52 ms·

#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)

by aurareturn 3y ago

tomrod 3y ago
#1 is a pipe dream. Oauth2 token TTL expiration alone will limit infiltration :-)
- belter 3y ago
  Underrated comment :-)
IMTDb 3y ago
#1 is marketing hype #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved while trying to reach #1
belter 3y ago
Recent "Star Trek Picard" episode... Data: We are going to die. Geordi La Forge: Data...You are being negative again. Say something positive! Data: I hope we die quickly!
- globalnode 3y ago
  That should be the slogan for the in-coming climate and viral disasters.
jeromegv 3y ago
> #3 will be solved by human ingenuity It already started, billions of dollars in losses, with no real solution in sight.
- exoverito 3y ago
  There will always billions in losses from something, especially when global wealth is estimated to be around 450 trillion. The Dust Bowl was a disastrous incident of climate change, yet it didn't occur because of CO2. The damage caused by the California Wildfires are just as much a function of expanding developments into forests, immediately putting out small fires leading to the accumulation of fuel over time, and opposition to controlled burns. Property damage and deaths from flooding are mostly a function of population growth in the developing world, without sufficient corresponding investment in water management infrastructure. Regarding the solution, stratospheric aerosol injection would be the most immediate and effective solution to rising temperatures. It's been estimated that current increases in CO2 have a radiative forcing effect of about 2 watts per square meter, compared to the total solar irradiance of 1361 W/m2. If CO2 levels doubled to 800 ppm then it's estimated this would have a radiative forcing effect of 6 W/m2. This scenario would require mitigation strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection to reduce solar irradiance by about 0.4%. In the context of plant growth this reduction in sunlight would be negligible given that photosynthesis is only 1 to 2% efficient. If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% due to the CO2 fertilization effect at 800ppm.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    I'd be curious to see the science on enhanced plant growth; my understanding is that the benefits of increased CO2 fade very quickly. I believe we can already see plant pores evolving to be smaller as they were in previous times when the Earth had greater CO2 levels. About the only thing that gives me hope is SRM, but it's a half-assed solution at best. A world with 800ppm CO2 and a dimmed sun via aerosols is not the Earth that I was born to; it is probably not possible to fully understand the affects.
    - exoverito 2y ago
      The optimal CO2 level for plant growth is between 800 and 1000 ppm, as observed within greenhouses. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1029901/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/... There is no perfect solution. One of the benefits of stratospheric aerosols is that they only stay suspended for 10 years or so, reducing the risk of long term effects. They are also an exceptionally cheap strategy, on the order of a few billion a year to cool the entire Earth. Compare that with the many trillions needed to just get to carbon neutral, while significantly reducing economic growth and living standards. The world we were born into will not exist in any scenario. As they saying goes, you never step in the same river twice. CO2 emissions show no sign of decreasing, especially as China, India and Africa continue developing. Furthermore, we are on the cusp of AGI within the next decade or so, which will radically change reality far more than the Earth possibly getting a bit warmer in a 100 years or so. The IPCC does not even predict major cataclysm, and expects only sea level rise of a couple feet in the worst case scenario.
      - deciplex 2y ago
        > they only stay suspended for 10 years or so And then what happens? Earnest question.
        tim333 2y ago
        Back to the ground in rainfall I guess.
- RHSman2 3y ago
  Does money matter when we are all dead from a lack of oxygen?
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy Seems like we're moving directly and rapidly towards a real solution. Perhaps not rapidly enough, but the only way to change that is billions more in "losses"
FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.
- goatlover 3y ago
  What happens in 15 years? It’s not a comet impact. It’s an ongoing problem where technology will help us adapt.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    The problem is that we are adding too much CO2 to the air. In fact, we have already added too much CO2 to the air, to the point that we will have noticable bad effects within the next few decades. More importantly, all this stuff has huge inertia, so if we stopped producing CO2 right this second, we would STILL blow past CO2 goals. If we EVER want to get back to today's climate, you know, "normal", it requires removing gigatons of CO2 from the air. From a pure chemistry energy of reaction standpoint, that will be enormously expensive. There is zero technology that can change the physics fact that combining CO2 with something that will sequester it will take more energy than we ever got out of it. Petroenergy is explicitly a loan. We have to pay that back
