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

The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

climate.benjames.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#101

Post by dang »

throwaway290 wrote: post #56
dang wrote: post #42

This title is breaking HN's guidelines by being linkbait. (" Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) Can anyone suggest a less baity title? I looked through the text trying to find an accurate, neutral, representative phrase and couldn't find one. That's unusual and probably a bad sign.

"On the likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering"? The article itself edges on mongering to be fair.

Ok, let's try that. Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions!

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#102

Post by colechristensen »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #89
colechristensen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The growth of renewables, particularly solar, is on pace to replace a pretty large proportion of fossil fuels "for free" by being more economically viable. Transitioning most people and industry from ICE to electric and things like heating to more electric is going to happen naturally, but it'll take a few decades. Likewise it's reasonable to believe the biosphere is going to ramp up carbon sinking as time goes by. A…

> is on pace to replace a pretty large proportion of fossil fuels Is it? According to ourwoldindata[0], fossil fuel usage is growing worldwide. ie more fossil fuels are being burned now than ever before. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consum...

Yes. Solar is growing at an exponential rate, fossil fuel growth rates have been slowing.

Solar and wind growth rates should be expected to continue increasing, fossil fuel growth should reach zero in the next decade and start a long term decline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

I’m talking about the second derivative of usage not the first.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#103

Post by nvm0n2 »

clintfred wrote: post #63

And somehow, in the US at least, we don't even have broad agreement that climate change is real, happening, and will dramatically adversely affect humans for centuries to come. Anyone have any good resources or techniques for having honest discussions with friends and family that simply refuse to believe a problem even exists? Real solutions will only come once we admit there's a problem.

[dead]

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#104

Post by karaterobot »

I've been fascinated by marine cloud brightening, a related technology. I'd love to see that explored first, as it seems cheaper and lower impact. Still, if it was a choice between pretending that we're going to effectively mitigate climate change at this point without geoengineering, and darkening the sun, I'd say darken the sun.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#105

Post by peteradio »

Xirgil wrote: post #57
slimsag wrote: post #10

Are there ways this could be done with rapidly biodegradable materials, such that e.g. it would need to be continually done year after year or else the sky would return to the exact same state it was in before? Also, living in Arizona with 120F/49C summers, I sure wish someone could come up with some geography-wide sunshade! I guess that will need to be after they stop growing the city forever, and stop paving the ea…

Sulphates have a cooling effect and drop out of the atmosphere. There was recently a push to remove the sulphate content in the fuel used for cargo ships from 3.5% to 0.5%, and as the sulphates dropped out of the upper atmosphere the water in the Atlantic warmed significantly. Turns out we had been unintentionally doing geoengineering that was counteracting some of the affects of climate change. The downside is that…

Rains out as acid rain.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#106

Post by johnea »

jadayesnaamsi wrote: post #77
jpeter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what we know for certain is that at some point in the early 21st century all of mankind was united in celebration. We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI.

Plot Twist: - AI is not smart enough to take over humanity. - But by playing god with geoengineering by having rain packed with sulfur on our crops, we are facing The Blight, like in Interstellar.

You know what they say: Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity...

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#107

Post by hackeraccount »

I think I read somewhere the CO2 absorbed by ocean causes acidification which the ecosystem needs a bit of adjustment to live with.

I don't think the a sun shade would do anything for that.

That said the Simpson's quotes in this thread are making laugh enough that I'm starting to get onboard with this plan whatever my initial doubts.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#108

Post by daeros »

notpachet wrote: post #4

"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun." - Morpheus, The Matrix

The matrix was Fiction, Neo. This war on a warming planet, we're not winning it fast enough. I support the move.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#109

Post by daeros »

tzs wrote: post #90
promocha wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spraying a form of sulfur from a plane is incredibly cheap. A full programme would cost less than $20b per year. That’s much cheaper than carbon removal ($600b per year, to remove just 10% of annual emissions @ $100 / tCO2). It is 30x higher both in time and cost to capture carbon. At $20B/yr geoengineering the atmosphere can be done for 50+ yrs. In 50yrs, carbon capture would need $30T vs only $1T for spraying sul…

In the United States I strongly suspect that at least one major political party's reaction to sulfur spraying would be to try to increase the production and use of coal and oil. I suspect that this reaction would not be confined to the US. We could end up in a situation where greenhouse gas levels in 50-100 years are massively higher than they are now, with heating being held in check by continual sulphur spraying. I…

That won't be easy for them to justify when solar, wind and battery prices are cheaper.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#110

Post by daeros »

timeon wrote: post #71
quadcore wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While possible to build, it's also strictly Temporary And may, as per the author says, save our asses while we get our shit together. Now, granted, this is one of the craziest things Ive ever read in my life. And Im being proportionate here.

We are already not doing much against climate change now, so "get our shit together" is wishful thinking. This is just another distraction from the list: - "there is no climate change, let's continue business as usual" - "there is climate change, but not human-made, let's continue business as usual" - "there is human-made climate change but it is too late, let's continue business as usual" - "environmental activists…

Dude you're discounting things like the fact that solar and wind account for like 44 percent of europe and even in the united states I go driving around and see solar panels everywhere. Like, it's all growing like a weed and going gang busters but still it needs to go even fater sure but buy us time and solar and wind would get even cheaper along with batteries and anyone who tried to advocate for more coal or natural gas would be met with resistance in corporate america as there are cheaper alternatives.
Post reply on HN