Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6d6b73 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not talking about this one project, but multiple projects going on at the same time. And yes we can measure it daily but do we know what's the lag? If we remove 1mln tons of CO2 from the atmosphere today, will it show up in the results tomorrow? If not, do we know how that's going to affect the climate?

View on HN

I have no doubt that any project that gets scaled will be closely monitored for CO2 and effects locally - governments will want to know they getting something for their money. First to prove it works well enough, that they're not being defrauded by convincing snake oil, and also any unintended consequences no one mentioned.

It took years of the gigatons from burning oil, and the gigatons coming from burning forest and other plant material not being replaced by new growth that got us into this mess. We might be remediating for decades or centuries. Any and all are going to take years to ramp up to required scale - of mining, building, logistics, finance. We should get ample warning.

So long as contracts are written such they can stop when no longer needed... (I believe they'll probably always be needed until the oil is literally finished, but that's entirely different conversation!)

We are decades into pumping vastly more carbon into the atmosphere than is sustainable. We're not going to accidentally flip that problem upside down without noticing years in advance.

Like we've reacted when scientists told us about rising co2 levels 30 or 40 years ago?

I don't think I understand your position here. Do you believe there is a profit motive to doing this kind of carbon sequestration? As I understand it, it's going to be expensive to do, and require significant money/time/effort to keep doing it. So, what will keep it going in your runaway scenario? Why will people keep mining and moving these materials into place beyond the point where it is necessary to counter our current crisis?

I was talking about possibility of having multiple projects run by different countries/non-profits at the same time, without any coordination, and messing up the climate even more. Why is that so controversial?

I think it's an unpopular opinion because there's no evidence that states will "over-do" any climate action. So far, climate action is almost entirely theoretical. States are doing effectively nothing to counter climate change. One might even argue they're doing less than nothing, by continuing to allow externalizing costs of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, etc.

It seems implausible that there would be too much action on climate change, because there is currently effectively none. Maybe your theory will seem more believable if any major climate action takes place. But, given the costs and current inertia in the other direction, I don't think it is a realistic problem to worry about today.

true, but maybe we're in the mess simply because we don't worry about long term effects of our actions.

Climate change is the result of (mostly) unregulated profit-seeking. Not merely a lack of worry about long-term effects of our actions. It isn't accidental...we knew decades ago that there were consequences, but a few people with a lot of money bought policies ignoring the problem (from willing politicians worldwide).

There is a profit motive behind our climate catastrophe, not "oops, I forgot to turn off the climate change machine when I left the house".

And you don't think there is no profit motive in the current "global warming industry"?

I thought we were having a serious/sincere conversation.

We are - I'm not saying that most people want to do the right thing, but there is also bunch of them that use global warming as a way to make a quick buck. I hope you don't believe that one side of the debate is all good and another one is all bad..

That doesn't make any sense, and I don't see any evidence that people are (or could) use global warming to "make a quick buck".

"I hope you don't believe that one side of the debate is all good and another one is all bad.."

What "sides" do you believe we're talking about here?

You can monitor CO2 real time. And if we ever took too much out, which is vanishingly unlikely: just burn more oil!

You can buy a co2 sensor for $150 or so.

Lol. Im sure $150 co2 sensor will be able to detect co2 concentration in the atmosphere of our planet.

Climat is a very delicate system. Once we remove too much there might not be enough time to reverse this.

In general yes - Outside my co2 sensor shows an accurate enough current planetary co2 level. Watching it is frightening.

So you're looking at the display and instantly you know what the value was last year, and how the seasonal variability affect whatever you see on the display?

Whatever you're reading on your co2 sensor, thermometer, or any other sensor device RIGHT NOW is only indication of what's happening right now, in your location. That's not a global trend, not even a local trend. And having the sensor installed in incorrect place can mean that the data is worth less.

Yes, “lol”, it will. In fact you don't even need to spend US$150. Your ignorance is not a good reason to sneer at people who are doing you the favor of sharing their knowledge with you.

Well, the problem with most of these off the shelf , indoor sensors, is that they are calibrated to current reading of about 400ppm, that's their base. To correctly measure CO2 you will need something that does not depend on that value to self-calibrate. What's more, some of them can have +/- 20ppm or worse accuracy. If the average annual ppm increase is 2ppm you can't reliably see the increase on your home device. To do that you need to have something that's NIST calibrated, with correct accuracy, set in a right place, and gather the data for longer period of time. You will need to smooth the data, and know how to interpret it.

Source: I develop software for data acquisition systems

Thank you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com