. We know that for about the last 20 years, we have been able to measure some significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations but saw nearly no measurable increase in global average atmospheric temperatures. So, this time, really, higher CO2 didn't cause higher temperatures. Clearly first-cut, if higher CO2 concentrations increase temperature, then lower CO2 concentrations will reduce temperature. From the ice core and other historical data, both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied significantly. But (1) in this whole record, not once was significant cooling closely preceded by significantly lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and (2) only once, since the coolest part of the Little Ice Age, have significantly higher temperatures been closely preceded by significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Indeed, in recent years, from 1940 to 1970 CO2 concentrations, from human activities, volcanoes, ocean out gassing, or whatever increased significantly but global average atmospheric temperatures actually fell enough to be measured. So, there higher CO2 led to lower temperature, not higher. Conclusion: The idea that changes in CO2 concentrations have been a major cause of changes in temperature are refuted. Instead, there must be other causes that in the historical record have been much, much more important, that is, caused many more temperature changes, than CO2. For more, no one is claiming that the cooling of the LIttle Ice Age was caused by lower CO2 concentrations -- the cause of the Little Ice Age was not lower CO2. Then, sure, first-cut, the cause of coming out of the Little Ice Age, which really is the recent warming, should have been from a reversal of the cause of going into that period and, thus, not CO2, from humans or anything else. For more, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than now without relatively high CO2 concentrations. So, current temperatures are not unique, and the last time the cause was not CO2 -- so, we have to wonder if this time current temperatures are due to CO2. If concerned about global average atmospheric temperature, looking at CO2 is "digging in the wrong place" and is very much "the wrong stuff". From the historical record, it's fully clear that CO2 has little or no effect on temperature. For more, many efforts were made to model CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting effects on global average atmospheric temperature. The models made temperature predictions for future years. Many of those models and predictions are summarized in a graph at http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg By now we can compare the model predictions with actual temperatures. Results: From nearly all the models, the temperatures predicted were way too high. Conclusion: Nearly all the models failed to correspond to reality. In science, we try to make predictions. When the predictions from some candidate science are badly wrong, then we junk the candidate science. So, we have to junk the techniques of the models. Consequences: We are left with no meaningful way to predict the effects of CO2 on temperature. As above, we already know that CO2 has from at most a minor role down to no significant role at all in global atmospheric average temperature and that other causes dominate. In particular we have no meaningful science that says that CO2 from human activity has significantly warmed the atmosphere or will in the foreseeable future. To have the world spend trillions of dollars on reductions in CO2 from human activities would cause massive destruction of our economies and is not justified. For more, to consider CO2 seriously, we would have to consider volcanoes including in the oceans and CO2 in and from the oceans, and so far we have no good way to do that. There is a theory for the cause of temperature changes that actually closely fits the historical record of temperature change. That cause is the level of sun spot activity. More sun spots cause warming. How? Clouds have a net cooling effect. A significant fraction of clouds are caused by water droplets caused by cosmic rays. More sun spots cause more solar wind which blocks cosmic rays, slows cloud formation, and causes warming. Sorry, it would be nice to have solid science for the climate, science that would let us predict the climate accurately and, in particular, the effects on climate from various levels of CO2 from human activities. So far, first-cut, the evidence is that CO2 from human activities is having no significant effect on climate at all. Really, it appears that to predict global average atmospheric temperatures, we should focus on predicting sun spots. To explain the high interest in global warming, f'get about science and, instead, do something much simpler that makes much more sense, just follow the money. The Mayans killed people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky. Lowering human sources of CO2 to slow global warming is no better founded. I have a suggestion: Suit up Saint Laureate Al Guru and send him to the sun to do a close up, hands on, field study of sun spots. Then we will take up the subject of global warming when he returns.
- biot 9y ago
  Can you agree that air which is less polluted is a good thing? Or that rich soil which has a variety plant growth is better than a lifeless desert? Or that clean water is better than polluted water? And so on. Much of this boils down to "stop polluting the environment we live in". Focus on means of reducing pollution and the labels (global warming or not) will take care of themselves.
  - winstonewert 9y ago
    The problem is that we have to make trade-offs between different types of pollution: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-offs-what-s-good-for-the-climate-may-not-be-good-for-the-air/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-... So, your line of reasoning doesn't really work: if CO2 weren't a threat we would make entirely different pollutant trade-offs then the case where CO2 threatens to end life as we know it.
    - biot 9y ago
      I admit that my reasoning is overly simplistic but, for those who struggle with whether or not global warming is scientifically sound, focusing on the basics will often result in them arriving at similar conclusions as to how to act (eg: using energy from the sun when possible is better than using energy from coal), and that's a good thing rather than arguing over any particular label.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    He sounds more like a troll.
- sctb 9y ago
