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

The Great Siberian Thaw

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#101

Post by kragen »

screenbreakout wrote: post #98
kragen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live on Earth, you're ignoring my questions, and I'm flagging your post. Try to do better.

Flag? Really... that's mean :-) but here goes I'll try to answer your questions/concerns and those of 0xfff2 in one go "You mean, nobody work for a year?" Yes, to the extent they want to do something why not look at it and see if it's usefull, helpful, or just using their time and polluting the environment? Once the obligation to go to work goes away, habits, needs, wants, perspective change "Everyone in a nursing ho…

Yes, I do think gardening would be a leisure activity many people would enjoy if they had more free time, but the difference between leisure gardening and what you seem to be suggesting --- subsistence farming --- is enormously greater than you are imagining, even though you have studied horticulture.

Your fundamental error is that you think food, medical care, etc., are bought with money. In fact, they are bought with labor, natural resources ("land"), and capital goods, all three of which are necessary. Money is just a consensual hallucination, a board game people play to allocate the labor and food and so on. If nobody is laboring, there will be no production, so money can only buy things which have already been produced. Food will stop being cheap immediately if it is not being produced.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#102

Post by kragen »

lmilcin wrote: post #80
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a casual observer trying to follow the conversation and learn more, I would prefer to hear just the facts with the data to support it, rather than the personal attacks regardless of whether you think they’re fair or not.

As a casual observer I would prefer if people checked the "facts" they post on HN. It is now socially more acceptable to post obvious falsehoods than to point it out. Think about it.

Start checking the facts instead of first posting obvious falsehoods and then attacking other people for pointing out the falsehoods, then.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#103

Post by AtlasBarfed »

DennisP wrote: post #96
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"want to avoid potential impact on crops" I'm not trying to demonize you pointing this out, but the semantics of this is interesting and typical of modern engineering, and it is in the same blind spot that economics has... No I'm not interested in crops as all. I don't care about farm yields, profitability, market fluctuations, food supply or all. I am concerned about the stability and long term survival of the biosp…

I completely agree that we need to protect the whole biosphere, so please s/crops/biosphere, that was my bad. At this point, sadly, geoengineering may be a necessary part of protecting it. We're on the verge of positive feedbacks that could take things out of our hands, as the planet starts emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases with no more help from us. If all we do is stop emissions, there's a good chance that…

And I want to emphasize I wasn't trying to shit on you in particular. You gave great insight in your comment.

How long does it take for the carbon to affix? This I imagine is like the olivine scheme?

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#104

Post by DennisP »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #103
DennisP wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that we need to protect the whole biosphere, so please s/crops/biosphere, that was my bad. At this point, sadly, geoengineering may be a necessary part of protecting it. We're on the verge of positive feedbacks that could take things out of our hands, as the planet starts emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases with no more help from us. If all we do is stop emissions, there's a good chance that…

And I want to emphasize I wasn't trying to shit on you in particular. You gave great insight in your comment. How long does it take for the carbon to affix? This I imagine is like the olivine scheme?

From the articles I've seen, about a year, maybe two. Similar chemistry to olivine I think, but the idea is to use more concentrated CO2 from DAC or fossil exhaust, and pump to basalt formations deep underground. The olivine schemes I've seen use it as beach sand, absorbing CO2 from air in a weathering process.
Post reply on HN