4 ms·

Or, pessimistically, we’ll do the geo-engineering step without ever reigning in the new emissions and call it done.

by lovecg 5y ago

anonporridge 5y ago
That outcome isn't necessarily bad. It's somewhat arrogant of us to assume that we understand enough about a system as complex as the Earth's biosphere and atmosphere to know for sure a larger percentage of CO2 will necessarily be bad long term. It's feasible that it could be better, even if only after a painful transition. I for one find the future where we're not actively managing the Earth's climate in some way to be the more pessimistic outcome. It indicates that civilization has failed to continue advancing, probably isn't spacefaring, and that the light of consciousness will eventually twinkle out once the Earth becomes uninhabitable in about 500 million years. We'll see.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > It's somewhat arrogant of us to assume that we understand enough about a system as complex as the Earth's biosphere and atmosphere to know for sure a larger percentage of CO2 will necessarily be bad long term. It's feasible that it could be better, even if only after a painful transition. That's the problem. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse, and there is only one way to find out. But if it's worse, finding out is very bad. And there is no way to know ahead of time.
- nandhinianand 5y ago
  I think we can and should be confident about the short-medium term negative effects of high CO2 on human civilization. You can always spread doubt about anything that's long-term(say more than 2 decades) but it doesn't help to hope long-term it works, and short-term let it hurt as much as possible.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We know that, at least, thousands of species, including many not catalogged, will be driven to extinction, that large currently inhabited areas will become uninhabitable, that tens or hundreds of millions of those inhabitants will be converted to refugees unable to provide for themselves, and the influx of those refugees will drive temperate nation governments to fascism. If that is not bad enough, I can go on. The "everything is so uncertain, we must do nothing" line has worn out its welcome. It was dishonest 30 years ago, and is reprehensible today.
  - vixen99 5y ago
    Rather as in the pandemic, the attention paid to models is remarkable. You can cherry pick a model to suit your predilections. They certainly cover a wide range of possibilities. I do wonder what your view is of the utter lack of any concerted action by countries in response to these models? If we're off to hell in a handbasket, it does seem that few in power, with access to the best authorities available, are really concerned. How is that? Extinction Rebellion are certainly logical on the basis of their belief in the views of some climate scientists. They sound and act rather like people who'd say yes to O'Brien's question in 1984 when he asks Winston if he's prepared to do some pretty horrible things in pursuance of the objective of overthrowing Big Brother. But when it comes down to it, no one is convinced. Example: Coal is now back on the menu when power shortages loom.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      People in power expect to be dead before the chickens come home to roost. They didn't get where they are by caring about what happens to anybody else. Provided civilization doesn't wholly collapse before then, they are insulated from all consequences.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      All the accepted models point in the direction of mass extinctions to varying degrees.
    - midjji 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure the models are right, and that we will hit +4C on time, that politicians are aware of this, and they wont do much about it. They want to, but all real solutions have massive conflicts of interest, and they are aware voters dont really care much about global warming compared to other issues like house prices and jobs. In forums like this, where everyone has a well paying job and fuck you money, it is important to preserve the planet, just not enough that more than 1% here would approve a build permit for a windfarm next door to their house. Arguably we mostly care about preserving the nice nature we now enjoy for free, and this is as good as it gets. The vast majority of people who specifically feel climate change is important still dont think the near guarantee of climate change is more important than the negligible risks of nuclear power. Basically, politicians are representing the true interests of the population, which to be fair is their job. We just arent who we want to pretend we are.
- Bud 5y ago
  Arrogant? It's arrogant? You might want to read up on the effects of higher CO2 levels on human cognition. It's not pretty. And it completely blows your comment out of the water. We already know that the CO2 levels that are forecast this century are going to be catastrophic. This isn't a "we'll see" situation anymore. We have seen. The only question is whether we will do something about it before it is far, far too late. You need to worry about the next 50 years before you start worrying about 500 million years.
weq 5y ago
As someone who has been growing plants for years underwater (aquascaping) IMO geo-engineering is the only answer. We are already doing it by proxy, we need to have it front and center though. Every action has a reaction. We cannot consider a single project for its merits without the context of the larger whole. We need to not only stuff more air into that supercharged engine, we also need the correct mix of fuel, strong spark, and correct timing. The natural way to of carbon sequestion on a planetary scale is - life ( plants / organisms / microbes etc). The catch is that if we fuck it up, and you know we will, we will pay a hefty price (like we do now with red tides, dead zones, bleeching). The added bonus is that we just do not sequester carbon, but we supercharge all the plantatary processes.
czbond 5y ago
You reminded me of a "midnight thought" on the topic. I wonder if Tesla starlink process could be used to create satellites with sails that block sunlight opening/closing as needed until we can remove enough carbon to do it right? The ring of satellites could be some distance above our current satellite flight paths.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Considering the psychological effects of no sunlight, this is a terrible idea.
  - mc32 5y ago
    It doesn't require darkened skies --a reduction in incoming light is all you need. 10% reduction would be a lot.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Oh, you'll still get sunlight, assuming you pay your monthly sunlight bill to spacex.
    - czbond 5y ago
      My response isn't a HN "appropriate" comment, more Reddit - but this is gold! Made me laugh thinking of it.
  - czbond 5y ago
    I was suggesting, more like.... if they were programmed (for instance) to open over deserts, or barren U.S. lands, etc for short periods of time. Some parts of the globe might have some small amount of light blocked for 10 mins, 1 hour, etc - whatever. It would be like a cloudy "hour", etc.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    Not sure how to phrase this, but: Are you aware of clouds? (The ones in the sky, not at FAANG...)
- 5y ago

Or, pessimistically, we’ll do the geo-engineering step without ever reigning in the new emissions and call it done.

by lovecg 5y ago

Or, pessimistically, we’ll do the geo-engineering step without ever reigning in the new emissions and call it done.

That outcome isn't necessarily bad. It's somewhat arrogant of us to assume that we understand enough about a system as complex as the Earth's biosphere and atmosphere to know for sure a larger percentage of CO2 will necessarily be bad long term. It's feasible that it could be better, even if only after a painful transition. I for one find the future where we're not actively managing the Earth's climate in some way to be the more pessimistic outcome. It indicates that civilization has failed to continue advancing, probably isn't spacefaring, and that the light of consciousness will eventually twinkle out once the Earth becomes uninhabitable in about 500 million years. We'll see.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> It's somewhat arrogant of us to assume that we understand enough about a system as complex as the Earth's biosphere and atmosphere to know for sure a larger percentage of CO2 will necessarily be bad long term. It's feasible that it could be better, even if only after a painful transition. That's the problem. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse, and there is only one way to find out. But if it's worse, finding out is very bad. And there is no way to know ahead of time.
nandhinianand 5y ago
I think we can and should be confident about the short-medium term negative effects of high CO2 on human civilization. You can always spread doubt about anything that's long-term(say more than 2 decades) but it doesn't help to hope long-term it works, and short-term let it hurt as much as possible.
ncmncm 5y ago
We know that, at least, thousands of species, including many not catalogged, will be driven to extinction, that large currently inhabited areas will become uninhabitable, that tens or hundreds of millions of those inhabitants will be converted to refugees unable to provide for themselves, and the influx of those refugees will drive temperate nation governments to fascism. If that is not bad enough, I can go on. The "everything is so uncertain, we must do nothing" line has worn out its welcome. It was dishonest 30 years ago, and is reprehensible today.
- vixen99 5y ago
  Rather as in the pandemic, the attention paid to models is remarkable. You can cherry pick a model to suit your predilections. They certainly cover a wide range of possibilities. I do wonder what your view is of the utter lack of any concerted action by countries in response to these models? If we're off to hell in a handbasket, it does seem that few in power, with access to the best authorities available, are really concerned. How is that? Extinction Rebellion are certainly logical on the basis of their belief in the views of some climate scientists. They sound and act rather like people who'd say yes to O'Brien's question in 1984 when he asks Winston if he's prepared to do some pretty horrible things in pursuance of the objective of overthrowing Big Brother. But when it comes down to it, no one is convinced. Example: Coal is now back on the menu when power shortages loom.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    People in power expect to be dead before the chickens come home to roost. They didn't get where they are by caring about what happens to anybody else. Provided civilization doesn't wholly collapse before then, they are insulated from all consequences.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    All the accepted models point in the direction of mass extinctions to varying degrees.
  - midjji 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure the models are right, and that we will hit +4C on time, that politicians are aware of this, and they wont do much about it. They want to, but all real solutions have massive conflicts of interest, and they are aware voters dont really care much about global warming compared to other issues like house prices and jobs. In forums like this, where everyone has a well paying job and fuck you money, it is important to preserve the planet, just not enough that more than 1% here would approve a build permit for a windfarm next door to their house. Arguably we mostly care about preserving the nice nature we now enjoy for free, and this is as good as it gets. The vast majority of people who specifically feel climate change is important still dont think the near guarantee of climate change is more important than the negligible risks of nuclear power. Basically, politicians are representing the true interests of the population, which to be fair is their job. We just arent who we want to pretend we are.
Bud 5y ago
Arrogant? It's arrogant? You might want to read up on the effects of higher CO2 levels on human cognition. It's not pretty. And it completely blows your comment out of the water. We already know that the CO2 levels that are forecast this century are going to be catastrophic. This isn't a "we'll see" situation anymore. We have seen. The only question is whether we will do something about it before it is far, far too late. You need to worry about the next 50 years before you start worrying about 500 million years.

weq 5y ago

As someone who has been growing plants for years underwater (aquascaping) IMO geo-engineering is the only answer. We are already doing it by proxy, we need to have it front and center though. Every action has a reaction. We cannot consider a single project for its merits without the context of the larger whole. We need to not only stuff more air into that supercharged engine, we also need the correct mix of fuel, strong spark, and correct timing. The natural way to of carbon sequestion on a planetary scale is - life ( plants / organisms / microbes etc). The catch is that if we fuck it up, and you know we will, we will pay a hefty price (like we do now with red tides, dead zones, bleeching). The added bonus is that we just do not sequester carbon, but we supercharge all the plantatary processes.

czbond 5y ago

You reminded me of a "midnight thought" on the topic. I wonder if Tesla starlink process could be used to create satellites with sails that block sunlight opening/closing as needed until we can remove enough carbon to do it right? The ring of satellites could be some distance above our current satellite flight paths.

collegeburner 5y ago
Considering the psychological effects of no sunlight, this is a terrible idea.
- mc32 5y ago
  It doesn't require darkened skies --a reduction in incoming light is all you need. 10% reduction would be a lot.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Oh, you'll still get sunlight, assuming you pay your monthly sunlight bill to spacex.
  - czbond 5y ago
    My response isn't a HN "appropriate" comment, more Reddit - but this is gold! Made me laugh thinking of it.
- czbond 5y ago
  I was suggesting, more like.... if they were programmed (for instance) to open over deserts, or barren U.S. lands, etc for short periods of time. Some parts of the globe might have some small amount of light blocked for 10 mins, 1 hour, etc - whatever. It would be like a cloudy "hour", etc.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  Not sure how to phrase this, but: Are you aware of clouds? (The ones in the sky, not at FAANG...)
5y ago