  We banned this account for only posting troll comments. There's nothing wrong with contrary opinions posted in a civil and substantive way on Hacker News, but that's not what this is.
breck 9y ago
Table of the top 100 solutions: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
throwawayjava 9y ago
I think the most interesting way to sort this data is not by "total atmospheric reduction" but rather by "savings". I.e., where do the economic and ecological incentives align? EVs and Wind & Solar are unsurprising gold/silver/bronze winners. District Heating is an interesting idea I had never thought of. And it synthesizes well with other top winners outside of the energy production space, most of which boil down to "improved density and less moving around". IMO these are all big wins from a lifestyle perspective as well, all other things equal (of course, not all other things are equal in most places -- schooling, safety, etc.)
nostromo 9y ago
I hear often that educating girls will curb population growth in poor countries. Has anyone actually proven that this is a causative relationship and not correlative?
- JBReefer 9y ago
  http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/karimpolicyseminar.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/karimpolicysem...
- jacalata 9y ago
  Yes https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-between-womens-education-and-fertility/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-betw...
- Sleeep 9y ago
  This is true even in the United States http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-lev...
- everybodyknows 9y ago
  Educating girls in poor countries, I'll posit, offers the only hope for a future without recurring mass violence. The empirical evidence is that where girls are educated, they acquire power to control their own fertility, and also the will to do so, that being the best means to concentrate limited household resources toward quality education for their own children. And this voluntary, culturally-based impetus toward population control is the only plausible moderator of the runaway consumption of critical resources that now threatens mass suffering on a civilizational scale. CO2 uptake capacity of the biosphere being of course only one critical, supply-constrained resource among several, e.g. fresh water, fertile land, fisheries. Political systems on the other hand are everywhere far too weak to look to for effective action. Here's a timely reminder: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-epa-museum-history-might-be-in-for-a-change/2017/07/30/9d83692c-6bd1-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-epa-museum-histor...
0xbear 9y ago
Before proposing multi trillion dollar plans it'd be good to figure out how to model cloud cover and the effects of the oceans.
- spenrose 9y ago
  This comment constitutes gaslighting. The primary expression of climate change science, the IPCC, has been based on models which incorporate cloud cover and oceans for decades. Here is the first sentence of their landing page on models: "Numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs), representing physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface, are the most advanced tools currently available for simulating the response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (criterion 1 -- see list here)." http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Read a bit further in the page you've linked.
cousin_it 9y ago
No geoengineering?
- tim333 9y ago
  Yeah not sure about geoengineering but if you look at global CO2 emission and absorption, man made emissions are still small compared to nature - see this in giggatons https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif From a practical point of view if you want to absorb huge amounts of CO2 finding ways to influence the natural processes might be the way. (pic from https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...)
mchannon 9y ago
Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough). Their numbers add up to approximately 100% of 2017 annual fossil fuel emissions. That means that all of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is beyond the reach of the combined 80 solutions they propose. Greenhouse gas production rates continue to increase (Earth has plenty of semi-natural processes of its own that are only starting to be triggered). You can't double-count these 80 solutions, so they're inadequate to even stop the growth. "drawdown" seems a misnomer. There's no reversal here, only a slowdown. This is the most challenging engineering problem ever to confront mankind, and we haven't risen as a species to meet it. Now, time to get back to the latest ICO, because some things are important.
- spenrose 9y ago
  "Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption)" The entire framing of their approach is to only consider peer-reviewed literature -- holding themselves to the highest standard we have, the one most free of "assumption." It is rhetorically deceptive to open by characterizing them as making assumptions.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    Only if you discount the evidence that we are almost always optimistic about these things at this stage of the research. Anyone good at doing high level policy accounts for the fact that you always need a lot of margin for optimistic error when combining multiple solutions.
    - spenrose 9y ago
      Citation please. Bonus points for noting the irony that you are criticizing an impeccably supported work with sweeping (but unsupported) assertions.
freshhawk 9y ago
So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a solution? How can people not know that the problem here is getting people to do something, it is definitely not that we don't know what to do which is a minor problem in comparison. What about a group who have starving children and will clear-cut a forest to feed them no matter what agreements are in place? How much violence is used to enforce this plan and how is it organized? How are these projects funded, where does the money come from and what is done with those who are powerful and won't cooperate? It is hard enough to get international cooperation now, and as climate related refugee problems multiply exponentially it will not get easier. Technocrats are not saving us here.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than technical, however unlikely a technical solution is.
  - yulaow 9y ago
    The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      I agree with you, but my point is that is impossible, because of said power brokers not willing to risk their power.
      - evanlivingston 9y ago
zitterbewegung 9y ago
