8 ms·

I worry that well-meaning efforts at mass climate engineering will cause far more harm than letting nature run her course. I'm not convinced there is a causal

by User23 8y ago

I worry that well-meaning efforts at mass climate engineering will cause far more harm than letting nature run her course. I'm not convinced there is a causal relationship between human activity and CO2 levels or average temperatures (ignoring urban heat island and similar effects). Sure there is a correlation, but we all know what that means. The kind of atmospheric engineering that scares me is exactly the tool that would be required to show a causal relationship. Another point of concern is that none of the doom and gloom predictions are made by any climate model. All a climate model can do is make predictions about, well, climate. It takes an economic or some other sociological model to predict how that change in climate will affect human beings and societies, and what the costs (and benefits!) will be. Even if you trust the climate models 100% you'd be a fool to trust the economic or sociological models. How can one rationally justify an intervention is worth the cost when one can't know the cost of what is being prevented?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 8y ago
You have a lot of strange beliefs. Can you back any of them to the degree that you demand of others? Have you considered taking a skeptical approach, and looking at the arguments that you disagree with a prior? I suspect that once you do, you will be more than convinced about, e.g. humans having increased CO2 levels. If you are not convinced of even that basic fact after looking at the evidence, I would suggest that there is not evidence at all that could change your mind. I.e. this is a religious or political conviction rather than an evidence based belief. The idea that CO2 level rises is not due to human activity is as far out there as saying you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Honestly.
- User23 8y ago
  I believe I am taking the skeptical approach. I've read a lot on the subject and most of what I find is appeals to fear and other emotions, for example that climate change is going to destroy the earth. Actually the Earth did quite well during the carboniferous period all things considered. Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. It seems awfully anthropocentric and, honestly, arrogant, to assume that human activity is the only thing that affects atmospheric composition. Perhaps you should take your own advice? > The idea that CO2 level rises is not due to human activity is as far out there as saying you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Honestly. No it isn't. Also, I never positively stated that it isn't.
  - jonknee 8y ago
    > Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. Go get some equipment and stand behind a car's tailpipe sometime and you'll clear up any confusion that humans are releasing CO2... That's a really bizarre thing to be hung up on. The standard skeptic line is that the CO2 isn't a big deal, not that we're not releasing loads of it.
    - User23 8y ago
      Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around. Please spare me the ridiculous straw men. The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past than it ever has had since we evolved. Clearly human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition.
      - jonknee 8y ago
        The Earth has a long history and much of it was been a pretty awful environment for life (no oxygen would be a bummer for us, a hellscape of lava sounds uncomfortable and so does being under hundreds of feet of ice). That has nothing to do with how we can do the math about how much CO2 we're emitting and how much the concentration of CO2 is increasing. On a long enough timeline you're right that there is nothing we can do because among other things the Sun is going to explode, but that's a phenomenally stupid reason to suggest we shouldn't manage greenhouse gasses responsibly. Humans live on a very short timeline, but we're producing effects better fit for a geological scale timeline.
      - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
        I think what you're missing here is that climate change activists aren't concerned with "saving the earth" they are REALLY concerned with saving humanity and the current set of flora and fauna on the planet. Yes, Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2, but that was before mammals existed, so, why is that even relevant? I have a hard time believing that you think we'll all be ok if our atmosphere resembles that of the carboniferous period...
mikeash 8y ago
Sucking CO2 out of the air that we put there is not climate engineering. It is just reducing the scale of the ongoing unintentional climate engineering being carried out worldwide by our use of fossil fuels.
- heurist 8y ago
  Obviously effective carbon capture is preferable to no carbon capture. But I think there's a reasonable concern of a runaway market removing too much carbon, or the reduction of truly sustainable energy production due to the continual reuse of carbon. It's one thing to get back to where we should be while cutting carbon use to a bare minimum, another completely to control atmospheric carbon so humans can burn more oil.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    That seems like worrying about drowning when your house is on fire. Let’s put out the fire first. If the fire hoses have bad effects we can figure that out later.
Faaak 8y ago
You should take a look at: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you still think that humans are not the cause, well…
- thefurman 8y ago
  Using a comic strip as an argument, well...
  - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
    XKCD has a long history of citing their work, why can't an effective argument be made with visuals? I don't understand why the medium of the argument matters here.
    - thefurman 8y ago
      There is no argument made, it's a comic strip.
      - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
        There is definitely an argument made. It might not be in the form that you're looking for, but the argument is there. The graph clearly points to a high correlation between the industrial revolution and a fast and huge (relative to other changes) rise in temperatures. How is this not an argument?
        thefurman 8y ago
        Yes, very clearly, sure. You don't even know the very basics of scientific methodology, statistics, interpreting data, or critical thinking.
      - orf 8y ago
        It's actually a graph presented in a great way. Read it
      - 8y ago
ctdonath 8y ago
Agreed, even if unpopular. What puzzles me is the "climate advocates" pressing for such environmental engineering show little interest in changing their own behavior - say, more concerned about grandiose systems for removing CO2 rather than personally eradicating CO2 production from their own lifestyles (and I mean >90% reduction, not mere virtue-signaling). It takes an interest in personally influencing society & economy, putting their money where their mouth is, creating a demand for alternatives and normalizing society's [non-]production levels. Compelling vastly impactful & ill-understood (and expensive) schemes, which a lot of smart people disagree with, is dangerous when serving largely as a counter to that which even "advocates" are unwilling to do themselves. Be the change. Particularly odd when someone like me is doing more to "save the earth" on a personal level than most "advocates".
- jonknee 8y ago
  I'd argue that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is "environmental engineering" and designing technology to reverse that is simply cleaning up.
- icebraining 8y ago
  What puzzles me is the "climate advocates" pressing for such environmental engineering show little interest in changing their own behavior Why does that puzzle you? That's pretty common among humans (e.g. I've had multiple smokers trying to convince me not to start smoking). Changing one's habits is hard, even if one is convinced it should be done.
njarboe 8y ago
At around 600-1000 ppm of CO2, air begins to negatively affect human performance. This fact is not hard to test. I think most people would agree that it would be a good thing not to get to that level so that human can still have natural fresh air.
- User23 8y ago
  Thank you for this response. It's the first one with new information in it.
  - kolinko 8y ago
    This page is quite nice for some more info: https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ A thing that blew my mind a few months ago... Next time you feel you need to open windows in your apartment to get some fresh air in, it means indoor co2 is probably somewhere between 800 and 1200. If you open all the windows to the max, or go outside, co2 ppm will lower to ~400ppm. You can't go any lower than that, and there are no air cleaners that can push it lower. This is the absolute minimum. When your parents were young, opening windows meant bringing co2 to 350ppm. When your grand-grand parents were young, and when old-time poets wrote about fresh air, for them it was 200ppm. Neither you or I experienced it, nor possibly ever will (without attaching ourselves to an oxygen tank).
    - njarboe 8y ago
      CO2 levels have been at around 280ppm since shortly after the end of the last ice age (around 10k years ago) until we started burning coal seriously, ~1800AD. The last time we had 200ppm was during the ice age. Before writing and definitely before your grand-grand parents were young (vampires excepted).
sunstone 8y ago
The fallacy in your view is that the earth's climate will always be changing. In fact, before human activity pushed the earth's climate to a warming trend the earth's climate was very clearly starting to tip over into another strong cooling (ice age) trend. Even if we manage to right the wrong with the current climate situation before the oceans rise 200 feet we will still, over the millennia, face climate trends we would like to correct for. Climate engineering is in our future regardless.

