undefined | Better HN

0 pointssemi-extrinsic7y ago0 comments

What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science".

Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes.

Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model.

What scientists are doing in the latter regard is making their best estimates, seeing that these predict very bad things happening, and then saying we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions.

Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.

0 comments

quotemstr7y ago

Well, reduce emissions and more seriously consider geoengineering. A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate.

PeterStuer7y ago

A lot of otherwise-reasonable climate researchers seem to have an unduly negative view of potential direct interventions in the climate, and for good reason. Scientists know that theory and practice often are very different. You can't 'experiment' with global scale geo-engineering.

To put it in HN terms: you're deploying untested code for a global scale life support system written by a first-project-junior in an experimental new technology stack directly to production without having a test or staging environment, and there are no backups.

08-157y ago

> Scientists know that theory and practice often are very different.

Obviously! But the theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Change is different. This one is beyond reproach and matches practice perfectly.

mirimir7y ago

We may well be forced into geoengineering. Because, by the time enough people/firms/governments are sufficiently motivated, it'll be too late for anything else. Except adapting, I mean. But anyway, CO2 capture is the obviously safest bet. Adding shitloads of iron to the oceans, or injecting shitloads of SOx into the stratosphere, are just a little too likely to have serious downsides. Or putting screens at L1, for that matter.

quotemstr7y ago

I like the L1 screen idea. It's quickly reversible, after all. Besides, in the long run, if we're going to because a Kardashev type I civilization, we're going to need some kind of planetary energy management. Why not start now?

1 more reply

zeth___7y ago

The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different.

Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?

1 more reply

greglindahl7y ago

How can you tell that they didn't seriously consider your favorite argument? Usually geoengineering is not a direct part of the science of measuring climate change.

metaphor7y ago

> ...we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.

You may wish to reassess your remark for accuracy after actually taking the time to digest the Clean Air Act codified in 42 U.S.C. Ch 85[1].

[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2016-title42/html/USCOD...

semi-extrinsicOP7y ago

Did you search through that document for "carbon dioxide"? Because it only appears in 10 places, and in none of those does it define any limits or reductions.

metaphor7y ago

Did you search through the legislation for "greenhouse gas", whose definition is explicitly defined and includes carbon dioxide? This is federal code written by lawyers; it isn't exactly considered afternoon pleasure reading and generally requires a bit of effort to parse.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssemi-extrinsic7y ago0 comments

What we need to distinguish here is what exactly we're talking about being "settled science".

Is "human CO2 emissions are causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification" settled science? Yes.

Is "how much will that affect us and the planet at different time scales" settled science? Not completely, no. The climate system is incredibly hard to model.

Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.

0 comments

quotemstr7y ago

PeterStuer7y ago

08-157y ago

> Scientists know that theory and practice often are very different.

Obviously! But the theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Change is different. This one is beyond reproach and matches practice perfectly.

mirimir7y ago

quotemstr7y ago

1 more reply

zeth___7y ago

The down side of this is that once carbon capture becomes viable the amount of CO2 Canada and Australia want in the atmosphere are very different.

Should Canada take it as a declaration of war if Australia starts a program to reduce CO2 to 150 ppm?

1 more reply

greglindahl7y ago

How can you tell that they didn't seriously consider your favorite argument? Usually geoengineering is not a direct part of the science of measuring climate change.

metaphor7y ago

> ...we should work as hard as possible to reduce emissions. Which, incidentally, nobody is actually doing.

You may wish to reassess your remark for accuracy after actually taking the time to digest the Clean Air Act codified in 42 U.S.C. Ch 85[1].

[1] https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2016-title42/html/USCOD...

semi-extrinsicOP7y ago

Did you search through that document for "carbon dioxide"? Because it only appears in 10 places, and in none of those does it define any limits or reductions.

metaphor7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse