19 ms·

The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this ment

• defrost 3y ago
  > which computing analogy Ooops... bricked it :(
• junofan 3y ago
  Yeah but I think natural experiments like low-sulfur marine fuel adoption can point to areas where we can find reversible interim solutions.
• rgmerk 3y ago
  Geoengineering is bad. The problem is that the alternatives may be even worse.
• nostrebored 3y ago
  The more radical geoengineering ideas, like deflecting sunlight from space, are truly potential extinction level events that should be regulated out of existence. This should not be some VC funded endeavor.
  • defrost 3y ago
    I'm no great fan of geoengineering, however ... The idea to inflate space foam reflective bubbles to reduce incoming sunlight is one of the saner geoengineering proposals: * It can start small and grow to measure incremental effect, * It's orthogonal to any unintended effects as it happens in isolation and isn't deeply coupled to things unknown in the same sense as aerosols and atmospheric chemistry is. * It's reversable as bubbles can be popped and no longer exist to reflect and have an effect. > This should not be some VC funded endeavor. Yeah, on this we can agree- a high degree of global nation state consensus is what's called for with most climate action .. like the 1970s UN agreements that got effectively sunk by unending Koch et al oil bro's negative media campaigning and lobbying. 'Lone' capitalists do seem to have undue sway in matters that impact billions.
  • concordDance 3y ago
    You're really underestimating how much sun blocking would be needed to kill off humans.
  • krisoft 3y ago
    > This should not be some VC funded endeavor. How would it be VC funded? Where would the return on investment hypothetically come from? If you could produce localised effects while being able to turn them on or off then maybe you could charge for it as a service, but is that at all realistic?
    • nostrebored 3y ago
      There are already VC funded companies doing exactly this.
  • pfdietz 3y ago
    This is a ridiculous overstatement of the risk of such activities.
• sfvisser 3y ago
  I highly doubt many proponents of geoengineering think in terms of rebooting or isolating individual factors. The appeal of geoengineering is you can nudge specific systems slowly into another direction. You can start small and observe expected effects and unwanted side-effects. Reduction of sulfer emissions by ships is an interesting starting point to learn something.
  • Kuinox 3y ago
    It is accidental geo-engineering.
  • wnkrshm 3y ago
    Starting small doesn't work if you have a nonlinear system. In nonlinear systems, the magnitude of a perturbance isn't linearly related to the absorbed effect. So in the worst case: small input, giant irreversible effect.
    • twobitshifter 3y ago
      Control of nonlinear systems is common, in this case we’d be starting small by putting the system back to the state it was in when the sulfur were there. Additionally, removing an input can have an outsized effect as we saw here, so your philosophy seems to require a do nothing approach. Is that what you mean? Of course that’s impossible to do since the world itself is doing things like erupting volcanos, shifting plates, melting glaciers, and redirecting ocean currents.
• sz3 3y ago
  There is no alternative. We have "aggravated the situation" (as you put it) beyond recovery. Doing nothing will now surely lead to an unacceptable outcome. We are going to have to fix it, or resign ourselves to a huge shrinking of the habitable region of the planet, with the hunger/famine/war that will accompany that. Obviously we can always make things worse. But when doing nothing is unacceptable, we have to start taking risks.
  • MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    This is a good example of the lack of epistemic humility OP was taking about.
    • sz3 3y ago
      We don't have the time to sit back and let epistemic knowledge wash over us. We know more or less what needs to happen (less sunlight in, more heat out). All attempts to resolve the situation require taking some risk, and it'll be impossible to quantify all those risks until we try them. At the risk of stating the obvious: we need to measure every weird idea we try, and do our best to isolate the variables. Easier said than done. But we broke it, it's our problem now. Talking about humility: an excess of humility leads to fatalism. Some is good, but not too much if you want anything to happen. We're talking about fixing the ecosystem of a planet, of course it's ambitious.
  • dougmwne 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • sz3 3y ago
      Well, hopefully we have some time to practice first. Because we're the only person in the room and the patient is bleeding out.
      • aziaziazi 3y ago
        You are the doctor and the patient at the same time. On what body do you want to practice ?
• brucethemoose2 3y ago
  > Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality Geoengineering is an act of desperation. Its like your laptop is on fire, so you throw some water on it.
  • kybernetikos 3y ago
    > Its like your laptop is on fire, so you throw some water on it. Is it a lithium fire? I think this might be a very good analogy.
    • brucethemoose2 3y ago
      Yes, exactly. But it might just be a simpler fire. But if smothering isn't an option, you take the lowest risk choice, which is the water.
