Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#131

Post by mbostleman » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #127

DanBC wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people I'd love to know where this comes from, because it's clearly fucking bollocks but is trotted out in many threads.

It comes from a very explicit reading of Ayn Rand, who frequently likens law and regulation to the explicit use of force. To be fair, it's true but the literal statement of the fact misses a lot of the nuance of living in a civil society.

Of course it's true, no need for your generosity of fairness. Just don't obey the law and see what happens. Continue to do so and eventually you'll be looking down the barrel of a gun. Pointing this out is not Randian. It's just reality.

There are no nuances of living in a civil society when solutions are implemented by law. If it's by law, then it's by gun. I don't know of any law that works otherwise.

I think the nuance you're referring to is when people's minds are (actually) changed such that they work together on a common goal. There becomes a natural supply and demand of a certain behavior. But most of the effort that I see is not convincing people to support a certain shared goal per se, but rather to join a tribe to crowd source the passage of laws.

The more important thing to me - and the point I meant to make, though I didn't fully articulate it - is that pointing a gun at someone (or indeed entire sectors of an economy) should be reserved for situations in which there is a very high bar of confidence in the detailed facts and predictions of the outcomes. While we may all agree that global warming causes climate change and even that it is anthropomorphic, it doesn't appear to me that we have a level of specific knowledge to say that "a reduction of carbon emission by x will result in a climate of y in the year z". If we don't have that, then I question both the morality and practicality of what appears to be a witch hunt in the form of policy making.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#132

Post by jamroom » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #126

mbostleman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This description is full of hyperbolic generalities. The available land example may or may not be comprehensive, but at least it's specific. I think the biggest problem that I have about everything climate change / global warming is that we are making laws to force (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people regardless of the warm and fuzzy intentions used to sell it) entire populations and their economies…

What if your neighbor was dumping liquid radioactive waste on your land, right outside your house? Greenhouse gases should be considered harmful pollution, and because they eliminate vast swathes of habitable land they should be treated similarly to other forms of toxic waste.

I agree 100%. For some reason environmental discussions always have to include the "cost" to business in the decision whether we do anything about it.

I imagine if I told my neighbor that I felt it was cost prohibitive to pay for trash pickup service, so I was just going to dump my trash in their yard, they'd have a problem with that. Why do we allow companies to pollute water, land and air that doesn't belong to them?

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#133

Post by snerbles » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #122

mbostleman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This description is full of hyperbolic generalities. The available land example may or may not be comprehensive, but at least it's specific. I think the biggest problem that I have about everything climate change / global warming is that we are making laws to force (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people regardless of the warm and fuzzy intentions used to sell it) entire populations and their economies…

> (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people I'd love to know where this comes from, because it's clearly fucking bollocks but is trotted out in many threads.

Ultimately though, the state derives its power from a legitimate monopoly on violence.

If an entity continues to defy the laws and softer enforcement doesn't work (fines levied, assets frozen, etc.), eventually the state must use physical force to maintain the rule of law.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#134

Post by mbostleman » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #126

mbostleman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This description is full of hyperbolic generalities. The available land example may or may not be comprehensive, but at least it's specific. I think the biggest problem that I have about everything climate change / global warming is that we are making laws to force (don't forget that force means pointing guns at people regardless of the warm and fuzzy intentions used to sell it) entire populations and their economies…

What if your neighbor was dumping liquid radioactive waste on your land, right outside your house? Greenhouse gases should be considered harmful pollution, and because they eliminate vast swathes of habitable land they should be treated similarly to other forms of toxic waste.

I understand your general comparison to toxic waste. The problem is not the comparison, it's the level of specificity. If someone is dumping an amount of say Parathion on my lawn, it is well within our ability to accurately determine the nature and amount of damage to me and my property given the amount and frequency of the dumping. And given that, it's a short step to monetizing the damage. In terms of accuracy, can we say the same for carbon? I don't believe we can. So while there may be a valid comparison at a high level, when it gets to actually determining damages to individuals or society, we just aren't there imo.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#135

Post by kokey » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

Also reminds me of Richard Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, which suggest that temperature increases in the tropics will reduce cirrus clouds and thus let more heat escape from the atmosphere.

