Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#91

Post by yvdriess »

black_puppydog wrote: post #84
willis936 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. This kind of all or nothing rhetoric is damaging to actual progress. Solutions are not mutually exclusive. We can do both . One treats the symptom and buys us a few decades without having to suffer a 4C air temperature rise (and the billions of needlessly lost lives and indeterminate human suffering). The other fixes it in the long t…

Fairly sure GP wasn't implying it's not possible, but also venting the sentiment (shared by me) that availability of effective mitigation will preclude any actual solution by taking the pressure for change off the societal systems.

Thus, solving the problem once and for all.

https://youtu.be/0SYpUSjSgFg?t=86

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#92

Post by [deleted] »

willis936 wrote: post #79
alexgmcm wrote: post #67

What concerns me about almost all of the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) proposals is that they don't address the root issue of high Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations. This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. (I'm assuming that we would just use the SRM measures to continue with business as usual, but having seen our progress against GHG emissions so far, that doesn't see…

>This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. This kind of all or nothing rhetoric is damaging to actual progress. Solutions are not mutually exclusive. We can do both . One treats the symptom and buys us a few decades without having to suffer a 4C air temperature rise (and the billions of needlessly lost lives and indeterminate human suffering). The other fixes it in the long t…

[deleted]

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#93

Post by hannob »

alexgmcm wrote: post #67

What concerns me about almost all of the Solar Radiation Management (SRM) proposals is that they don't address the root issue of high Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations. This means that we would have to continue them indefinitely, forever, without fail. (I'm assuming that we would just use the SRM measures to continue with business as usual, but having seen our progress against GHG emissions so far, that doesn't see…

I'm not a fan of SRM, but this isn't true.

The idea people in the SRM research community have go more like that you have declining CO2 emissions, at some point you turn around by deploying negative emissions tech and SRM is basically your "let's cut off the worst effects in times of highest CO2 concentrations". This is e.g. often described by David Keith, who's one of the leading advocates for SRM research.

Whether any of that is feasible or realistic is of course debatable, also whether one should even go down that path and whether even the prospect of doing SRM is blocking faster climate action. (And I sympathize with all those concerns, but I think paiting a wrong picture doesn't help.)

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#94

Post by beervirus »

lm28469 wrote: post #72

All these half assed solutions perpetuate the idea that we can stay on our exponential quest for growth/energy and just find "solutions" later. Climate change is only a small part of the equation; pollution, deforestation, destruction of biodiversity, &c. are all equally problematic. As long as we produce and consume more and more we won't get away from the inevitable. At some point we'll run out of half assed soluti…

Half assed solutions are still better than nothing.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#95

Post by m0llusk »

This assumes that global warming is the problem, but arguably the most pressing aspect of carbon pollution is the acidification of the oceans which this plan would not address. It might make more sense to focus on capturing carbon pollution than to mitigate some of the side effects of rampant carbon pollution.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#96

Post by fnord123 »

metaphor wrote: post #55
vmception wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

protip: New York City gets hit by hurricanes more than Miami but its just a tiny current consistently protecting Miami at the last minute, for now

Cite? Prevailing building code design criteria[1][2] suggests otherwise. [1] https://cdn-codes-pdf.iccsafe.org/bundles/document/new_docum... 2017 Florida Residential Code Fig 301.2(4) Ultimate Design Wind Speeds V_{ult} [2] https://cdn-codes-pdf.iccsafe.org/bundles/document/new_docum... 2020 New York Residential Code Fig R301.2(5)B Regions Where Wind Design is Required

https://www.groundworkscompanies.com/about/articles/worst-us...

I don't know GP is measuring, but indeed the value at risk in NYC is higher than Miami. But the way they wrote it, they weren't saying that, and there are more properties at risk in Miami.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#97

Post by spywaregorilla »

m0llusk wrote: post #95

This assumes that global warming is the problem, but arguably the most pressing aspect of carbon pollution is the acidification of the oceans which this plan would not address. It might make more sense to focus on capturing carbon pollution than to mitigate some of the side effects of rampant carbon pollution.

I'm not sure I buy that, but sure, both are important problems.

Question, what do we know about the ocean as a carbon sink? Is it's capture rate variable with anthing? Is it easier to capture carbon from the ocean than in the air? Could we try to increase the capture rate into the ocean and then extract rapidly from the same area?

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#99

Post by jean_tta »

tamaharbor wrote: post #83
rob74 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overestimating Miami's budget... sure, there are a lot of wealthy people living there, but that doesn't mean the city itself is that wealthy. BTW, if sea levels rise, property values in Miami are liable to go down the drain anyway, hurricanes or no hurricanes...

If sea levels rise there will be less available property which will ultimately cause property values to increase.

This assumes the demand for property stays the same. Is it likely, once it becomes obvious there's a chance your property will be destroyed by rising sea levels?
Post reply on HN