Because of how grand they are in scale, they don't seem to get much attention from the mainstream scientific community, but it seems feasible technologically (albeit expensive) to put forth major projects to reflect sunlight over deserts and capture significant amounts of carbon from power plants and oceans, amongst numerous other creative approaches.
There was an article on HN recently about a new material that is excellent for cooling due to radiating energy primarily in the long-wavelength infrared spectrum. Just another option, just a matter of mass production and adoption.
The conversation about climate change is going to morph into a conversation about directed geo-engineering over the next 70 years or so. Earth is a semi-closed system of energy and matter flows, and it's not useful to think about it as this static environment that we inhabit. Rather, it's clear that the activities that humans want to perform result in fairly heavy modification of a lot of the geo and biophysical cycles that result in conditions favorable to human civilization. Unbounded inputs (such as our carbon inputs) are inevitably going to lead to unacceptable equilibrium conditions, and so we need to take more direct control of these various geophysical processes.
To me, this seems like a natural extension of our hydrological management projects, and of our reshaping of the biosphere to our liking. Take the continental US as an example - we have totally transformed the ecosystem from primeval forests and plains into this totally human-managed ecosystem of crop lands and domesticated animals. The next step is to think about the entire planetary biosphere, and apply large-scale engineering projects to directly modifying and managing it. Emissions control is a primitive way to do that, but it will eventually have to be more comprehensive and sophisticated. Eventually we need to sequester atmospheric carbon, but we also need to manage things like ocean acidity and the nitrogen cycle - all of these are critical factors in the set of geo/biophysical systems that create planetary conditions favorable for human civilization.
The trick is to develop and deploy these methods fast enough that we can race ahead of climate conditions that become too unfavorable to support a civilization that is capable of deploying them. I think people underestimate how much can be accomplished on that front in a very short amount of time, but that still doesn't excuse the complacency about it. In particular, I'm frustrated by the lack of urgency when it comes to preserving what remains of the "natural world" - at this point, I'm basically writing off a lot of the natural diversity that exists currently, and expect that the current mass extinction event will be the most severe in planetary history. Even if human civilization survives, it will exist in a mostly artificial biosphere with a tremendously streamlined set of species.
Jesus! I'm glad people don't take that stand in other areas of science. If we did that 20 years ago we never would have found out that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
"Ulcers aren't caused by stress, they are caused by bacteria!"
Bacteria-ulcers weren't proven by people who really really really wanted them to be true, they were proven by a doctor, using (fairly unconventional) scientific methods.
If you've got compelling historical sources for holocaust denial or compelling scientific evidence against climate change, let's see it.
The problem is that there are lots of people that really really want climate change (or rather its effects) to be true. Just look here in this thread people willing to swear that hurricane activity has increased due to global warming, while there is no evidence yet that this has happened ( https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ ).
Before your automatic downvote, I'm not denying climate change and some of its future effects (maybe even catastrophic). But the fact that it's happening doesn't explain or justify why people seem so eager to see its effects in everything even without a scientific proof whatsoever.
If the problem is that that makes other people ignore overwhelming scientific evidence, those ignoring the evidence are no less dangerous and ignorant.
Yep. We also need to start treating people who don't believe in anthroponegic global warming the same as regular climate change deniers. Because at the end of the day both groups fight against efforts to curtail global warming.
All that evidence that hasn't nappened yet, like Arctic ice melting, drunken trees, pest and other plant and animal ranges moving poleward and upward, growing seasons starting earlier in spring, etc. Oh wait, those have happened…
We don't ignore it. There's just not very much high quality evidence, and — unlike climate change — knowing that the distribution curve for blue vs green people is shifted over 5 IQ points gives virtually nobody any actionable information. Generally, in fact, it's leapt upon by people who don't understand the evidence or enough statistics as a cover for their prejudice.
What's so supposedly obvious? The best sprinters and marathon runners both are "black" according to conventional racial categorization. If you want to tell whether someone is likely to be a good sprinter, looking at their "race" alone is practically useless.
Yes. I consider the view both offensive and dangerous.
Further, unless you're a climate-change scientist, holding anything other than the 97% consensus view among climate-change scientists is willful ignorance, usually along partisan lines.
This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
I'm not American; I have been embittered by the influence the USA has on our world and the relative lack of agency in influencing American actions that the rest of the world exhibits.
I'm ready for another two terms; from the outside looking in I expected continuance of the bombs dropping, the climate talks to continue to end in toothless agreements, the off-shoring of abysmal labour conditions to continue unabated, and so forth, regardless of whether your executive wore red or blue.