by User23 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

epistasis 8y ago

You have a lot of strange beliefs. Can you back any of them to the degree that you demand of others? Have you considered taking a skeptical approach, and looking at the arguments that you disagree with a prior? I suspect that once you do, you will be more than convinced about, e.g. humans having increased CO2 levels. If you are not convinced of even that basic fact after looking at the evidence, I would suggest that there is not evidence at all that could change your mind. I.e. this is a religious or political conviction rather than an evidence based belief. The idea that CO2 level rises is not due to human activity is as far out there as saying you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Honestly.

User23 8y ago
I believe I am taking the skeptical approach. I've read a lot on the subject and most of what I find is appeals to fear and other emotions, for example that climate change is going to destroy the earth. Actually the Earth did quite well during the carboniferous period all things considered. Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. It seems awfully anthropocentric and, honestly, arrogant, to assume that human activity is the only thing that affects atmospheric composition. Perhaps you should take your own advice? > The idea that CO2 level rises is not due to human activity is as far out there as saying you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Honestly. No it isn't. Also, I never positively stated that it isn't.
- jonknee 8y ago
  > Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. Go get some equipment and stand behind a car's tailpipe sometime and you'll clear up any confusion that humans are releasing CO2... That's a really bizarre thing to be hung up on. The standard skeptic line is that the CO2 isn't a big deal, not that we're not releasing loads of it.
  - User23 8y ago
    Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around. Please spare me the ridiculous straw men. The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past than it ever has had since we evolved. Clearly human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition.
    - jonknee 8y ago
      The Earth has a long history and much of it was been a pretty awful environment for life (no oxygen would be a bummer for us, a hellscape of lava sounds uncomfortable and so does being under hundreds of feet of ice). That has nothing to do with how we can do the math about how much CO2 we're emitting and how much the concentration of CO2 is increasing. On a long enough timeline you're right that there is nothing we can do because among other things the Sun is going to explode, but that's a phenomenally stupid reason to suggest we shouldn't manage greenhouse gasses responsibly. Humans live on a very short timeline, but we're producing effects better fit for a geological scale timeline.
    - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
      I think what you're missing here is that climate change activists aren't concerned with "saving the earth" they are REALLY concerned with saving humanity and the current set of flora and fauna on the planet. Yes, Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2, but that was before mammals existed, so, why is that even relevant? I have a hard time believing that you think we'll all be ok if our atmosphere resembles that of the carboniferous period...