My personal thought is to make a geoengineering company to perform carbon sequestration. At first you would figure out how to grow large amounts of switchgrass and or algae using some type of automated planting either in deserts or in the ocean. Then start breeding or make GMO plants that would more efficiently sequester carbon. Also, try to make other systems that would lower temperature like a space based shade or changing the albedo of the ground or atmosphere .
- fooker 9y ago
  Doesn't seem this stands to make money, so not many people will be interested.
  - atemerev 9y ago
    We humans are really inventive in ways of making money. Bringing more unhospitable lands back to sanity? Allowing for more consumption without the need to curb lifestyles? A lot of money can be made from here.
- spenrose 9y ago
  These approaches are discussed in the book.
trumpownsyou420 9y ago
i'd rather be coming out of an ice age than going into one, you fucking cucks.
paulyMageau 9y ago
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams...
paulyMageau 9y ago
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams... Idiots
colordrops 9y ago
It only covers two types of solutions, reducing carbon emissions and carbon sequestration. What about more extreme or dangerous solutions such as weather manipulation and reflecting solar energy through materials in orbit?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- photon-torpedo 9y ago
  They are dangerous, as you say. If you had to choose between global warming and a new ice age, what would you prefer?
- spenrose 9y ago
  They chose to be intellectually conservative in their first round of work. They are attempting to find peer-reviewed, quantified estimates for as many approaches as they can manage.
Aloha 9y ago
I think trying to argue specifically about climate change in the US at least - is dead - politics as such prevent the scope of change needed - that said - we as a planet should work more on sustainability - there are technological and cultural solutions that can be put in place, (mostly by private industry) to make the way we consume our planets limited natural resources more sustainable. Carbon as far as I'm concerned has turned into a straw man preventing us on working on the larger (and more complex) problem of sustainability. I think another thing to consider for a moment is, if we want a "western" standard of living for all people living on this planet, we either need less people, or we need to figure out how to use the limited resources we have a lot more efficiently. Humans in the end will adapt to a warmer planet - the range of habitable places however may change - this says nothing to the other animals living here - they're not so lucky.
- dboreham 9y ago
  Fewer people.
diafygi 9y ago
Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-can-you-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/
- kelnos 9y ago
  I have a background in electrical/computer engineering, but much of that has faded from memory. For the past 15 years I've been a software developer, starting out in the embedded space, and today working on cloud telecom. I feel like I don't have the background or domain knowledge required to break into a career in clean energy, though it's a space that interests me a lot (both intellectually, and because of survival-of-the-species reasons). Do you have any suggestions how I might break into this field, beyond attending the events you listed (or is that enough?)? Is there a need for my skills more or less as-is, or am I looking at a steep learning curve and more "entry-level" positions until I can train up?
johnmarcus 9y ago
I stopped at "telepresence". This is silly, and as published as a pay for book, I suspect it will actually cost the environment more from it's printing and shipping than the influence it will have to make a change.
atemerev 9y ago
Sorry, this is all flawed. Just an agenda of constraining ourselves and limiting human influence. Won't work. We humans are inherently driven to expand and use more and more energy for our needs. This is a given. Any solutions trying to ignore this are doomed. What we need is technological solutions to _reverse_ global warming effects. Like iron fertilization of oceans.
acidburnNSA 9y ago
Nit picking on one issue: Nuclear. I'm glad they at least listed it as a solution but I feel that there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science. It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern: deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of missile material, among them. [1] Nevermind: * that >60% of the carbon-free electricity in the USA comes from nukes right now, * that by displacing air pollution, nukes worldwide have saved 1.8 million lives and prevented 65 billion tonnes CO2-eq [2] * that nobody died or is expected to die from radiation at Fukushima * that uranium enrichment is by far the easiest way to illicitly traffic weapons materials (which can happen without any nuclear power) * that Hanford was a cold-war nuclear weapons facility that did not prioritize waste storage, and that it was totally unrelated to commercial power generation The capabilities of nuclear energy to thwart climate change are real and gigantic. Getting costs down would help, and the Koreans have been doing an amazing job at that. The French electrified their whole country with nukes in 10 years by standardizing designs and that's been wildly successful. This solution should have said something like: "If we can standardize a safe Gen III+ reactor and get costs down, nuclear can and will grow as our climate champion." [1] http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear [2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197
- spenrose 9y ago
  "there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science" 1) The concerns they list are the actual concerns of significant segments of the population. Such as e.g. an overwhelming majority of the German electorate. 2) I personally think that some of those concerns are overweighted. You apparently do as well. 3) Failing to weigh those concerns the way you and I do does not constitute "having an agenda not based on the science", key word "the". 4) They are evenly applying "the" science of GHG reduction to all solutions. It's not their job to follow a specific agenda on the debated science of side topics such as those you single out. Nuclear power activates identity framing for a lot of people. For some it is anti-, but for others it is pro-. The anti-nuclear people typically own the identity issue. The pro-nuclear people sometimes do, but sometimes want to claim a "these are the scientific facts with which it is irrational to agree" kind of super-identity.

