from Hacker News

Scientists propose glacier geoengineering to avoid sea level rise

by Metacelsus on 7/14/24, 3:59 PM with 39 comments

• by alexose on 7/14/24, 6:21 PM

  There is almost certainly a point where the costs of massive planet-scale intervention outweigh the costs of doing nothing. I'm not sure exactly where that point lies, but I'd guess it's somewhere between Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and glacial geoengineering projects like the one in this article.

  The question in my mind is not whether or not to fund these efforts (we will need to), but how to fund them quickly enough.

  There aren't many investment vehicles that are truly global in scope. We've seen individual nations do incredible things when they stand to benefit. The Delta Works project in the Netherlands comes to mind, as does the Three Gorges Dam in China.

  But how do we source capital when the whole planet stands to benefit? Especially when many nations either don't have the money and/or the political will. The scale of the problem far outstrips what charity or nonprofits can provide, and private companies can only do so much without a functional market.

  I don't mean to suggest that this is an intractable problem. It really isn't-- There have been some really interesting financial innovations already. But we need way more attention on this stuff from the investment class. The bankers, fund managers, and policymakers that work in global development need to get creative, and fast.

• by dr_dshiv on 7/14/24, 5:59 PM

  Keep in mind that we can halt global warming any time we wish with about $5-10b worth of high altitude sulphur injections. That’s a per year price. EdwardTeller, inventor of the hydrogen bomb, introduced this idea. One classic argument against it is “termination shock” — ending the program could be disastrous.

  But I tend to think we should be researching the hell out of this topic. We’ve already geoengineered the whole earth already—it’s just that we ought to get good at it.

• by peakaustria on 7/15/24, 11:24 AM

  Bacteria proteins are the most effective ice condensation nuclei. Let it snow more and use bubble to contain cool water and keep warm away and cool down with small bubbles as a floating mirror.

• by datavirtue on 7/14/24, 6:17 PM

  Seems like doing this has a significant energy requirement.

• by Aachen on 7/14/24, 6:05 PM

  Is it geoengineering when you put curtains on a glacier? The term seems, well it's not clickbait, but at least a more sensational way of phrasing a local measure to have global effects. Like turning off an enormous fossil fuel power plant to prevent global warming is also geoengineering, technically, a little bit?

• by peakaustria on 7/15/24, 11:22 AM

  Best bet is more snow from bacteria proteins. Some resorts still use them.

• by aziaziazi on 7/14/24, 7:01 PM

  Wouldn’t fauna and flora care of this giant wall?

• by melling on 7/14/24, 5:50 PM

  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

• by novalis78 on 7/14/24, 6:37 PM

  Let the planet warm back up. More CO2 in the atmosphere is positive for life.

• by teh_infallible on 7/14/24, 6:22 PM

  A melting glacier does not cause the sea level to rise. I can’t believe people don’t understand this. If you have a cup of ice water and melt the ice, the water level stays constant.