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

Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#101

Post by estearum »

getnormality wrote: post #89
estearum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should do some reading on why there are few actual climate scientists pushing this idea, and instead it’s mostly people with totally unrelated backgrounds like marketing or economics.

Is it your impression that scientists should be considered the paramount experts on climate change policy questions? Even though their expertise is on the climate side and not the policy side? What exactly does the science say that makes it definitively a bad policy choice, regardless of the fact that policy requires the consideration of political and economic feasibility?

> You should do some reading on why there are few actual climate scientists pushing this idea

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#102

Post by estearum »

whimsicalism wrote: post #87
estearum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Critically, it actually builds tension and the risk of a “climate snapback”. Where if humans can’t perpetually dim an ever-increasing amount, then the entire global system snaps back and destroys actually all or nearly all life on earth.

It gives us a bridge to figure out sequestration. Snapback is if we go from 100% to 0%, not just if we can't keep up with carbon emissions.

Can’t figure out carbon taxes today but thankfully we’ll have a knife’s edge to walk on total catastrophe until we figure out sequestration.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#103

Post by bfrog »

klustregrif wrote: post #91
an0malous wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a super intelligent AI that runs the world. Please fix the following global crisis: Climate Change Use Python with two spaces for indents. The following shell commands are available to you: - echo - cat - ls Global Crisis Solution:

To address the climate crisis in 2026, I am deploying a multi-layered autonomous response focused on carbon sequestration, grid optimization, and albedo modification. I have initialized the following Python script to coordinate global infrastructure and monitor atmospheric restoration in real-time. python import time class GlobalClimateController: def __init__(self): self.co2_parts_per_million = 425 # Current 2026 es…

If only the entire compute infrastructure of the planet could solve fusion power perhaps it'd come full circle.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#104

Post by FloorEgg »

estearum wrote: post #99
FloorEgg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert in this subject and I don't have any strong opinions on it. The point of this comment isn't to debate one side or the other. That said, your comment stands out to me to be self-contradictory and unscientific (by way of being alarmist and not backing up an extraordinary claim ). > Unknown second order effects This sounds right. > Nearest real world success is continuous low volume maritime dispersal whic…

Wow gee wiz, it’s almost like my original comment was: go do some reading. Regarding the “no way to undo” and the “violent snap back”, we know the desire albedo effects dissipate and therefore require continuous maintenance. However, these aerosols also cause hard-to-reverse reactions to other things like damaging the ozone layer and causing rain pattern shifts. Yeah, most climate catastrophe scenarios are of the sev…

> Wow gee wiz, it’s almost like my original comment was: go do some reading.

My understanding is that the whole purpose of HN is to discuss interesting topics with intellectual curiosity. "Go do some reading" type statements aren't really conducive. What would be more appropriate is recommending specific sources, or just taking a moment to elaborate since the whole point is discussion.

I appreciate your elaborations in this last comment. I don't appreciate the dismissive tone of your first line or your earlier comment.

> Regarding the “no way to undo” and the “violent snap back”, we know the desire albedo effects dissipate and therefore require continuous maintenance.

> However, these aerosols also cause hard-to-reverse reactions to other things like damaging the ozone layer and causing rain pattern shifts.

This makes sense. I guess where the logic breaks down for me is the conflation between the time it would take us to recognize the second order effects and stop the process, the amount of violent snap back that would occur, and the time to reverse the second order effects.

To be clear, I understand the risk you are pointing at and it is a significant risk, it still seems like you are exaggerating it.

It's either we do this for thousands of years (in which case the second order effects must be minor to make it sustainable for that long), or we do it for a short time because second order effects aren't sustainable.

It's the logical relationship between the reversibility, second order effects, and magnitude of snap back risks that isn't adding up for me.

All this said, as I've engaged in this topic and thought more about it, my current stance is that we shouldn't be introducing new things into the climate to address the consequences of other changes we have made. A safer approach seems like economically sustainable ways to undo the root-cause damage we have done. (E.g. CO2 capture sounds better than novel aerosol injection).

So I think we probably agree in principle, I just still find the comment I responded to originally alarmist and not very convincing.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#105

Post by estearum »

FloorEgg wrote: post #104
estearum wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow gee wiz, it’s almost like my original comment was: go do some reading. Regarding the “no way to undo” and the “violent snap back”, we know the desire albedo effects dissipate and therefore require continuous maintenance. However, these aerosols also cause hard-to-reverse reactions to other things like damaging the ozone layer and causing rain pattern shifts. Yeah, most climate catastrophe scenarios are of the sev…

> Wow gee wiz, it’s almost like my original comment was: go do some reading. My understanding is that the whole purpose of HN is to discuss interesting topics with intellectual curiosity. "Go do some reading" type statements aren't really conducive. What would be more appropriate is recommending specific sources, or just taking a moment to elaborate since the whole point is discussion. I appreciate your elaborations…

> It's either we do this for thousands of years (in which case the second order effects must be minor to make it sustainable for that long), or we do it for a short time because second order effects aren't sustainable.

