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

The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 422 posts

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#51

Post by viraptor »

SoftTalker wrote: post #31
blueflow wrote: post #2

Its not a "risk". Water vapor (clouds) is a stonger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We already got measurably higher temperatures, so we also have higher water evaporation, and from the last 5 years it looks like it happens every year. So the runaway is already happening, until something stops it near hothouse conditions or hopefully earlier than that.

Water vapor (clouds) also reflects sunlight. So it's complicated. We know the planet has had higher CO2 and higher temperatures in the past, and it did not "run away"

It doesn't matter if the top of the curve flattens out, if we can't survive outside of the bottom part that looks exponential.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#52

Post by j0ba »

If only there was a clean, nearly limitless source of energy, where the waste for hundreds of years of energy could be stored in less than a square kilometer.

If such a thing existed, we could be sure that environmentalists and leftists would have openly embraced it, rather than nip it at the bud 50 years ago. Because they are Good People™. And we should definitely listen to them now because they Follow The Science™.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#53

Post by Teever »

What's fascinating and dismaying to me is that it's obvious that there exists sufficient capital and capability in the west to fix this.

I always wondered if we just lacked the ability to mobilize to solve big problems anymore but now I look at this 7% US GDP being allocated to AI datacentres and I realize that it isn't a lack of ability, it's a lack of desire.

Imagine if we had ram shortages because all the silicon was being diverted towards making solar panels. Imagine if we had copper shortages because it was going to the windings on wind mills. Imagine if all these economic disruptions were just temporary and for a better cause or eliminating carbon emissions and eventually moving to sequestration of carbon.

Instead we get chatbots. And funny picture makers.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#54

Post by Carrok »

adolph wrote: post #42
Carrok wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started composting. I'm sure that'll outweigh the average Vegas visitor's emissions. /s I'm being a bit facetious obviously, but it does feel a bit like tilting against windmills. We need policy and systemic changes, if we're relying on individuals to all collectively start doing the "right thing", we're sunk.

Sorry to be a debbie-downer but the composting process is also a source of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9933540/

From your source:

> Effective pile management and aeration are key to minimizing CH4 emissions.

So it sounds like a correctly managed pile is not a problem.

Also, I have a hard time believing my composting in my backyard is in any way worse than my sending the same food scraps to a landfill.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#55

Post by bayindirh »

swiftcoder wrote: post #46
bayindirh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are currently no power efficient and scalable ways to remove carbon dioxide from air or water. Renewables are considered woke technology which mock old and masculine fossil fuel tech, which feel threatened by all these white spinny things, hence renewable energy projects are being actively discouraged or canceled altogether. You know, we'd be all woke and weird if our cars don't have 8 cylinders and make wroom…

> Renewables are considered woke technology which mock old and masculine fossil fuel tech... This is mostly a US problem at this point. The rest of the world is adopting renewables considerably faster than anyone expected (and despite the best efforts of the current administration, the adoption curve is accelerating even in the US). That said, it's still apparent that even optimistic estimates of renewable energy ado…

> This is mostly a US problem at this point.

Yeah I know, and I'm not from that side of the ocean. I worded my comment like that since most users here are from the US.

electricitymaps paints a nice picture, though. We'll be using them in a project, so I'll be able to see the nitty gritty details soonish.

At least some of us are trying. Maybe we'll fail, but not all of us are that ignorant, and that's better than nothing.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#56

Post by teamonkey »

SoftTalker wrote: post #31
blueflow wrote: post #2

Its not a "risk". Water vapor (clouds) is a stonger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We already got measurably higher temperatures, so we also have higher water evaporation, and from the last 5 years it looks like it happens every year. So the runaway is already happening, until something stops it near hothouse conditions or hopefully earlier than that.

Water vapor (clouds) also reflects sunlight. So it's complicated. We know the planet has had higher CO2 and higher temperatures in the past, and it did not "run away"

It might not run away to infinity, but it may well run away in the sense that the rate of change could continue to increase even if humans stop contributing to it.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#57

Post by grumbelbart »

aperrien wrote: post #7

Are there any attempts to start geo-engineering to fix this? I'm assuming there will be no attempt to stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere, can we at least do something to take it back out? Can we use solar or renewables to possibly do that at scale?

Putting sulfur into the right layers of the atmosphere seems to be the currently best viable options. It's not overly expensive, either. It acts fast and is reversible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#59

Post by yoyohello13 »

smartmic wrote: post #18

It is important to keep reminding ourselves that climate change is a real problem for humanity and that each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. It is a problem that requires solutions, but implementing these solutions involves so much inertia that it can sometimes be painful. And let's contrast that with the AI hype. It's more the opposite, a kind of solution t…

Unfortunately, more people seems to care about getting AI to play SimCity than the environment.

Renewable energy technology is ready, right now today, to replace fossil fuels. All we have to do is start doing it, but the Oil lobby is just too strong apparently. There is no political will. I wish I was wrong, but I just don't see humanity pulling together to solve this one.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#60

Post by beanshadow »

smartmic wrote: post #18

It is important to keep reminding ourselves that climate change is a real problem for humanity and that each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. It is a problem that requires solutions, but implementing these solutions involves so much inertia that it can sometimes be painful. And let's contrast that with the AI hype. It's more the opposite, a kind of solution t…

> And, no, AI won't solve it; unfortunately, it only makes it worse.

A conclusive argument for this still seems out of reach. AI does solve some problems, and it's not exactly clear which problems AI "only makes worse". It's not clear how much energy all of our AI systems will use, and while it's tempting to outright believe they'll simply use more and more, even that's not yet clear based on arguments presented.

Post reply on HN