4 ms·

And you're going to do this for the rest of the forseeable future? Way more than anything else it sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term cons

And you're going to do this for the rest of the forseeable future? Way more than anything else it sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term consequences of what we put out there now and to keep pumping oil

dr_dshiv 1y ago
Yes, I think it will be taking place for the remainder of our lifetimes. Solar growth is likely to remain exponential for the next decade or so, which will create a number of new opportunities. Other energy sources will also come online. But fossil fuels are unlikely to be regulated away, globally. We are also likely past some serious tipping points— so I prefer to figure out ASAP whether stratospheric aerosol injections are a viable tactic for preventing the melting of permafrost, for instance.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  nice em dash -- how do I generate that in the text box? but you're burying the lede: "We are also likely past some serious tipping points—" == we're doomed, just slowly, and we desperately need to be doing something to slow down or stop this metaphorical bus before it falls off a cliff
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    ALT+0151
  - gs17 1y ago
    On macOS, you can do alt+shift+hyphen to get one: —.
  - kps 1y ago
    On *nix, <Compose> <-> <-> <-> (or install a Mac-like layout and AltGr+Shift+<->).
  - merelysounds 1y ago
    On iOS: long press the “-“ keyboard button to access variants of longer lengths like “–“ and “—“ (and also a “•”).
  - anonymousiam 1y ago
    I see the replies to the literal question, but I think the parent was pointing out the possibility of the grandparent post being AI generated. The em dash is one of the common indicators. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1fx12q1/is_an_em_dash_proof_of_ai_manipulation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1fx12q1/is_an_em_d...
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      And all of the replies to the literal question are reasons not to take that as a sign of an AI-generated post.
  - CGamesPlay 1y ago
    This is a bad cop-out, honestly. Every macOS for at least 11 years—and iPhones for a similar length of time—have automatically changed dash dash space to an em-dash. Edit -> Substitutions -> Smart Dashes to toggle the behavior. Here's an 11-year-old video discussing the feature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZrkDetAmpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZrkDetAmpE
- Amezarak 1y ago
  It seems pretty wild that we would even think about deliberate climate engineering. We're dealing with an incredibly complex system, the only place we have to live, and one where "harmless" actions before have had devastating unforeseen effects decades later. The lesson we should have learned we need to stop pumping stuff into the atmosphere and oceans until something bad happens, not "let's pump more stuff into the atmosphere." Some random small group of people get to take these risks for all humanity? No thanks.
  - 8bitsrule 1y ago
    >Some random small group of people Like, say, petroleum exporters?
  - sfn42 1y ago
    Thing is we're not stopping. So given the fact that we are not stopping and won't stop, climate engineering starts to look like a decent Sr ond choice. I mean it doesn't take much for it to be better than nothing.
  - dr_dshiv 1y ago
    It just seems collectively insane to NOT be researching the hell out of the possibility that we could regulate our global heat balance issues for a cost of a few tens of billions of dollars a year. Especially when the alternative solution to global warming is… degrowth. Which is just not going to work functionally as a political policy in a competitive world. Fossil fuel use will decrease significantly… eventually. Btw, did you know that if the USA replaced farmland currently growing biofuels with solar, that land area would produce 4x the current total electricity use of the entire nation? We need to buy time — we can’t let the permafrost melt because “stupid humans deserve it”
    - modo_mario 1y ago
      > that land area would produce 4x the current total electricity use of the entire nation? Would it produce that much or would that be the capacity? They're very different things that i see endlessly confused in this context.
NeutralCrane 1y ago
I think the idea is to do it as a stop gap while we catch up on renewable energy production/integration.
BurningFrog 1y ago
I think we need to do this until we develop large scale underground CO₂ sequestration. Unfortunately even if/when we completely stop producing CO₂, it takes at least several centuries until levels go fully back down to natural levels by themselves. Pumping SO₂ into the stratosphere should be able to regulate global temperatures to reasonable levels while we develop effective CO₂ sequestration. Unfortunately SO₂ injection is incredibly controversial, as it triggers the "don't mess with nature" taboo, especially among people who have seen Jurassic Park, and affects the whole planet, including those who don't want it. We do actually know that SO₂ breaks down in the stratosphere in 1-2 years, because we've studied when volcanoes injects it. It also doesn't cause acid rain because it's above the rain cycle. But these facts are very hard to get across to people.
- tzs 1y ago
  That SO₂ breaks down so quickly is one of the reasons SO₂ injection is probably not a good idea. Suppose we start putting enough SO₂ in the stratosphere to halt warming or at least slow its growth down. I can almost guarantee that the response of the current US government would not be "Whew...now that we've averted the near term problems we were facing from climate change we can get to work on seriously getting rid of most fossil fuels use". No, it would be "Great! We can now get rid of those cancer causing wind farms and ugly solar farms and go all in on a 100% fossil fuel economy featuring a massive increase in coal. We should have been doing that all along but enough people believed in the global warming hoax to slow us down. Now we are free of that!". We'd need ongoing increasing SO₂ injections to counter this, and all it would take is something to disrupt that for a few years and then all that increasing warming that has held back by those injections would come roaring back. But we'd be getting that warming increase over a short term instead of a longer term, making it much harder to deal with.
Aurornis 1y ago
> sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term consequences of what we put out there now and to keep pumping oil Any practical solution will consist of a wide array of approaches executed in parallel. Talking about suddenly getting the whole world to stop using oil is a hypothetical thought exercise. It’s not going to happen. We have to be looking at all of the approaches together, including some lessening of fossil fuel use.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
energy123 1y ago
Equatorial countries probably should do it regardless of whether we reach net zero tomorrow. About 1.4C warming is a lot.
taneq 1y ago
“We don’t know who fired the first shot in the war with the machines, but we do know it was us who scorched the skies.”

dr_dshiv 1y ago

Yes, I think it will be taking place for the remainder of our lifetimes. Solar growth is likely to remain exponential for the next decade or so, which will create a number of new opportunities. Other energy sources will also come online. But fossil fuels are unlikely to be regulated away, globally. We are also likely past some serious tipping points— so I prefer to figure out ASAP whether stratospheric aerosol injections are a viable tactic for preventing the melting of permafrost, for instance.

red-iron-pine 1y ago
nice em dash -- how do I generate that in the text box? but you're burying the lede: "We are also likely past some serious tipping points—" == we're doomed, just slowly, and we desperately need to be doing something to slow down or stop this metaphorical bus before it falls off a cliff
- dinfinity 1y ago
  ALT+0151
- gs17 1y ago
  On macOS, you can do alt+shift+hyphen to get one: —.
- kps 1y ago
  On *nix, <Compose> <-> <-> <-> (or install a Mac-like layout and AltGr+Shift+<->).
- merelysounds 1y ago
  On iOS: long press the “-“ keyboard button to access variants of longer lengths like “–“ and “—“ (and also a “•”).
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  I see the replies to the literal question, but I think the parent was pointing out the possibility of the grandparent post being AI generated. The em dash is one of the common indicators. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1fx12q1/is_an_em_dash_proof_of_ai_manipulation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1fx12q1/is_an_em_d...
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    And all of the replies to the literal question are reasons not to take that as a sign of an AI-generated post.
- CGamesPlay 1y ago
  This is a bad cop-out, honestly. Every macOS for at least 11 years—and iPhones for a similar length of time—have automatically changed dash dash space to an em-dash. Edit -> Substitutions -> Smart Dashes to toggle the behavior. Here's an 11-year-old video discussing the feature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZrkDetAmpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZrkDetAmpE
Amezarak 1y ago
It seems pretty wild that we would even think about deliberate climate engineering. We're dealing with an incredibly complex system, the only place we have to live, and one where "harmless" actions before have had devastating unforeseen effects decades later. The lesson we should have learned we need to stop pumping stuff into the atmosphere and oceans until something bad happens, not "let's pump more stuff into the atmosphere." Some random small group of people get to take these risks for all humanity? No thanks.
- 8bitsrule 1y ago
  >Some random small group of people Like, say, petroleum exporters?
- sfn42 1y ago
  Thing is we're not stopping. So given the fact that we are not stopping and won't stop, climate engineering starts to look like a decent Sr ond choice. I mean it doesn't take much for it to be better than nothing.
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  It just seems collectively insane to NOT be researching the hell out of the possibility that we could regulate our global heat balance issues for a cost of a few tens of billions of dollars a year. Especially when the alternative solution to global warming is… degrowth. Which is just not going to work functionally as a political policy in a competitive world. Fossil fuel use will decrease significantly… eventually. Btw, did you know that if the USA replaced farmland currently growing biofuels with solar, that land area would produce 4x the current total electricity use of the entire nation? We need to buy time — we can’t let the permafrost melt because “stupid humans deserve it”
  - modo_mario 1y ago
    > that land area would produce 4x the current total electricity use of the entire nation? Would it produce that much or would that be the capacity? They're very different things that i see endlessly confused in this context.

NeutralCrane 1y ago

I think the idea is to do it as a stop gap while we catch up on renewable energy production/integration.

BurningFrog 1y ago

I think we need to do this until we develop large scale underground CO₂ sequestration. Unfortunately even if/when we completely stop producing CO₂, it takes at least several centuries until levels go fully back down to natural levels by themselves. Pumping SO₂ into the stratosphere should be able to regulate global temperatures to reasonable levels while we develop effective CO₂ sequestration. Unfortunately SO₂ injection is incredibly controversial, as it triggers the "don't mess with nature" taboo, especially among people who have seen Jurassic Park, and affects the whole planet, including those who don't want it. We do actually know that SO₂ breaks down in the stratosphere in 1-2 years, because we've studied when volcanoes injects it. It also doesn't cause acid rain because it's above the rain cycle. But these facts are very hard to get across to people.

tzs 1y ago
That SO₂ breaks down so quickly is one of the reasons SO₂ injection is probably not a good idea. Suppose we start putting enough SO₂ in the stratosphere to halt warming or at least slow its growth down. I can almost guarantee that the response of the current US government would not be "Whew...now that we've averted the near term problems we were facing from climate change we can get to work on seriously getting rid of most fossil fuels use". No, it would be "Great! We can now get rid of those cancer causing wind farms and ugly solar farms and go all in on a 100% fossil fuel economy featuring a massive increase in coal. We should have been doing that all along but enough people believed in the global warming hoax to slow us down. Now we are free of that!". We'd need ongoing increasing SO₂ injections to counter this, and all it would take is something to disrupt that for a few years and then all that increasing warming that has held back by those injections would come roaring back. But we'd be getting that warming increase over a short term instead of a longer term, making it much harder to deal with.

Aurornis 1y ago

> sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term consequences of what we put out there now and to keep pumping oil Any practical solution will consist of a wide array of approaches executed in parallel. Talking about suddenly getting the whole world to stop using oil is a hypothetical thought exercise. It’s not going to happen. We have to be looking at all of the approaches together, including some lessening of fossil fuel use.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

energy123 1y ago

Equatorial countries probably should do it regardless of whether we reach net zero tomorrow. About 1.4C warming is a lot.

taneq 1y ago

“We don’t know who fired the first shot in the war with the machines, but we do know it was us who scorched the skies.”