4 ms·
@mr_overalls: >> simply a matter of engineering. >Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations. They are based on well-understood science. Two t
by Recurecur 8y ago
@mr_overalls:
>> simply a matter of engineering.
>Remember that these are hypothetical, untried mitigations.
They are based on well-understood science. Two that would clearly work are orbital sunshades (adjustable as needed via various techniques) and CO2 sequestration (great, but tons of energy is required).
>> Humans should also aggressively colonize elsewhere in the solar system
>Another idea that requires decades or centuries of continued technological progress - which in turn depends heavily on stable societies and supporting ecosystems.
Which has nothing to do with anything. My comment on space colonization wasn't intended to present it as a "solution" to catastrophic warming - instead, to present it as a reason for long-term optimism.
>I'm a bright green environmentalist, too - I think that the convergence of technological change and social innovation provides the most successful path to sustainable development - but you're being a bit overly optimistic here, I think.
LOL...if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen?
At this time, global warming is not understood well enough for accurate prediction, especially over longer timescales. As that changes, the best course of future action will become clear. In the meantime, the best focus is as outlined in the "In the shorter term" paragraph in the parent...
- ForHackernews 8y ago> if the two alternatives are global catastrophe, or aggressive geoengineering, do you really think geoengineering won't happen? Why hasn't it happened already, then? In case you haven't noticed, we're already staring down the barrel of global catastrophe. The problem is that it's happening on a scope that our human systems aren't set up to address. It's interesting how much faith supposedly hard-nosed engineers are willing to put into imaginary future technology that doesn't exist, but which will supposedly be invented and deployed at a planetary scale in the next 10 to 20 years.
- d0lph 8y agoThey already have estimates for the sun shade idea, so probably the engineers are capable of doing what they say. It's interesting how you cling to doom and gloom, and don't even bother researching alternatives.
- ForHackernews 8y agoDo you really honestly think a trillion-dollar giant space mirror is something that could/will happen circa 2040 or so? To me, this sounds like Elon Musk's science-fiction predictions of Mars colonies by 2020.
- d0lph 8y agoA recentish one places an estimate at 10B initial costs, and 10B maintenance. 20B is doable by the US alone, yes. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, it's why you must research. In this case the truth may well be that humans have an easier time making the sun shine less rather than lowering our carbon footprint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade
- ForHackernews 8y agoEverything I find about this idea looks like pie-in-the-sky speculation and back-of-the-envelope estimates. As far as I can tell, nobody is making serious engineering proposals for this idea. IMHO, you are far too sanguine.
- d0lph 8y agoWhich numbers in particular do you have problems with?
- ForHackernews 8y agoAs a point of reference, the Galileo navigation constellation apparently costs about 10bn (€ not $, but call it even): https://qz.com/1264365/brexit-is-breaking-up-galileo-europes-e10-billion-plan-to-launch-new-satellites/ https://qz.com/1264365/brexit-is-breaking-up-galileo-europes... That system is essentially a modern re-implementation of GPS, a known, proven technology. To suggest that this untested, unproven, highly speculative solar shade project would cost the same is laughable to me. You're also totally discounting the unintended consequences and second-order effects of trying to engineer the climate.