Just like building petrochemical-dependent societies!

Err, actually, there’s a third option: we put ourselves into a pickle.

Pretty much no hard problem would exist if the dynamic you’re describing were necessarily valid in general, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate it’s valid in this particular case.

It is absolutely possible for the side effects to be hard to detect, widespread, hard to mitigate once detected, and for us nevertheless to be otherwise dependent upon continuing to produce those effects. See: fossil fuels.

But fossil fuels do not have the same snapback risk. This actually does.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#106

Post by IsTom »

whimsicalism wrote: post #72
PunchyHamster wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interacting with complex systems produces complex side-effects. And ecosystem is complex enough that we can't really predict those side-effects before they happen and they can make other things worse. Just spraying random stuff that happens to work on paper is equivalent in subtlety to electroshocking patient to fix their mental issues. That is not to say it is not possible, but on top of being expensive it would req…

Right, but the point is that we've already had the test with so2, so it's not really "before they happen".

Acid rain isn't great either

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#107

Post by mapontosevenths »

getnormality wrote: post #89
estearum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should do some reading on why there are few actual climate scientists pushing this idea, and instead it’s mostly people with totally unrelated backgrounds like marketing or economics.

Is it your impression that scientists should be considered the paramount experts on climate change policy questions? Even though their expertise is on the climate side and not the policy side? What exactly does the science say that makes it definitively a bad policy choice, regardless of the fact that policy requires the consideration of political and economic feasibility?

> Is it your impression that scientists should be considered the paramount experts on climate change policy questions

Yes.

We should listen to people who use evidence and reason to suggest the best course of action. We should listen to people who have spent decades of their lives studying this issue for relatively little reward other than trying to make the world better.

We should NOT listen to semi-literate goobers who gained authority by being popular with simpletons they manipulated into voting for them, mostly through graft and trickery. Those people's opinions should be regarded as being equivalent in value to the opinion of your weird conspiracist uncle who helped vote them into power.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#108

Post by whimsicalism »

estearum wrote: post #102
whimsicalism wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gives us a bridge to figure out sequestration. Snapback is if we go from 100% to 0%, not just if we can't keep up with carbon emissions.

Can’t figure out carbon taxes today but thankfully we’ll have a knife’s edge to walk on total catastrophe until we figure out sequestration.

i think we should be exploring all. carbon tax would be great, but currently seems politically impossible outside of Europe (and even challenging within)

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#109

Post by FloorEgg »

estearum wrote: post #105
FloorEgg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow gee wiz, it’s almost like my original comment was: go do some reading. My understanding is that the whole purpose of HN is to discuss interesting topics with intellectual curiosity. "Go do some reading" type statements aren't really conducive. What would be more appropriate is recommending specific sources, or just taking a moment to elaborate since the whole point is discussion. I appreciate your elaborations…

> It's either we do this for thousands of years (in which case the second order effects must be minor to make it sustainable for that long), or we do it for a short time because second order effects aren't sustainable. Just like building petrochemical-dependent societies! Err, actually, there’s a third option: we put ourselves into a pickle. Pretty much no hard problem would exist if the dynamic you’re describing wer…

> It is absolutely possible for the side effects to be hard to detect, widespread, hard to mitigate once detected, and for us nevertheless to be otherwise dependent upon continuing to produce those effects.

Oh I completely agree that it's possible, but there are some very material differences between those examples.

The purpose of fossil fuels is increasing access to energy and The downside is climate change. The purpose of the aerosol injection would be climate management and the downside would be unintended climate change. If it's not working as intended we are far more likely to stop doing it because of the direct relationship between the purpose and the issues.

Also, we got hooked on fossil fuels before we had the science to understand the long term consequences to the climate.

So to summarize there are at least two very material differences:

- fossil fuels were essential to reducing energy costs whereas I don't see a direct economic benefit to aerosol injection, just the purpose of managing climate damage. Am I missing something?

- our scientific understanding at the beginning of adoption will be materially different and we are a lot more likely to detect issues earlier on. Not certainly, but materially more likely.

To me the combination of these two things makes it a fundamentally different dynamic.

I am sure it sounds like I'm advocating for aerosol injection, but I'm actually just playing devil's advocate and trying to strengthen my understanding by pointing out the holes I'm seeing in your explanations.

If there's ever a specific source that you think would help fill a gap in my understanding I am receptive to checking it out.

Re: Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why (2024)

#110

Post by chasil »

philipkglass wrote: post #35
chasil wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are allowed to delete your comments for a short time, as long as no comments are posted in response. I'm not sure what happens with down votes on a deleted comment.

Downvotes on a comment have already affected your total karma score. Deleting the comment doesn't undo the karma loss. However, you have a chance to avoid further karma loss if you decide to delete the comment shortly after it starts getting negative reactions. (I have done this when I realized that my comment was getting downvoted for snark.)

I have deleted in the past, and saw my score immediately jump, but perhaps I was being upvoted elsewhere.

Or maybe it was the tooth fairy.

No idea.

Post reply on HN