Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by KETpXDDzR 1621 days ago
I have the feeling that many people (especially politicians) think that global warming is a linear process. It's not. It might even be exponential since some sources for climate-warming are affected by warmer climate. For example, melting ice that reflects sunlight back to space [https://arcticwwf.org/places/last-ice-area/].

I'm thinking about choosing a new place to live right now. Climate change is a big factor for that.

7 comments

I don't want to sound fatalistic but it's difficult to see how we can reset the 4 big feedback loops in any reasonable amount of time:

Ice-albedo feedback - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice%E2%80%93albedo_feedback

Permafrost thaw feedback - https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/global-carbon-budget-perm...

Forestfire\Drought feedback - https://weatherology.com/trending/articles/Drought-Feedback-...

Jetstream Disruption feedback - https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

It'll be like stopping an avalanche with a shovel.

Any control theory guys out there with suggestions?

Sulfur dioxide aerosol injection in the stratosphere until carbon capture and decarbonization can catch up.

We desperately need an energy inexpensive way to sequester atmospheric carbon underground in stable (mineral) form. Hopefully we’ll see progress from Climeworks or similar concerns in this space.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/...

I wonder if Venusians tried the same thing which lead to the concentrations of SO2 we see in Venus' atmosphere.
Someone should make this a movie.
As long as so many coal plants are happily smoking and even more are about to be build, I think the first priority is to shut them down and replace those, instead of experimenting with the already quite instable global climate, by injecting more chemicals.

And after we stop emmitting CO2, we can focus on artificial decarbonization. But I would rather invest in proven technology, like reforesting first.

I read something recently about seeding beaches with crushed limestone which accelerates CO2 absorption through weathering or something.
I think that was what the movie Snowpiercer was about. It ended badly before the start of the movie, with an ice age.
In the field of active climate engineering one can try dispersing aluminum [0] or/and (synthetic) diamond micro-particles [1] in the stratosphere to reflect some of the Sun's light back into space. Especially useful because the effect is temporary and self-healing. An accidental "ice age" will resolve on its own in few months after one stops replenishing the stratosphere with the particles.

[0] https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/15/11799/2015/acpd-15-1...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18634

> Any control theory guys out there with suggestions?

Nothing small and cheap. We've been applying a massive forcing effect by adding billions of tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere over decades. It's going to require a commensurate amount of effort, at the very least, to swing the needle back in the other direction.

Our best bet might be something crazy like using nukes to set off volcanoes to generate an ongoing low level 'nuclear winter' type effect. We'd have to be careful to pick the right volcanoes, though, to minimize the CO2 emitted by said volcanoes.

Don't forget about the fact that the amount of energy required to phase change 0°C ice into 0°C water is about the same amount of energy required to heat 0°C water to 79°C water...

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/...

What about it?
It isn't even exponential, it might be much worse than that.

Tipping points have ability to change our climate in a very, very short time.

For example, Gulfstream breaking or redirecting can be a sudden event. Many people forget that Europe is very far north compared to its climate. If you chose a lattitude so that half Canadians live north of it and half south of it, that lattitude would intersect Croatia, Italy and Spain.

A sudden break in Gulfstream would bring immediate step change to European climate, complete crop and extensive infrastructure failure.

According to https://matadornetwork.com/read/where-canadians-live-south-l..., 70% of Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. That line is the US/Canada border for much of the country. (It isn't the border in the east, where Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal are.)
Personally I would not buy property south of the 45th parallel anymore (in the northern hemisphere). Even north of that we have seen shockingly high temperatures. Anything south of that will become a hellscape within our lifetime.
Maybe the futurist should not hold real estate at all - keep wealth in stocks and rent and let the landlords place their bets on chaos theory.
Latitude will have less impact than altitude from the projections I have seen. Bogota may be less impacted than Anchorage.
it depends if it's east or west. Chicago is 42o, similar to Madrid, but I think Madrid will have bigger problems.
> Personally I would not buy property south of the 45th parallel anymore

Obama bought a property in Martha's Vineyard, why would a former President with all the knowledge about global warming buy it?