115 points by biz84 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fleevy 9y ago

Do people really still unironically believe in global warming? I mean how gullible can you possibly be.

malchow 9y ago
What do you mean? The planet is burning to a crisp. As predicted: – Mt. Kilimanjaro no longer has snow – As CO2 emissions keep rising, global temperatures keep rising, too, without any weird ten-year pauses at all – Intense storm incidence has increased – The Arctic has become ice-free – Polar bears are now extinct
- stephengillie 9y ago
  New cross-polar shipping routes are being explored for the first time in our history, drastically shortening the distance which boats travel between China and Europe.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 9y ago
  Can you please not troll, or feed the trolls, or whatever is happening here?
dagss 9y ago
I am curious: Can you define a set of measurements and a year which, hypothetically, if measured, would convince you that global warming is happening? I.e., if we were to make a bet that both you and an IPCC-groupie like me would be convinced of winning, what would that bet look like? Or would any measurement that shows warming by definition come from a conspiracy?
- fleevy 9y ago
  I'd need to see a double-blind randomized controlled experiment with tens or hundreds of Earth-like worlds, some with human activity and some without. No n=1 observational study with potentially infinite known and unknown confounding variables can give credible scientific evidence.
  - meltaway123 9y ago
    And you mean to tell me the grant money isn't just pouring in!?
- meltaway123 9y ago
  Miami could be under water but if some jowly blowhard tells them everything is fine and it's all just Big $cience trying to fleece you then they'll believe it.
  - meltaway123 9y ago
    In other words: nothing will convince them, because there is more than enough available evidence. It's not a matter of lack of evidence, it's a matter of belief. If evidence were any match for feelings the Dark Ages would've been a bit brighter.
- meltaway123 9y ago
  Belief is a hell of a drug.
- graycat 9y ago
  Let's see, water vapor, CO2, and methane are greenhouse gasses which means that they absorb Planck black body infrared radiation from the surface of the earth. Since we can't see those gasses, they don't absorb visible light. There is CO2 from volcanoes. Since 70+ percent of the surface of the earth is covered by water, first-cut, ballpark 70+ percent of the volcanoes and CO2 from the volcanoes are under water, commonly 3-7 miles down. We know that ocean volcanoes are important because they are responsible for a major fraction of all the smaller islands in the oceans. We know that there is a lot of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and that cooler water absorbs more CO2 and warmer water, less. So, first-cut, we have to suspect that warming of the surface of the oceans, from any source at all, will release CO2 into the atmosphere and cooling of the surface of the oceans will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. We know from the ice core samples going back 800,000 years or so that about 800 years after the start of some significant warming, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased. We know that for about the last 20 years, we have been able to measure some significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations but saw nearly no measurable increase in global average atmospheric temperatures. So, this time, really, higher CO2 didn't cause higher temperatures. Clearly first-cut, if higher CO2 concentrations increase temperature, then lower CO2 concentrations will reduce temperature. From the ice core and other historical data, both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied significantly. But (1) in this whole record, not once was significant cooling closely preceded by significantly lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and (2) only once, since the coolest part of the Little Ice Age, have significantly higher temperatures been closely preceded by significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Indeed, in recent years, from 1940 to 1970 CO2 concentrations, from human activities, volcanoes, ocean out gassing, or whatever increased significantly but global average atmospheric temperatures actually fell enough to be measured. So, there higher CO2 led to lower temperature, not higher. Conclusion: The idea that changes in CO2 concentrations have been a major cause of changes in temperature are refuted. Instead, there must be other causes that in the historical record have been much, much more important, that is, caused many more temperature changes, than CO2. For more, no one is claiming that the cooling of the LIttle Ice Age was caused by lower CO2 concentrations -- the cause of the Little Ice Age was not lower CO2. Then, sure, first-cut, the cause of coming out of the Little Ice Age, which really is the recent warming, should have been from a reversal