Hacker News Reader

Wow, I was totally unaware of the climate impact of contrails! I knew that airplanes release a lot of greenhouse gases, but I'd never heard that the contrails themselves are a problem.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58769351

The linked article does not give absolute numbers in tons of CO2 equivalent but rather says reduce impact of contrails in climate by 60%.

>Valid geo-engineering....

Nope, not with the data we have today. None of this stuff is backed by any decent research, yet it always seems to be suggested. We have no idea what the effects are of doing any of the things you suggest. For example NASA has flip-flopped on the whole idea that volcano's spewing ash into the sky could be a means of cooling the earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/flood-basalts-may-...

Putting a bunch of metal filings in the ocean or in the upper atmosphere sounds like a very dangerous to do that would need a tremendous amount of caution before attempting.

Unfortunately, the hubris of Man often leads to these kinds of "if we just..." comments. Nearly all of them are completely egotistical--"If I can imagine it, it's real. If I want it to be safe, it's safe." This isn't science at all but rather a religion of the ego.

You start with the imagination, then you do the research, then you choose the least bad option (politics notwithstanding)

I am not saying "chuck iron filings in the sea now" I am saying "research it now, so we have globally understood trade offs and impacts for when things get bad"

But we have already taken the hubristic step of shoving stuff into the atmosphere for years. This is firstly studying the effects as best we can as carefully as we can - there are many options - from space based to atmospheric to oceanic- and yes they may all have downsides and concerns - but this is a trade off - we know what the impacts of climate change will be (very bad) and we need to have experimental based options in our pockets in a few years.

Is this something to rush into - no. Is this something to be researched by worlds scientists to find the least worst option - yes.

> Actions like this, (or sprinkling iron fillings in the ocean to breed carbon-fixing cyanobacteria or aluminium dust in the atmosphere to reflect back sunlight) are all valid geo-engineering

So, your're esentially suggesting fighting pollution by creating even more pollution of even more kinds?

To me this does not match the first word, only the latter part:

> intelligent long term society wide changes

I heard someone describe geo-engineering as "science of showing how bad the other options are, that reducing CO2 output seems the best option"

Note it's iron rust that helps breed carbon-fixing cyanobacteria. Not iron filing.

Sorry, out of the loop, what's the deal with Alberta?

Anything Alberta does is a provocation?

I meant Ottawa (cold place, somewhere up there waves hand) - basically just any capital of any of G20/50/100/192

Doing something like Geo-Engineering may be an important and vital stop-gap to mitigate the worst effects of climate chnage. But it is also dramatic and potentially causes other side effects from crop failures to god knows what.

So when things get so bad that humanity says "yeah let's block out the sun for a bit" we really really want to have studied it hard and have as many countries in the world to have signed up to pieces of paper that say "we tried this crazy thing with our best scientists and it seemed ok, so we trust that it's not a deliberate way to F%%k us over"

The UN might have better wording.

Ok, I thought there was something specific to Alberta wrt to climate change. Thanks for clarifying!