Cause he’s rich and can afford it regardless what happens. Why would you pay for ice at a convenience store when you could make it yourself at home.
> Cause he’s rich and can afford it regardless what happens.

I dont think rich people like to lose money.

Would you pay for ice when you know it would already melt when you get it?

If I could use it for 20 years first, definitely.
What happens after 20 years?
Bet.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Actually the problem is that a sizable cabal has come to understand the exponential function all too well. And has applied it to the theory and practice of capital investment in exchange for increasing returns (back to the investors) -- while externalizing cost (onto the environment, and those less empowered).
That's not the exponential function.

That's grift and theft.

> I'm thinking about choosing a new place to live right now. Climate change is a big factor for that.

I'd honestly love to hear your thinking about how to find a climate-change 'aware' location to live, thanks.

Space?
Where ought one move to optimize for climate change?
Nowhere.

Don't commit to any locale and design a life that's highly mobile.

Under a set of solar panels in a viable watershed that’s not too cold in the winter where you need to burn fossil fuels to heat your house.
Waterworld. Unfortunately a boat is a big hole in the water that you pour money into.
The great lakes. Fresh water is gold
North Dakota.
Calgary. It amazes me that despite the Chinese money laundering, the Trudeau Federal government willingness to back residential real estate through monetary, immigration, and legal policies; and just the general Canadian willingness to pretend everyone is well-intended and no one would lie in a mortgage application; that Calgary is the one place in Canada that remains somewhat reasonably priced. Multiple road and rail routes that would make it almost impossible for the city to be cut off (a la Vancouver last year). Reasonably good international airport that is set for expansion - although the expansion was very tied to energy.

Very well protected with mountains on one side (but far enough to avoid the major floods or mud slides). Some rivers in the city do flood, but stick to the higher-placed properties and you'll be fine. Some exposure to forest fire smoke, but only smoke, the land around is generally farmland or ranching, and well protected from catching fire. Great self-reliance for food and energy.

Problems: generally just the Canada-wide ones (e.g. healthcare system has collapsed but they haven't noticed, Ottawa largely doesn't care about the West, economy is 50% real estate, immigration is 95% of population growth and has resulted in a very exploitative and corrupt system that lures in young people to be poorly-paid expendable labour under the guise of Canadian Permanent Resident through exorbitantly expensive but low-quality education). Locally, Calgary leans very left (NDP, the Left-most party in Canada), but this balances well with the Conservative provincial government.

Didn't you have a flood that put a mudslide right through the saddledome in the last 5 years?
Yes! 2013 and the mitigations since then and planned should work.
> economy is 50% real estate,

That mirrors what Canadians have told me. There's little interest in innovation and building tech when the simplest way to make money is simply housing.

The CSeries comes to mind, it was almost ready and had orders for years, then the Trump admin slapped tariffs on it and Trudeau did basically nothing. All it needed was a little capital injection while waiting for the courts to declare the tariffs illegal and remove them. Instead, Airbus bought it for virtually nothing.

As someone in tech, it's scary to see how little support such an innovative plane got from the government. This would never happen here with Boeing (just look at the 737 MAX) or in Europe with Airbus. And the A220 (the rebranded name) is making a fortune for European investors right now.

> immigration is 95% of population growth and has resulted in a very exploitative and corrupt system that lures in young people to be poorly-paid expendable labour under the guise of Canadian Permanent Resident

The point of immigration is to fill a shortage. That's why here there are rules regarding salary requirements for immigration purposes. If a job isn't paying a lot, it's because it's not in demand; why then bring-in more people to an already saturated market? What’s the logic here?

Fascinating… I had no idea they grow sour grapes in america :-)
upvoting to draw attention away from South Dakota
Scranton
Springfield