of the cause of going into that period and, thus, not CO2, from humans or anything else. For more, the Medieval Warm period was warmer than now without relatively high CO2 concentrations. So, current temperatures are not unique, and the last time the cause was not CO2 -- so, we have to wonder if this time current temperatures are due to CO2. If concerned about global average atmospheric temperature, looking at CO2 is "digging in the wrong place" and is very much "the wrong stuff". From the historical record, it's fully clear that CO2 has little or no effect on temperature. For more, many efforts were made to model CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting effects on global average atmospheric temperature. The models made temperature predictions for future years. Many of those models and predictions are summarized in a graph at http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg By now we can compare the model predictions with actual temperatures. Results: From nearly all the models, the temperatures predicted were way too high. Conclusion: Nearly all the models failed to correspond to reality. In science, we try to make predictions. When the predictions from some candidate science are badly wrong, then we junk the candidate science. So, we have to junk the techniques of the models. Consequences: We are left with no meaningful way to predict the effects of CO2 on temperature. As above, we already know that CO2 has from at most a minor role down to no significant role at all in global atmospheric average temperature and that other causes dominate. In particular we have no meaningful science that says that CO2 from human activity has significantly warmed the atmosphere or will in the foreseeable future. To have the world spend trillions of dollars on reductions in CO2 from human activities would cause massive destruction of our economies and is not justified. For more, to consider CO2 seriously, we would have to consider volcanoes including in the oceans and CO2 in and from the oceans, and so far we have no good way to do that. There is a theory for the cause of temperature changes that actually closely fits the historical record of temperature change. That cause is the level of sun spot activity. More sun spots cause warming. How? Clouds have a net cooling effect. A significant fraction of clouds are caused by water droplets caused by cosmic rays. More sun spots cause more solar wind which blocks cosmic rays, slows cloud formation, and causes warming. Sorry, it would be nice to have solid science for the climate, science that would let us predict the climate accurately and, in particular, the effects on climate from various levels of CO2 from human activities. So far, first-cut, the evidence is that CO2 from human activities is having no significant effect on climate at all. Really, it appears that to predict global average atmospheric temperatures, we should focus on predicting sun spots. To explain the high interest in global warming, f'get about science and, instead, do something much simpler that makes much more sense, just follow the money. The Mayans killed people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky. Lowering human sources of CO2 to slow global warming is no better founded. I have a suggestion: Suit up Saint Laureate Al Guru and send him to the sun to do a close up, hands on, field study of sun spots. Then we will take up the subject of global warming when he returns.
biot 9y ago
Can you agree that air which is less polluted is a good thing? Or that rich soil which has a variety plant growth is better than a lifeless desert? Or that clean water is better than polluted water? And so on. Much of this boils down to "stop polluting the environment we live in". Focus on means of reducing pollution and the labels (global warming or not) will take care of themselves.
- winstonewert 9y ago
  The problem is that we have to make trade-offs between different types of pollution: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-offs-what-s-good-for-the-climate-may-not-be-good-for-the-air/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-... So, your line of reasoning doesn't really work: if CO2 weren't a threat we would make entirely different pollutant trade-offs then the case where CO2 threatens to end life as we know it.
  - biot 9y ago
    I admit that my reasoning is overly simplistic but, for those who struggle with whether or not global warming is scientifically sound, focusing on the basics will often result in them arriving at similar conclusions as to how to act (eg: using energy from the sun when possible is better than using energy from coal), and that's a good thing rather than arguing over any particular label.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- emodendroket 9y ago
  He sounds more like a troll.
sctb 9y ago
We banned this account for only posting troll comments. There's nothing wrong with contrary opinions posted in a civil and substantive way on Hacker News, but that's not what this is.