Lindzen and his theories are controversial, but I do think there may not have been enough focus on possible negative feedback mechanisms like this.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#136

Post by jschwartzi » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #134

jschwartzi wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if your neighbor was dumping liquid radioactive waste on your land, right outside your house? Greenhouse gases should be considered harmful pollution, and because they eliminate vast swathes of habitable land they should be treated similarly to other forms of toxic waste.

I understand your general comparison to toxic waste. The problem is not the comparison, it's the level of specificity. If someone is dumping an amount of say Parathion on my lawn, it is well within our ability to accurately determine the nature and amount of damage to me and my property given the amount and frequency of the dumping. And given that, it's a short step to monetizing the damage. In terms of accuracy, can…

I realize the simulations we're using to extrapolate the potential damage are just that -- extrapolations. However, we've been using the actual effects of the existing warming to improve those simulations. These simulations are increasingly indicating that we will raise sea levels by several meters, and that vast swathes of temperate land will become uninhabitable. While we don't know for certain this will happen, the hazards posed in the event that it does happen mean we need to take steps now.

If it could be reasonably expected the dumper knew Parathion were toxic at certain levels in the groundwater and they continued to increase those amounts, it would be reasonable to sanction them before the levels become unsafe. If you only apply sanctions after the damage is done, the sanctions don't really do anything. The best thing to do is to try to mitigate the risk rather than waiting for more information.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#137

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

snikeris wrote: post #43

masklinn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I have full faith life on Earth will eventually restore the feedback loops and get the temperatures back in the sweet spot. Or just broadly adapt to the new state of things, historical data suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels did reach ~1000PPM up to the Cretaceous, with complete lack of continental ice sheets and temperate forests at the poles. The current sweet spot is a sweet spot for us and the ecosystems w…

Yes, the comment you replied to seems to imply that the earth is an organism that seeks to maintain a particular balance. There may be homeostatic processes, but they're not part of a grand plan to preserve life on earth.

We are the grand plan. Let's just hope we fulfill our role.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#138

Post by snikeris » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #137

snikeris wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the comment you replied to seems to imply that the earth is an organism that seeks to maintain a particular balance. There may be homeostatic processes, but they're not part of a grand plan to preserve life on earth.

We are the grand plan. Let's just hope we fulfill our role.

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world."

edited to say:

It's interesting that on a long enough time-line, all life on earth is destined for extinction, e.g. the sun expands and vaporizes the earth. So, in the long run, our technological prowess is likely the only hope for our furry (and not so furry) friends.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#139

Post by bjourne » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

kokey wrote: post #135

ariehkovler wrote: post #3

Really interesting. Makes me think of Daisyworld and the Gaia Hypothesis. Daisyworld is a model Earth covered in black and white daisies, that either absorb or reflect light. In the model, black daisies need less light because they absorb more, increasing the Earth's heat absorption. White daisies absorb less so need more light, but also reflect more light back, increasing the surface albedo of the planet and lowerin…

Also reminds me of Richard Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, which suggest that temperature increases in the tropics will reduce cirrus clouds and thus let more heat escape from the atmosphere. Lindzen and his theories are controversial, but I do think there may not have been enough focus on possible negative feedback mechanisms like this.

But that would also mean that much more sunlight would hit the surface of the earth and not be reflected by those clouds.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#140

Post by eanzenberg » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

bumholio wrote: post #11

pjc50 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that there are a number of homeostatic (self-regulating) processes that affect the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere; if it wasn't homeostatic it would have drifted off to an extreme long ago. The key question is how well and how rapidly these mechanisms can respond to an increase in CO2 levels.

The homeostasis might work in a limited range under which the biological world evolved in the recent past. Exceeding that range could quickly turn to a runaway geological event of rapid climate change, a state transition in a complex and unpredictable system. Take for example the great oxidation event happening 2.5 billion years ago. As oxygen excreting algae began to take over methane producing organisms, oxygen sta…

Is 3deg C or 10deg F until 2100 that massive of a transition event?