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

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#71

Post by timeon »

quadcore wrote: post #55
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #16

I'm continually surprised that this idea gets so much traction. While possible to build, it's also strictly Temporary and just leaves us with a worse problem later on. We'll just need a bigger one, 20 years down the line, when CO2 levels keep going up! At some point, it's pretty obviously a non-solution. Let's put this energy into Nuclear Power and CO2 recapture; and actually fix things.

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 are to blame, let's continue business as usual"

- "maybe we will find magic-technology, let's continue business as usual"

- "geoengineering will buy some time, let's continue business as usual"

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#73

Post by tzs »

What wavelengths of light would be reflected?

My understanding is that the way greenhouse gas induced warming works is that we have incoming solar radiation over a broad range of wavelengths.

Some of that ends up being absorbed by various things on the surface which heats them which causes them reradiate some of that absorbed energy as infrared.

Greenhouse gases absorb infrared, and so some of that reradiated energy that would have been radiated back into space gets trapped by those gases.

From a purely reducing warming perspective then it probably wouldn't matter much what wavelengths you are reflecting. Any light you stop from getting absorbed and turned into heat below would help.

But incoming radiation often does useful things before or instead of getting turned into reradiated infrared. For example it may be used by plants for photosynthesis.

It would seem then that if reflecting light in the stratosphere to reduce warming you'd want to try to avoid deflecting wavelengths that are important for photosynthesis or other useful things.

You'd want to pick wavelengths that don't do much other than just end up getting absorbed at the surface. Does sulphur do this?

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#74

Post by silverquiet »

EA-3167 wrote: post #41
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #16

I'm continually surprised that this idea gets so much traction. While possible to build, it's also strictly Temporary and just leaves us with a worse problem later on. We'll just need a bigger one, 20 years down the line, when CO2 levels keep going up! At some point, it's pretty obviously a non-solution. Let's put this energy into Nuclear Power and CO2 recapture; and actually fix things.

You know that famous (around here) article: "Reality Has A Surprising Amount of Detail" ? Sadly for all of its popularity the essential message seems to have missed people. I listen to people talk about Mars colonies in their lifetime, because they refuse to acknowledge the complexity beyond "big rocket go fast". This topic is very similar, it requires a staggering amount of engineering, economic, environmental and o…

The article makes the point that it's the kind of thing an arrogant billionaire will probably do on their own because they feel it's necessary. I'd say that your point probably reinforces that idea.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#75

Post by justinator »

analognoise wrote: post #69
justinator wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's time we all take a personal inventory of our own practices and how they impact the survival of our species, the planet's entire biosphere, before the next generation asks us, "why did you not change yourself to stop this?"

We’d easily choose all out war to keep our kids comfortable long before we’d all choose to lead smaller lives. We’re not going to hold hands and sing while we all pedal bicycles and live in highly dense housing - we’ll give the army flamethrowers and they’ll keep out the wave of “climate refugees” until we’re fully out of anything we can make napalm out of.

I pedal a bicycle. I live in highly dense housing.

Maybe you should also do what I do: meditate on just why exactly one turns into such a fatalist.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#76

Post by anonymouskimmer »

kraftman wrote: post #65
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #48

Would this process work the same way climate change is warming? Because climate change, while on average increasing the global temperature by 1.5C, has pretty big variations in actual temperature decrease by region. It's important if you use sulfur to decrease the temperature that this decrease counteracts regional temperature increases and not just average global temperature.

It says in the article that it would need to be carefully done to have an even impact.

As I wrote, climate change is not even. Do we even have the theoretical basis for knowing how to do this so as to counteract regional climate change?

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#77

Post by jadayesnaamsi »

jpeter wrote: post #39
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

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.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#78

Post by legitster »

The idea that a billionaire is just going to yeet a program together is pretty far fetched. Even at "only" $20 billion dollars a year, there are less than a dozen billionaires in the world with that kind of free capital. And none of them could sustain that kind of spend for more than 1-2 years.

The "country of no choice" similarly applies to only a small handful of countries that have no decent way of mitigating climate change but also have the funds and resources to do SRM. So really, just China (which has already shown enthusiasm towards geoengineering) or India.

The primary human response is still going to be crop adaptation and mass economic migration. I think we are going to have to see a lot more of this before we see someone dim the sun.

Re: The likelihood of unilateral solar geoengineering

#79

Post by justinator »

EA-3167 wrote: post #41
Lonestar1440 wrote: post #16

I'm continually surprised that this idea gets so much traction. While possible to build, it's also strictly Temporary and just leaves us with a worse problem later on. We'll just need a bigger one, 20 years down the line, when CO2 levels keep going up! At some point, it's pretty obviously a non-solution. Let's put this energy into Nuclear Power and CO2 recapture; and actually fix things.

You know that famous (around here) article: "Reality Has A Surprising Amount of Detail" ? Sadly for all of its popularity the essential message seems to have missed people. I listen to people talk about Mars colonies in their lifetime, because they refuse to acknowledge the complexity beyond "big rocket go fast". This topic is very similar, it requires a staggering amount of engineering, economic, environmental and o…

Excellent comment.
Post reply on HN