• dheera 3y ago
  > refrain from aggravating the situation I used to think this way, but after years of trying I don't think getting people to change their life habits is going to happen. At this point I think geoengineering is necessary. At the very, very least, carbon sequestration at scale is a fairly safe form of geoengineering if we can pull it off.
  • ImHereToVote 3y ago
    I think of it like Star Trek: Next Generation. They had this recurring character that nudged humanity into accepting their role of manipulating time-space. The lesson being. We as humans aren't simply animals occupying a rock floating in space. Us being powerful means we have to take responsibility no matter how much it makes our internal naturalistic fallacy emotions winge.
• TheRealSteel 3y ago
  We don't have any other choice.
• happytiger 3y ago
  Linear thinking is how we take action. Leaning back observation is how we analyze. It’s cool to analyze but it can paralyze us into observation and this situation benefits from the former because the consequences of being wrong is so profoundly dire. Generally agree with you, but why not be conservative when it comes to issues like global warming and species extinction and avoid catastrophe if it turns out to be as bad as it could be? That takes linear thinking and action now. We should also analyze, but it’s logical to take action too.
• jabbany 3y ago
  > Not sure which computing analogy Probably akin to "testing in production". But, as is in computing, it's still done all the time despite the dangers.
• Roark66 3y ago
  More people should upvote your post. If there is a rank of how easily humanity can destroy itself and make the earth uninhabitable for itself geoengineering is probably second only to thermonuclear war. Also I object to the use of the term geo-engineering. Engineering supposes we know exactly what the outcomes will be following centuries/decades of experience with similar systems. Including many failed experiments. Thinking we can geo-engineer a predictable change when there is no way to experiment, fail and learn safely because we only have one shot at this is massively stupid. Anyone that claims "but we've been geoengineering for decades with our greenhouse gas emissions etc" is simply wrong. No, we haven't been "geoengineering". Engineering implies conscious intent. Humanity didn't start burning coal to increase co2 content in the atmosphere. Confusing these two things are akin to finding a victim of a vehicle accident and doing a roadside open heart surgery by a random bystander. "Hey, the guy is already sliced open, we've already started the surgery so we may as well continue right?" No, wrong. That is insane. The biggest lie today is that we comprehensively know how climate works. We don't. We don't even measure the earth's temperature properly. We extrapolate huge amounts of data. If we _really_ wanted to learn how climate works it would require not just arrays of sensors covering the entire planet's surface, but also ocean depths and the the entire thickness of the atmosphere. No, satellites are not a replacement. Anyone that knows the limitations of satellite sensing knows we can measure a lot, but reliably measuring temperature, humidity, and wind direction across the entire thickness of the atmosphere is not something we can do. We can roughly approximate some measurements across the entire thickness, in theory in good conditions we can narrow it down to certain attitudes and on this basis we make conclusions on the entire state of the system pulling the missing data from our "models". If we discovere the models are wrong? We just tweak them to match the historic data. We might know the measures in this particular place and time, but we use our "models" to "approximate" everything we are unable to measure. This is one of the major reasons why we cannot reliably predict weather for next 3 days, and why our attempts at making climate predictions are laughable. We know a certain number of principles so we can make some conclusions like more co2/h2o/ch4 = more temperature, but even in this we have to accept there are processes (positive and negative feedback) we have zero idea of. Furthermore, our planet has shown us huge climatic variability in the geological record. Within that variability the most dangerous to human life are periods of excessive glaciation (ice ages). We're "just" in the warming period after the last one. Is humanity taking part in accelerating the warming? Yes, is it a licence for stupidity like attempting to "stabilise" something that is inherently unstable and periodic(climate) risking we overdo it and find ourselves in a "mini ice age"? No. Has it ever stopped us before? No. Anyone interested in results of previous "geoengineering" efforts should read up on the soviet attempts at it and what catastrophe it wrought on the region including the Sea of Azov. People in the entire Black Sea region can consider themselves extremely lucky they haven't implemented more than few percent of their plans. It is generally accepted today had more of Soviet attempts at geoengineering been implemented it would've had same horrible consequences we see near the Sea of Azov far and wide.
• BasedAnon 3y ago
  >Not sure which computing analogy would drive home the complete recklessness of this mentality but the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. here's one: stop writing random bits to the BIOS hoping it will fix things
  • concordDance 3y ago
    That's an awful analogy. The science behind, say, sunshades is much stronger than the science behind climate change itself! Eg. The odds of blocking out the sun not cooling the earth are much lower than the earth's temperature magically stabilising at current levels despite more co2 emissions.