    - goatlover 2y ago
      I understand that, but we may have to adapt to new normal with noticeable bad effects. That's where technology can help. Not sure we can remove that much CO2. Maybe if fusion becomes a thing, it would give use enough cheap energy.
  - smallerfish 2y ago
    There's all kinds of tipping points that are plausible in the next decade that would lead to accelerating warming. Permafrost melting releasing large amounts of methane; gulf stream redirecting; extended drought in climate critical regions; large ice shelves collapsing, etc. It's gradual until it's not.
gadders 3y ago
[flagged]
- andybak 3y ago
  Really?
  - jibe 3y ago
    We could be building nuclear power plants instead of shutting them down.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      And that makes the greenhouse effect not real how?
    - andybak 2y ago
      I have no idea how this comment relates to the previous one.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Not every green advocate wants this, but I think a few would be really upset if a technical solution was found that didn't involve the complete restructuring of society in the name of "fairness".
daveguy 3y ago
One person can make one command decision and make #2 a reality. That's all it takes. No matter how many people drool over AGI the bandwidth and processing just isn't there. We barely have control systems as intelligent as a bacterium.
- vasco 3y ago
  As far as I know no single person on earth can do it all by themselves - all the mechanisms I'm aware of at least.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    To my knowledge, this is correct. In theory a command from e.g. the President is authoritative and should legally be carried out. In practice, you'd require every person along the chain to implicitly agree to effectively ending the world. Even at the bottom of the chain, there are likely multi-key requirements so even there you don't have just one person with his hand on the trigger. This makes one of the biggest threats to humanity's survival being buggy software. If a software glitch from one side or the other suggests nuclear weapons are incoming, they will almost certainly retaliate in kind. And once the bombs are away, the other side will definitely respond, and that's pretty much gg humanity. In fact this exact thing very nearly happened in 1983. Soviet instrumentation indicated that the US had attack the USSR with multiple nuclear weapons. The technician on duty, Stanislav Petrov, [correctly] judged that what was happening was an instrumentation error, and disobeyed protocol - refusing to escalate it to his superiors who very well could have ordered retaliatory strikes. For some context this had happened at once of the highest levels of tensions between the US and the USSR. This was in the era of the 'Star Wars program', which was to be a US missile defense shield, leading the Soviet Union to become paranoid about intentions of a preemptive nuclear strike attack. Those tensions had already led to the downing of one 747 that had inadvertently veered into Soviet territory, while carrying a US Congressman at that. Given this context it's highly probable that his superiors would have ordered the retaliation. So he's one of very few people who can be reasonably said to have saved the world. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
xipix 3y ago
#1 will lead to #2 #2 will solve #3
jonathankoren 3y ago
Number 3 is literally an article of faith. And like all matters of faith, not only is there no evidence for it, the evidence that we do have runs counter to the belief. Let’s be honest here. Climate change was a completely predicable problem with known causes causes and solutions. It was detected early and alarms were raised in a timely manner. Literally nothing happened. In fact, even today, nothing happens. Why? Money. Because the billionaires would rather have us all die than not buy a tenth superyacht. (NB: Go Team Orca!) The problem was not, and is not, science. It’s money and who has it. Now those same folks and their apologists promote quite laughable ideas like carbon capture and geoengineering. Could we have gotten cheaper lithium batteries earlier with more investment? Probably, but what did we get instead? Fracking. Literally the opposite of what was needed. Science is not magic. Even if it was, the nature of the problem means it gets exponentially more difficult every day that passes. You mange to repeal the second law of thermodynamics and somehow got the carbon pollution industry to spend enough money to make it viable? Great! Oh, oops! The permafrost melted and now 10x more powerful methane has been released, so… yeah. Too late! It’s just Pollyanna talk that actively harmful as it not only directs resources from mitigation and migration to wasteful handouts while simultaneously giving cover for just staying the course. But hey. Maybe I’m just a doomer, and those Titanic passengers should have just sciences up more lifeboats instead of drown. Maybe all of this just… “needs more study”.
tim333 2y ago
Or optimistically AGI will solve #2 and #3