Please give me reason for hope, because we need it.
I too would suspect Bernie Sanders would have had some military events. I'm not saying either side is perfect. I am saying that shouting down at one group is not going to solve the problem. Especially if half the nation doesn't believe in climate change and typically more apt to vote than their liberal counterparts.
At some point, they need to be cut out of the discussion which is why I support taking private initiatives to stave off the worse of AGW without their support. So if it means they get the White House, they can have it. I'd rather have a sustainable ecosystem and set of permanent and private institutions that supplant theirs to maintain that ecosystem. When a significant portion of private power isn't bending a knee to the old order that folks like Stephen Bannon (and to some extent Hillary Clinton) continue to worship then maybe we'll become a more mature civilization in which large scale issues like AGW aren't held hostage by the posturings of politicians.
> This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
The problem isn't trying to socialize them.
Their beliefs are a matter of faith and as such is not something they are willing to seriously question without help. You simply cannot "socialize" this problem away. The reality is, these are people who genuinely caught up in a web of charismatic con artists and unfortunately we reality is we will not be more effective than professionals. I have friends who I interact with daily who support Trump and socializing with them it has become clear they take dogma over facts. And I don't mean things that are heavily politicized like Climate Change. I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio.
This isn't something you can fix with socialization. This is a willing blindness of cult followers who have been decieved.
> Deprogramming a current member of Scientology would depend upon the concern and support of family and friends.
> a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
> a process [Lifton calls] coercive persuasion or thought reform;
> economic exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
1) They felt vulnerable and they were losing ground in what they believe is a religious war on "their" belief system by Cultural Marxists / PC / Liberal culture. They feel that old institutions that they value have been weakened or destroyed outright. (i.e. Marriage) They rely on charismatic leaders to focus their worship. (i.e. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Milo)
2) The "cult" has created a filter bubble in which cult members discuss things among themselves and assume all outside influences are heretics acting in bad faith to lure them away from the light. (i.e. They attack credentialed experts while holding up small minority opinions that are not the views of almost all experts in that field of study) People who act against this are ostracized by the party, called cucks, RINOs, etc. (i.e. Right wing talk radio, Alex Jones, Blogspam, Fox News Opinion Shows)
3) The "cult" acts against the economic best interests of the majority of its members and instead focus on servicing the needs of its ruling coterie of donors. (i.e. It focuses on servicing the needs of the wealthy donors and their beliefs.)
I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting their views.. then I do my best to talk about some stuff here and there..if I get them to acknowledge one flaw in their thinking then I see that as a positive. Its going to take years..decades and luck.
> I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting their views.. then I do my best to talk about some stuff here and there..if I get them to acknowledge one flaw in their thinking then I see that as a positive. Its going to take years..decades and luck.
Socializing and normalizing people who claim people never shot BLM protesters, Mosques don't get burned down, and Sandy Hook never happened is the opposite of what you should do.
I'm sorry, but normalizing that behavior is not a viable solution.
If the numbers were different we could marginalize these people. But the numbers aren't different and it doesn't help that generally speaking liberals tend not to vote in off elections. So the problem is even worse. Marginalizing will blow back.
That makes it clear you don't understand the problem.
This isn't about scientific consensus (which they can deploy reasonable sounding experts to "debunk") but literal fact denial of events (such as shootings and arrest records) that happened in the previous 1-5 years.
Once a group of people start arguing that events that occurred a few months or a year ago simply _did not happen_ because it is wrongthink it is no longer a political animal but a cult. It is at that point you can't "socialize" those people and you need to seek alternatives.
> I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio.
Please explain to me why people are denying Sandy Hook was a real event?
Because some people are ignorant and paranoid? I'm fairly sure those are qualities that span all walks of life. You're arguing against straw men, here, and while it's fun to destroy straw men at some point you need to move away from the fringes and start to tackle arguments that have some actual substance.
You are aware these include people advising the President, such as Bannon, correct?
This isn't some lunatic fringe at this point but includes people the President of the United States either takes advice from or treats as friends (i.e. Alex Jones).
Geo-engineering is a precarious idea. It requires global collaboration, and investment of huge resources. As the climate changes, and life becomes more difficult, the likelihood of global collaboration and large investment arguably decreases rather than the other way round.
Ideally, we need a climate change solution that can be enacted in a decentralised fashion by large numbers of motivated people without much need for government intervention.
>Geo-engineering is a precarious idea. It requires global collaboration, and investment of huge resources.
You've more or less just described global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. If and when those efforts fail, Geo-engineering might turn out to provide a cheaper and more effective partial solution.