    • BasedAnon 3y ago
      the hidden assumption is that you are dealing with a closed system, you are not. the scientific method has explanatory limits
    • peteradio 3y ago
      Sunshade is like thinking you fixed the bios security issue because your test case can no longer boot.
      • concordDance 3y ago
        Is the implication here that global warming isn't the actual problem we're trying to solve?
        • peteradio 3y ago
          No but you can appear to solve a problem with a myopic poorly formed test. Ala we got temps down but wheat yields are down but we won't blame the sunshade because that solved the problem.
• atoav 3y ago
  It is very uncomplicated in fact: Most people here on HN are rationally capable of understanding the challenges humanity faces right now. What many aren't capable of is accepting the conclusion that we all have to change the way we live and quite possibly even the way we organize society in order to mitigate the irreperable problems our way of living has already caused. Deep down they might suspect this is necessary, but it is much more comfortable to believe in a solution that is only technological and go on as we did. That is why discussions around such technological silver bullets are always toxic: people want to believe.
  • matsemann 3y ago
    Especially since HNers mostly are the top top top earners in the world, having unsustainable lifestyles. No one likes to accept it can't be like this forever.
    • CalRobert 3y ago
      It's really frustrating that I had to work really hard, study the right things, and get lucky to be able to afford to live somewhere my direct emissions are minimal. More people should be able to afford to live car free in well insulated homes.
    • fasterik 3y ago
      This doesn't seem right. Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. On the other hand, the HN crowd is much more likely to live in dense cities (which are more climate friendly), have access to public transportation, drive electric cars, and can afford to pay for carbon offsets. The only thing unsustainable about the first world lifestyle is the fact that we don't have the political will to invest in real solutions like nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, etc.
      • lordnacho 3y ago
        > Most of the world's new carbon emissions are coming from developing countries. Isn't this because we're paying them to make stuff for us? Or is there some accounting of this where its their own consumption that causes it?
• concordDance 3y ago
  > For the short term future (decades) the only strategy that seems to make sense on the face of epistemic uncertainty is to refrain from aggravating the situation while studying ever more deeply the system we are now perturbing so much. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good. If climate change really was going to kill a billion people then taking the risk with some geoengineering would be better than just letting it happen.
• HPsquared 3y ago
  I suppose it comes down to a judgement of how reliable the models are. In this case the models of what happens after applying the "patch".
  • nologic01 3y ago
    The degree of confidence in our abstractions of reality is usually a visible process: You are able to explain things you can measure with increasing accuracy, you can predict and verify the unfolding of what-if scenarios etc. One thing that we should not refrain from is applying 10x, 100x, 1000x the brainpower to understand objectively (as in: not captured by short-term interests) what sustainable biospheres look like and how things can go wrong. The capacity and orientation of the scientific apparatus (universities, research centers etc) is a WIP that has been shaped by momentous historical events (WWII in particular) and societal choices. I think the sustainability transition is of far greater importance but it has not yet had a visible impact. There are a few new fields (e.g. industrial ecology) but its a slow process.
• 0xDEF 3y ago
  How are you going to convince Asia and Africa to stop their economic growth? How are you going to convince Americans to stop driving Ford F150s? How are you going to convince Europeans to stop doing vacations that involves long-distance flights to exotic faraway countries? Geoengineering is the only solution.
  • prox 3y ago
    Why does economic growth need to be incompatible with going green? I don’t think they are natural opposites, mostly habitual, and habits and outlooks can change if people really want. Now it’s the “really want” that’s at issue here. Maybe this year’s weather opens peoples minds.
  • nologic01 3y ago
    An out-of-control spacecraft is hurling towards an asteroid. Engineers onboard argue the only solution is to invent a laser that will blast a tunnel through the asteroid so that the spacecraft can continue safely its out-of-control trajectory. Its an insane strategy. Predicated, among others, on the impossibility of getting back into the control room and charting a non-collision course (which among others will ensure we can better handle any future sustainability challenges). I would challenge that assumption (but with a caveat). The obstacles you mention are real and in a sense currently as complex to model and work through. Its the difference of socially engineering the complex system that is human society versus biophysically engineering the complex system that is the Earth's biosphere. Social change is intrinsically easier and far more comprehensive insurance: There is a lot of precedent of purposeful social change and the enormous historical diversity of socioeconomic structures points out to very flexible systems. The obstacles you mention did not even exist a few decades ago. There is nothing deterministic about the current state of the world. Its all in our freaking brains, a lot of it just inane over-consumption because for a while the answer was... why not. The caveat is that a minimum amount of social change needs to be truly global. This is something unprecedented. We are living through a historically unique moment where the random walk of political and socioeconomic evolution folds onto itself: its canvas is now a finite manifold. Cherished behaviors, power games etc may no longer be part of the solution space. Remains to be seen how our complex system will adapt.