breck 9y ago

Table of the top 100 solutions: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

throwawayjava 9y ago

I think the most interesting way to sort this data is not by "total atmospheric reduction" but rather by "savings". I.e., where do the economic and ecological incentives align? EVs and Wind & Solar are unsurprising gold/silver/bronze winners. District Heating is an interesting idea I had never thought of. And it synthesizes well with other top winners outside of the energy production space, most of which boil down to "improved density and less moving around". IMO these are all big wins from a lifestyle perspective as well, all other things equal (of course, not all other things are equal in most places -- schooling, safety, etc.)

nostromo 9y ago

I hear often that educating girls will curb population growth in poor countries. Has anyone actually proven that this is a causative relationship and not correlative?

JBReefer 9y ago
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/karimpolicyseminar.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/karimpolicysem...
jacalata 9y ago
Yes https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-between-womens-education-and-fertility/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-betw...
Sleeep 9y ago
This is true even in the United States http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-lev...
everybodyknows 9y ago
Educating girls in poor countries, I'll posit, offers the only hope for a future without recurring mass violence. The empirical evidence is that where girls are educated, they acquire power to control their own fertility, and also the will to do so, that being the best means to concentrate limited household resources toward quality education for their own children. And this voluntary, culturally-based impetus toward population control is the only plausible moderator of the runaway consumption of critical resources that now threatens mass suffering on a civilizational scale. CO2 uptake capacity of the biosphere being of course only one critical, supply-constrained resource among several, e.g. fresh water, fertile land, fisheries. Political systems on the other hand are everywhere far too weak to look to for effective action. Here's a timely reminder: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-epa-museum-history-might-be-in-for-a-change/2017/07/30/9d83692c-6bd1-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-epa-museum-histor...

0xbear 9y ago

Before proposing multi trillion dollar plans it'd be good to figure out how to model cloud cover and the effects of the oceans.

spenrose 9y ago
This comment constitutes gaslighting. The primary expression of climate change science, the IPCC, has been based on models which incorporate cloud cover and oceans for decades. Here is the first sentence of their landing page on models: "Numerical models (General Circulation Models or GCMs), representing physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface, are the most advanced tools currently available for simulating the response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (criterion 1 -- see list here)." http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Read a bit further in the page you've linked.

cousin_it 9y ago

No geoengineering?

tim333 9y ago
Yeah not sure about geoengineering but if you look at global CO2 emission and absorption, man made emissions are still small compared to nature - see this in giggatons https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif From a practical point of view if you want to absorb huge amounts of CO2 finding ways to influence the natural processes might be the way. (pic from https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...)

mchannon 9y ago

Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough). Their numbers add up to approximately 100% of 2017 annual fossil fuel emissions. That means that all of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is beyond the reach of the combined 80 solutions they propose. Greenhouse gas production rates continue to increase (Earth has plenty of semi-natural processes of its own that are only starting to be triggered). You can't double-count these 80 solutions, so they're inadequate to even stop the growth. "drawdown" seems a misnomer. There's no reversal here, only a slowdown. This is the most challenging engineering problem ever to confront mankind, and we haven't risen as a species to meet it. Now, time to get back to the latest ICO, because some things are important.