#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)

tomrod 3y ago

#1 is a pipe dream. Oauth2 token TTL expiration alone will limit infiltration :-)

belter 3y ago
Underrated comment :-)

IMTDb 3y ago

#1 is marketing hype #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved while trying to reach #1

belter 3y ago

Recent "Star Trek Picard" episode... Data: We are going to die. Geordi La Forge: Data...You are being negative again. Say something positive! Data: I hope we die quickly!

globalnode 3y ago
That should be the slogan for the in-coming climate and viral disasters.

jeromegv 3y ago

> #3 will be solved by human ingenuity It already started, billions of dollars in losses, with no real solution in sight.

exoverito 3y ago
There will always billions in losses from something, especially when global wealth is estimated to be around 450 trillion. The Dust Bowl was a disastrous incident of climate change, yet it didn't occur because of CO2. The damage caused by the California Wildfires are just as much a function of expanding developments into forests, immediately putting out small fires leading to the accumulation of fuel over time, and opposition to controlled burns. Property damage and deaths from flooding are mostly a function of population growth in the developing world, without sufficient corresponding investment in water management infrastructure. Regarding the solution, stratospheric aerosol injection would be the most immediate and effective solution to rising temperatures. It's been estimated that current increases in CO2 have a radiative forcing effect of about 2 watts per square meter, compared to the total solar irradiance of 1361 W/m2. If CO2 levels doubled to 800 ppm then it's estimated this would have a radiative forcing effect of 6 W/m2. This scenario would require mitigation strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection to reduce solar irradiance by about 0.4%. In the context of plant growth this reduction in sunlight would be negligible given that photosynthesis is only 1 to 2% efficient. If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% due to the CO2 fertilization effect at 800ppm.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  I'd be curious to see the science on enhanced plant growth; my understanding is that the benefits of increased CO2 fade very quickly. I believe we can already see plant pores evolving to be smaller as they were in previous times when the Earth had greater CO2 levels. About the only thing that gives me hope is SRM, but it's a half-assed solution at best. A world with 800ppm CO2 and a dimmed sun via aerosols is not the Earth that I was born to; it is probably not possible to fully understand the affects.
  - exoverito 2y ago
    The optimal CO2 level for plant growth is between 800 and 1000 ppm, as observed within greenhouses. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1029901/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/... There is no perfect solution. One of the benefits of stratospheric aerosols is that they only stay suspended for 10 years or so, reducing the risk of long term effects. They are also an exceptionally cheap strategy, on the order of a few billion a year to cool the entire Earth. Compare that with the many trillions needed to just get to carbon neutral, while significantly reducing economic growth and living standards. The world we were born into will not exist in any scenario. As they saying goes, you never step in the same river twice. CO2 emissions show no sign of decreasing, especially as China, India and Africa continue developing. Furthermore, we are on the cusp of AGI within the next decade or so, which will radically change reality far more than the Earth possibly getting a bit warmer in a 100 years or so. The IPCC does not even predict major cataclysm, and expects only sea level rise of a couple feet in the worst case scenario.
    - deciplex 2y ago
      > they only stay suspended for 10 years or so And then what happens? Earnest question.
      - tim333 2y ago
        Back to the ground in rainfall I guess.
RHSman2 3y ago
Does money matter when we are all dead from a lack of oxygen?
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy Seems like we're moving directly and rapidly towards a real solution. Perhaps not rapidly enough, but the only way to change that is billions more in "losses"

FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago

The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.

goatlover 3y ago
What happens in 15 years? It’s not a comet impact. It’s an ongoing problem where technology will help us adapt.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  The problem is that we are adding too much CO2 to the air. In fact, we have already added too much CO2 to the air, to the point that we will have noticable bad effects within the next few decades. More importantly, all this stuff has huge inertia, so if we stopped producing CO2 right this second, we would STILL blow past CO2 goals. If we EVER want to get back to today's climate, you know, "normal", it requires removing gigatons of CO2 from the air. From a pure chemistry energy of reaction standpoint, that will be enormously expensive. There is zero technology that can change the physics fact that combining CO2 with something that will sequester it will take more energy than we ever got out of it. Petroenergy is explicitly a loan. We have to pay that back
  - goatlover 2y ago
    I understand that, but we may have to adapt to new normal with noticeable bad effects. That's where technology can help. Not sure we can remove that much CO2. Maybe if fusion becomes a thing, it would give use enough cheap energy.
- smallerfish 2y ago
  There's all kinds of tipping points that are plausible in the next decade that would lead to accelerating warming. Permafrost melting releasing large amounts of methane; gulf stream redirecting; extended drought in climate critical regions; large ice shelves collapsing, etc. It's gradual until it's not.