The common objection I've heard to geo-engineering projects is that they are incredibly difficult to reverse should the need present itself due to detrimental effects discovered part-way along. Does this objection still apply to the current popular proposals?
I recall a proposal to put sulfate particles (I think!) in the upper atmosphere, sort of like what happens with a big volcano, to try cooling things off. The downside is you have to do it constantly, the upside is that if you don't, it fades relatively quickly. So we could try it out on a pretty large scale and stop if we don't like where things are going.
But that's from memory, and I could be recalling the details wrong.
This is probably what we will end up doing because it is the only one that is really viable without insane energy/time requirements. Everything else proposed would require an engineering project many many orders of magnitude greater than anything humans have done before.
This is why I love HN. So much of global warming discussion is about reducing our current effects on the environment. If we can geo-engineer effectively and safely it won't matter.
I fear humanity may be in a race condition between our ability to engineer solutions and the problems that come with scaling our population.
> If we can geo-engineer effectively and safely it won't matter.
That's a big if. The global climate is an extremely chaotic and complex system; ur ability to accurately model it is still extremely nascent. (Scientifically, understanding the global climate seems at least as hard as deciphering the architecture of the human genome, say.) If you are at all skeptical of our ability to master geoengineering in time for it to matter -- I'm talking a few decades here -- then it behooves you to opt for conservation instead. Literally the only system that we know for a fact is sustainable is the one that existed before industrialization.
How well would geoengineering work, considering the acididation of the oceans? I haven't seen any proposals to handle that, yet it seems like a fairly major consequence all on its own.
This is the only proposal I've seen regarding ocean acidification.
In brief, we need massive amounts of lime to dump into the ocean as an artificial carbon cycle. The problem is how to get lime? If we have massive amounts of clean power, something similar to the cement process (CaCO3 -> CaO) is possible because limestone is cheap.
The problem is the energy requirements are insane. One of the estimations in the talk that remediates only 10% of our yearly CO2 emissions requires 700 TWh (2.52E18 J). Unless we start building \several hundred new GW-scale nuclear[1] power plants (and started a decade ago), I doubt we will be able to do much to address ocean acidification.
[1] I know solar has improved a lot recently. Unless it's possible to generate >1TW of continuous power (24x7), nuclear is probably the only option.
If we have massive amounts of clean power a lot of the problem goes away anyway. It's not worth taking any proposal that uses vast amounts of electricity seriously, since it's the generation of vast amounts of electricity that causes the problem in the first place.
The oceans are really, really, unbelievably massive. A molecule of water at the bottom of the Pacific takes a few thousand years to ride the currents from one side to the other and then the coastal upwelling to the surface.
We're only really acidifying the very top layer, unfortunately that's where a huge fraction of the stuff that matters is.
Artificial upwelling is a somewhat promising geo-engineering tech to reduce acidification and increase primary production (and thereby carbon capture). The idea is to somehow bring deep sea water up to the surface. Early attempts used long tubes with one way valves that were lifted up and down by wave energy. New more promising techniques use wave energy to compress air, pump the air down deep and then bubble it (and the surrounding water) up from a grid of pipes.
Telling poor people that the only power they are allowed to have is too expensive for them to afford does result in their having shorter lifespans. Energy is one of the keys to modernity; you can't power an MRI machine with UN-subsidized corn.
If you provide them with solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, or possibly fusion power at costs lower than or equal to organic fuels, they will not suffer (and might benefit).
Who is telling poor people that? Nobody. Ever been to Africa? Poor people don't have access to energy not because of environmental regulation, but because they are poor. Coal mining and combustion kill far more poor people than this straw man,
I really am not enthusiastic about our ability to technologically address a system as complex and poorly understood as the global climate. Our answer should be what India is doing, planting hundreds of millions more trees (restoring the american chestnut with the blight resistant variety is a start), reforming agriculture based on long-term perennial/silvopasture models and soil carbon capture, reducing the travel and industrial footprints of modern life, etc. These are all things that make more sense than geoengineering both in terms of their ease of accomplishment and the likelihood of unforeseen consequences they might produce. They also happen to be really good things for health and happiness.
Because of how grand they are in scale, they don't seem to get much attention from the mainstream scientific community, but it seems feasible technologically (albeit expensive) to put forth major projects to reflect sunlight over deserts and capture significant amounts of carbon from power plants and oceans, amongst numerous other creative approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Proposed_s...
There was an article on HN recently about a new material that is excellent for cooling due to radiating energy primarily in the long-wavelength infrared spectrum. Just another option, just a matter of mass production and adoption.