spenrose 9y ago
"Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption)" The entire framing of their approach is to only consider peer-reviewed literature -- holding themselves to the highest standard we have, the one most free of "assumption." It is rhetorically deceptive to open by characterizing them as making assumptions.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  Only if you discount the evidence that we are almost always optimistic about these things at this stage of the research. Anyone good at doing high level policy accounts for the fact that you always need a lot of margin for optimistic error when combining multiple solutions.
  - spenrose 9y ago
    Citation please. Bonus points for noting the irony that you are criticizing an impeccably supported work with sweeping (but unsupported) assertions.

freshhawk 9y ago

So zero political solutions here? Just a list of technological aspects of a solution? How can people not know that the problem here is getting people to do something, it is definitely not that we don't know what to do which is a minor problem in comparison. What about a group who have starving children and will clear-cut a forest to feed them no matter what agreements are in place? How much violence is used to enforce this plan and how is it organized? How are these projects funded, where does the money come from and what is done with those who are powerful and won't cooperate? It is hard enough to get international cooperation now, and as climate related refugee problems multiply exponentially it will not get easier. Technocrats are not saving us here.

colordrops 9y ago
Doesn't it seem though that politics is a deadlock, with nations playing a game of chicken that has no winner? It's a case of the tragedy of the commons. No power broker is going to sacrifice their economy or political backers enough to make a difference, as there would always be someone else with a more short term view take advantage of their temporary weakness. It seems that there is no feasible solution other than technical, however unlikely a technical solution is.
- yulaow 9y ago
  The problem is that the economical background of our society is based on exploiting all resources and pushing the limits of the society itself (both with high reproduction rates and in mass production of goods). If we want to change the climate situation, we first need to change the whole economic system and related political measures.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    I agree with you, but my point is that is impossible, because of said power brokers not willing to risk their power.
    - evanlivingston 9y ago

zitterbewegung 9y ago

My personal thought is to make a geoengineering company to perform carbon sequestration. At first you would figure out how to grow large amounts of switchgrass and or algae using some type of automated planting either in deserts or in the ocean. Then start breeding or make GMO plants that would more efficiently sequester carbon. Also, try to make other systems that would lower temperature like a space based shade or changing the albedo of the ground or atmosphere .

fooker 9y ago
Doesn't seem this stands to make money, so not many people will be interested.
- atemerev 9y ago
  We humans are really inventive in ways of making money. Bringing more unhospitable lands back to sanity? Allowing for more consumption without the need to curb lifestyles? A lot of money can be made from here.
spenrose 9y ago
These approaches are discussed in the book.

trumpownsyou420 9y ago

i'd rather be coming out of an ice age than going into one, you fucking cucks.

paulyMageau 9y ago

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams...

paulyMageau 9y ago

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams... Idiots

colordrops 9y ago

It only covers two types of solutions, reducing carbon emissions and carbon sequestration. What about more extreme or dangerous solutions such as weather manipulation and reflecting solar energy through materials in orbit?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
photon-torpedo 9y ago
They are dangerous, as you say. If you had to choose between global warming and a new ice age, what would you prefer?
spenrose 9y ago
They chose to be intellectually conservative in their first round of work. They are attempting to find peer-reviewed, quantified estimates for as many approaches as they can manage.

Aloha 9y ago

I think trying to argue specifically about climate change in the US at least - is dead - politics as such prevent the scope of change needed - that said - we as a planet should work more on sustainability - there are technological and cultural solutions that can be put in place, (mostly by private industry) to make the way we consume our planets limited natural resources more sustainable. Carbon as far as I'm concerned has turned into a straw man preventing us on working on the larger (and more complex) problem of sustainability. I think another thing to consider for a moment is, if we want a "western" standard of living for all people living on this planet, we either need less people, or we need to figure out how to use the limited resources we have a lot more efficiently. Humans in the end will adapt to a warmer planet - the range of habitable places however may change - this says nothing to the other animals living here - they're not so lucky.

dboreham 9y ago
Fewer people.

