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

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#141

Post by myrmidon »

FredPret wrote: post #75
myrmidon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of crap. Sure, everyone reading and responding to this did profit from CO2 emissions for sure, but reducing emissions without going back to the stone-age is perfectly possible and this should be clear to anyone : We could simply start taxing Co2 emissions, which would boost renewable energy buildout INSTANTLY: One example: Right now, electricity (and concrete) are DIRT cheap-- my electricity bill is a com…

Uhhhh, no. What about electricity that goes into mining and manufacturing? If you raise the price of that, all goods become more expensive, from the simple Mars bar up to construction. The poor will be decimated.

> If you raise the price of that, all goods become more expensive, from the simple Mars bar up to construction.

You can just change e.g. income tax accordingly so expected tax load stays the same-- only now your citizens are financially incentivized to save electricity...

Also you have a convenient excuse (as nation state) for protectionist import tariffs hitting all countries that don't practise Co2 taxation themselves (which might be nice for local economy)

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#142

Post by myrmidon »

silverberry wrote: post #86
myrmidon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a load of crap. Sure, everyone reading and responding to this did profit from CO2 emissions for sure, but reducing emissions without going back to the stone-age is perfectly possible and this should be clear to anyone : We could simply start taxing Co2 emissions, which would boost renewable energy buildout INSTANTLY: One example: Right now, electricity (and concrete) are DIRT cheap-- my electricity bill is a com…

I'm sorry to be this blunt but you're completely out of touch with reality. In the whole of Europe electricity prices are currently through the roof, marking records on many countries... daily . [edit: mostly because CO2 emission taxes and because gas producing countries can charge whatever they want because the whole continent (but France) depends on them] Just because people (normal everyday working-class) people p…

> In the whole of Europe electricity prices are currently through the roof

If by "through the roof" you mean like 30cents/kWh, then thats exactly what I'm talking about: if you don't have a farm of bitcoin miners at home your electricity bill is bound to be a complete joke compared to groceries, rent or even mobile data.

If we had actually expensive electricity (and car fuel and concrete etc.), which could easily be compensated by e.g. income or even sales tax modifications, then people would have ACTUAL financial incentive to buy efficient fridges or bike to work (without any additional burden).

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#143

Post by myrmidon »

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #136
phreeza wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right from a financial standpoint, but I wonder if from a psychological standpoint, it is easier for humans to start doing something new than it is to stop doing something they have been doing for a long time?

Exactly, this is why wearing masks and getting vaccinated worked so effectively at curbing the pandemic. People didn't want to change their way of life. Stopping the pandemic would have required an extreme economic shut down in April, far more extreme than what we saw. Sure this economic hit would be much less than the long run impact of pandemic never really going away, but it was too much for people. So they all ag…

This an extremely alarming comparison, because western nationstates basically observed people dying in Asia in spite of massive (chinese) mitigation efforts and did not do SHIT (for months!) before the pandemic arrived at their homes.

With climate change, once we really start to feel the symptoms it might well be too late to change the trajectory and we might suffer the effects for millenia...

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#144

Post by aidenn0 »

jellicle wrote: post #120
goatlover wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we turn off power plants, stop manufacturing, and people all over the world stop driving, shipping, farming and flying with anything that emits C02. What do you suppose happens after that?

The US has been spending a couple hundred million dollars per day on the war in Afghanistan alone for the last 20 years. No one even noticed. If the US put its mind to it (WWII levels of mobilization), it could probably achieve full renewable electrical conversion (all fossil fuel infrastructure obsoleted and removed) within five years or so.

There are 300 million people in the US, so "A couple hundred million dollars per day" is less than 1 dollar per person, per day. At $1 per person per day, it would take a lot of days to convert everyone to full renewable.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#145

Post by spywaregorilla »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #107
spywaregorilla wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's "easier" to capture from water in chemical terms but harder to actually move the water. I think the economy of moving the weight of water makes this a nonstarter. Also yes, ocean acidification is likely to be the bigger immediate problem. People depend heavily on fish protein and other sealife. That plus poor farming yields will be bad.

People also depend on not experiencing frequent, severe hurricanes though.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#146

Post by vmception »

fnord123 wrote: post #96
metaphor wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no, I was just wrong, your source shows Miami still gets hit more

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#147

Post by marcosdumay »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #107
spywaregorilla wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's "easier" to capture from water in chemical terms but harder to actually move the water. I think the economy of moving the weight of water makes this a nonstarter. Also yes, ocean acidification is likely to be the bigger immediate problem. People depend heavily on fish protein and other sealife. That plus poor farming yields will be bad.

I imagine any CO2 capture system that uses ocean water would be placed in the ocean, not have the water pumped into it.

CO2 is easier to chemically react when dissolved into water, and its mobility is about the same as on air. So the decision is about engineering something that can survive being immersed on the ocean vs. engineering something that can use atmospheric CO2. I believe there's no general answer, we can only answer that question for specific designs.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#148

Post by marcosdumay »

Scarblac wrote: post #50
eloff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.5 isn't going to happen. I'll be happy if we manage to keep it under 3. There's no guarantee that doesn't trigger a total disaster, but it's possible it would also just be extremely costly, damaging, and inconvenient. At some level it would be a complete and utter disaster and it's not clear where that is. I think if we could magically reach net zero tomorrow, we'd be mostly fine. Obviously instead we will continue…

> Obviously instead we will continue driving full speed towards the edge of the cliff, As of now, we're still increasing our speed. Global CO2 emissions go up every year.

Do you have good sources?

Anything that I find says the speed of increase has been decreasing almost steadily since 2008, and 2019 had a decrease in total emissions compared to 2018 (and whatever series I find, it never goes beyond 2019).

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#149

Post by eloff »

marcosdumay wrote: post #148
Scarblac wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously instead we will continue driving full speed towards the edge of the cliff, As of now, we're still increasing our speed. Global CO2 emissions go up every year.

Do you have good sources? Anything that I find says the speed of increase has been decreasing almost steadily since 2008, and 2019 had a decrease in total emissions compared to 2018 (and whatever series I find, it never goes beyond 2019).

That'd be hopeful if true. I agree the speed of increase is slowing. I'm not aware if the actual increase is now negative. That would be great news.

Re: We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth

#150

Post by bernulli »

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.

Could you provide some links to more information? I was only aware of warming as a big problem. Thank you!
Post reply on HN