  • 3y ago
• quickthrower2 3y ago
  You cant terraform apply I guess!
• aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
• tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  It’s almost like this website is full of people that let Silicon Valley money trick them into believing they are Gods amongst men and that knowing how to write software grants them some sort of transferable expertise.
  • ChatGTP 3y ago
    We’ll we now refer to ourselves as hardware running on software so it would stand to reason that everything is just a few build pipelines away. I personally think in the future this idea will be severely dated but it’s in vogue right now.
• bartimus 3y ago
  Reducing atmospheric CO2 is geo-engineering just as well. Tackling climate change is going to involve climate engineering. Some solutions will work. Others will not. > to refrain from aggravating the situation Easier said than done. What makes you think this is going to be achievable? Why are you assuming the HN community isn't acknowledging the complexity and not taking a holistic approach?
  • teamonkey 3y ago
    Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is geoengineering. Reducing CO2 emissions is less geoengineering.
    • fastball 3y ago
      It is more like geo-fly-tipping. Engineering implies we are being thoughtful about it (which is more true in the reduction case than the dumping case).
    • twobitshifter 3y ago
      This case was pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, removing the sulfur (less geoengineering) made things worse!
• Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  > the Earth is not something you can reboot to the last working state once you harebrained patch implodes. There are methods of geoengineering that you can stop doing at any point, at which point they stop having an effect. The one proposed in this twitter thread, marine cloud brightening by spraying seawater in the air, is one of those.
• dan-robertson 3y ago
  I think it’s important to have realistic ideas about how climate change might actually go. For example: - if all emissions stopped tonight, we’d still be on track for temperature rises over the next several decades - some places would get hotter, others wouldn’t. Similarly changes in rainfall would not be evenly distributed. It may be that Europe’s climate doesn’t change all that much, for example (due to changing ocean currents cooling the North Atlantic) - some of the facts that drove rhetoric 20 years ago have since changed, for example the cost of renewable energy has dramatically decreased such that certain kinds of subsidies or sacrifices are less necessary (on the other hand, the power/km^2 density of solar / wind in some places may still imply land uses that people would find unacceptable were they to become dominant) - in the grand scheme of things, geoengineering (like pumping SO2 into the troposphere or dispersing silver particles in the atmosphere) is cheap and could be performed unilaterally by many countries were they to feel sufficiently threatened by climate change. I think one reason to care about this kind of geoengineering is that it might just happen. I think it’s also useful to consider that we’re currently doing the ‘geoengineering’ of pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere and I think we should be careful to avoid treating ‘planned’ geoengineering asymmetrically from the side-effect kind.
  • defrost 3y ago
    > if all emissions stopped tonight, we’d still be on track for temperature rises over the next several decades Good News Everybody! (hey, every little bit counts) That was the thinking in 2007. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st... https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-cl... However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.
• the__alchemist 3y ago
  The harebrained patch you describe has already been applied, and I can't find the reboot button.
• gilbetron 3y ago
  We already are performing geoengineering on the Earth, as you point out. We can't not do geoengineering anymore. Either we can continue the geoengineering we have been doing, or change the geoengineering to work towards some other goal, but there isn't an option where we don't do geoengineering. If you are driving a car towards what you think might be a cliff, you can't choose not to drive. You can continue driving the way you are, you can turn, you can brake, but you can't not drive. Anything we choose to do will require geoengineering. We can continue dumping CO2 into the air, which is geoengineering. We can try to make our atmosphere more reflective, which is geoengineering. We can try to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, which is geoengineering. We can try to completely stop putting CO2 in the air, which is geoengineering. We need to change the state of Earth, which, pretty much by definition, is geoengineering.
• nonethewiser 3y ago
  This is precisely why we shouldn’t dismiss skeptics about the cause of climate change as “climate change deniers.” Its clearly maligning - someone who doesn’t deny the climate is changing is obviously not a climate change denier. If we don’t understand all the variables we’re probably going through make things worse. Given how complicated weather and climate are and how are models are not perfect, that seems inevitable if we embrace geoengineering.
• pfdietz 3y ago
  > The enthusiasm with geoengineering among the HN community is worrisome. It reflects the gravity of the situation. What I find incomprehensible is a reluctance to consider investigating such steps when the extremes of climate model forecasts are so horrific.
• renewiltord 3y ago
  Worry yourself. We're going to do it while you post about your worrying.