gadders 3y ago

[flagged]

andybak 3y ago
Really?
- jibe 3y ago
  We could be building nuclear power plants instead of shutting them down.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    And that makes the greenhouse effect not real how?
  - andybak 2y ago
    I have no idea how this comment relates to the previous one.
- gadders 2y ago
  Not every green advocate wants this, but I think a few would be really upset if a technical solution was found that didn't involve the complete restructuring of society in the name of "fairness".

daveguy 3y ago

One person can make one command decision and make #2 a reality. That's all it takes. No matter how many people drool over AGI the bandwidth and processing just isn't there. We barely have control systems as intelligent as a bacterium.

vasco 3y ago
As far as I know no single person on earth can do it all by themselves - all the mechanisms I'm aware of at least.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  To my knowledge, this is correct. In theory a command from e.g. the President is authoritative and should legally be carried out. In practice, you'd require every person along the chain to implicitly agree to effectively ending the world. Even at the bottom of the chain, there are likely multi-key requirements so even there you don't have just one person with his hand on the trigger. This makes one of the biggest threats to humanity's survival being buggy software. If a software glitch from one side or the other suggests nuclear weapons are incoming, they will almost certainly retaliate in kind. And once the bombs are away, the other side will definitely respond, and that's pretty much gg humanity. In fact this exact thing very nearly happened in 1983. Soviet instrumentation indicated that the US had attack the USSR with multiple nuclear weapons. The technician on duty, Stanislav Petrov, [correctly] judged that what was happening was an instrumentation error, and disobeyed protocol - refusing to escalate it to his superiors who very well could have ordered retaliatory strikes. For some context this had happened at once of the highest levels of tensions between the US and the USSR. This was in the era of the 'Star Wars program', which was to be a US missile defense shield, leading the Soviet Union to become paranoid about intentions of a preemptive nuclear strike attack. Those tensions had already led to the downing of one 747 that had inadvertently veered into Soviet territory, while carrying a US Congressman at that. Given this context it's highly probable that his superiors would have ordered the retaliation. So he's one of very few people who can be reasonably said to have saved the world. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

xipix 3y ago

#1 will lead to #2 #2 will solve #3

jonathankoren 3y ago

Number 3 is literally an article of faith. And like all matters of faith, not only is there no evidence for it, the evidence that we do have runs counter to the belief. Let’s be honest here. Climate change was a completely predicable problem with known causes causes and solutions. It was detected early and alarms were raised in a timely manner. Literally nothing happened. In fact, even today, nothing happens. Why? Money. Because the billionaires would rather have us all die than not buy a tenth superyacht. (NB: Go Team Orca!) The problem was not, and is not, science. It’s money and who has it. Now those same folks and their apologists promote quite laughable ideas like carbon capture and geoengineering. Could we have gotten cheaper lithium batteries earlier with more investment? Probably, but what did we get instead? Fracking. Literally the opposite of what was needed. Science is not magic. Even if it was, the nature of the problem means it gets exponentially more difficult every day that passes. You mange to repeal the second law of thermodynamics and somehow got the carbon pollution industry to spend enough money to make it viable? Great! Oh, oops! The permafrost melted and now 10x more powerful methane has been released, so… yeah. Too late! It’s just Pollyanna talk that actively harmful as it not only directs resources from mitigation and migration to wasteful handouts while simultaneously giving cover for just staying the course. But hey. Maybe I’m just a doomer, and those Titanic passengers should have just sciences up more lifeboats instead of drown. Maybe all of this just… “needs more study”.

tim333 2y ago

Or optimistically AGI will solve #2 and #3