diafygi 9y ago

Howdy! I work in cleantech, and I guess it's that time again for a what-can-you-do-about-it post :) To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!" ==So what can you do about it?== The biggest thing this article doesn't say that is most relevant to the HN audience is that you can work at a new energy technology company! Our industries are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth[1], and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). ==How do I find a job fighting climate change?== I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below). Check out the companies that interest you and see if they are hiring. * Energy Storage[2][3] * Solar[4][5] * Wind[6] * Nuclear[7] * Electric Utilities[8][9] * Electric vehicles[10] Also, if you're in the SF bay area, I'd recommend subscribing to my Bay Area Energy Events Calendar[11]. Just start showing up to events and you'll probably find a job really quickly. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/22/energy-is-the-new-new-inte... [2]: http://www.esnaexpo.com/ http://www.esnaexpo.com/ [3]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-storage-summit-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/u.s.-energy-stora... [4]: https://www.intersolar.us/ https://www.intersolar.us/ [5]: http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/ [6]: http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ http://www.windpowerexpo.org/ [7]: https://www.nei.org/Conferences https://www.nei.org/Conferences [8]: http://www.distributech.com/index.html http://www.distributech.com/index.html [9]: https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-forum-2016 https://www.greentechmedia.com/events/live/grid-edge-world-f... [10]: http://tec.ieee.org/ http://tec.ieee.org/ [11]: https://bayareaenergyevents.com/ https://bayareaenergyevents.com/

kelnos 9y ago
I have a background in electrical/computer engineering, but much of that has faded from memory. For the past 15 years I've been a software developer, starting out in the embedded space, and today working on cloud telecom. I feel like I don't have the background or domain knowledge required to break into a career in clean energy, though it's a space that interests me a lot (both intellectually, and because of survival-of-the-species reasons). Do you have any suggestions how I might break into this field, beyond attending the events you listed (or is that enough?)? Is there a need for my skills more or less as-is, or am I looking at a steep learning curve and more "entry-level" positions until I can train up?

johnmarcus 9y ago

I stopped at "telepresence". This is silly, and as published as a pay for book, I suspect it will actually cost the environment more from it's printing and shipping than the influence it will have to make a change.

atemerev 9y ago

Sorry, this is all flawed. Just an agenda of constraining ourselves and limiting human influence. Won't work. We humans are inherently driven to expand and use more and more energy for our needs. This is a given. Any solutions trying to ignore this are doomed. What we need is technological solutions to _reverse_ global warming effects. Like iron fertilization of oceans.

acidburnNSA 9y ago

Nit picking on one issue: Nuclear. I'm glad they at least listed it as a solution but I feel that there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science. It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern: deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of missile material, among them. [1] Nevermind: * that >60% of the carbon-free electricity in the USA comes from nukes right now, * that by displacing air pollution, nukes worldwide have saved 1.8 million lives and prevented 65 billion tonnes CO2-eq [2] * that nobody died or is expected to die from radiation at Fukushima * that uranium enrichment is by far the easiest way to illicitly traffic weapons materials (which can happen without any nuclear power) * that Hanford was a cold-war nuclear weapons facility that did not prioritize waste storage, and that it was totally unrelated to commercial power generation The capabilities of nuclear energy to thwart climate change are real and gigantic. Getting costs down would help, and the Koreans have been doing an amazing job at that. The French electrified their whole country with nukes in 10 years by standardizing designs and that's been wildly successful. This solution should have said something like: "If we can standardize a safe Gen III+ reactor and get costs down, nuclear can and will grow as our climate champion." [1] http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/energy/nuclear [2] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

spenrose 9y ago
"there's way too much agenda in here that isn't based on the science" 1) The concerns they list are the actual concerns of significant segments of the population. Such as e.g. an overwhelming majority of the German electorate. 2) I personally think that some of those concerns are overweighted. You apparently do as well. 3) Failing to weigh those concerns the way you and I do does not constitute "having an agenda not based on the science", key word "the". 4) They are evenly applying "the" science of GHG reduction to all solutions. It's not their job to follow a specific agenda on the debated science of side topics such as those you single out. Nuclear power activates identity framing for a lot of people. For some it is anti-, but for others it is pro-. The anti-nuclear people typically own the identity issue. The pro-nuclear people sometimes do, but sometimes want to claim a "these are the scientific facts with which it is irrational to agree" kind of super-identity.