mikeash 8y ago

Sucking CO2 out of the air that we put there is not climate engineering. It is just reducing the scale of the ongoing unintentional climate engineering being carried out worldwide by our use of fossil fuels.

heurist 8y ago
Obviously effective carbon capture is preferable to no carbon capture. But I think there's a reasonable concern of a runaway market removing too much carbon, or the reduction of truly sustainable energy production due to the continual reuse of carbon. It's one thing to get back to where we should be while cutting carbon use to a bare minimum, another completely to control atmospheric carbon so humans can burn more oil.
- mikeash 8y ago
  That seems like worrying about drowning when your house is on fire. Let’s put out the fire first. If the fire hoses have bad effects we can figure that out later.

Faaak 8y ago

You should take a look at: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you still think that humans are not the cause, well…

thefurman 8y ago
Using a comic strip as an argument, well...
- JeffreyKaine 8y ago
  XKCD has a long history of citing their work, why can't an effective argument be made with visuals? I don't understand why the medium of the argument matters here.
  - thefurman 8y ago
    There is no argument made, it's a comic strip.
    - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
      There is definitely an argument made. It might not be in the form that you're looking for, but the argument is there. The graph clearly points to a high correlation between the industrial revolution and a fast and huge (relative to other changes) rise in temperatures. How is this not an argument?
      - thefurman 8y ago
        Yes, very clearly, sure. You don't even know the very basics of scientific methodology, statistics, interpreting data, or critical thinking.
    - orf 8y ago
      It's actually a graph presented in a great way. Read it
    - 8y ago

ctdonath 8y ago

Agreed, even if unpopular. What puzzles me is the "climate advocates" pressing for such environmental engineering show little interest in changing their own behavior - say, more concerned about grandiose systems for removing CO2 rather than personally eradicating CO2 production from their own lifestyles (and I mean >90% reduction, not mere virtue-signaling). It takes an interest in personally influencing society & economy, putting their money where their mouth is, creating a demand for alternatives and normalizing society's [non-]production levels. Compelling vastly impactful & ill-understood (and expensive) schemes, which a lot of smart people disagree with, is dangerous when serving largely as a counter to that which even "advocates" are unwilling to do themselves. Be the change. Particularly odd when someone like me is doing more to "save the earth" on a personal level than most "advocates".

jonknee 8y ago
I'd argue that humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere is "environmental engineering" and designing technology to reverse that is simply cleaning up.
icebraining 8y ago
What puzzles me is the "climate advocates" pressing for such environmental engineering show little interest in changing their own behavior Why does that puzzle you? That's pretty common among humans (e.g. I've had multiple smokers trying to convince me not to start smoking). Changing one's habits is hard, even if one is convinced it should be done.

njarboe 8y ago

At around 600-1000 ppm of CO2, air begins to negatively affect human performance. This fact is not hard to test. I think most people would agree that it would be a good thing not to get to that level so that human can still have natural fresh air.

User23 8y ago
Thank you for this response. It's the first one with new information in it.
- kolinko 8y ago
  This page is quite nice for some more info: https://www.co2.earth/ https://www.co2.earth/ A thing that blew my mind a few months ago... Next time you feel you need to open windows in your apartment to get some fresh air in, it means indoor co2 is probably somewhere between 800 and 1200. If you open all the windows to the max, or go outside, co2 ppm will lower to ~400ppm. You can't go any lower than that, and there are no air cleaners that can push it lower. This is the absolute minimum. When your parents were young, opening windows meant bringing co2 to 350ppm. When your grand-grand parents were young, and when old-time poets wrote about fresh air, for them it was 200ppm. Neither you or I experienced it, nor possibly ever will (without attaching ourselves to an oxygen tank).
  - njarboe 8y ago
    CO2 levels have been at around 280ppm since shortly after the end of the last ice age (around 10k years ago) until we started burning coal seriously, ~1800AD. The last time we had 200ppm was during the ice age. Before writing and definitely before your grand-grand parents were young (vampires excepted).

sunstone 8y ago

The fallacy in your view is that the earth's climate will always be changing. In fact, before human activity pushed the earth's climate to a warming trend the earth's climate was very clearly starting to tip over into another strong cooling (ice age) trend. Even if we manage to right the wrong with the current climate situation before the oceans rise 200 feet we will still, over the millennia, face climate trends we would like to correct for. Climate engineering is in our future regardless.