3 ms·

We have no idea what will happen if we try to geoengineer the climate. In fact, we will probably get it very, very wrong. Which makes it the most expensive pos

We have no idea what will happen if we try to geoengineer the climate. In fact, we will probably get it very, very wrong. Which makes it the most expensive possible way to try to "solve" global warming.

jl6 3y ago
Yeah, this has “trust me, I’m a doctor” vibes. The climate is a complex nonlinear system with self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms. We had better make damn sure we understand what we are doing before embarking on global geoengineering. Let’s test it on Venus.
prepend 3y ago
We can model what can happen. Using the “we have no idea” logic, we don’t know what happens if we reduce carbon output to 0 and wait 100 years. It’s not that geoengineering is the answer, it’s that it might be. We can model and do tests until we have confidence. What is the other alternative? Just let billions suffer and millions die?
eppp 3y ago
Yes because we gave such a shit when we lit billions of tons of crap on fire and dumped it into the atmosphere without any regard? We are doing untested geoengineering already and have been for over a century and now you are worried about it?
HPsquared 3y ago
How expensive is failing to reduce CO2 emissions? That's the current plan.
timmg 3y ago
That doesn't really follow. We know that the planet will warm from CO2 because of the physics of it. We spend gazillions modeling the climate. The scientists will tell you that the models have been very accurate (other will say otherwise, but...) Those same models can be used to test various geo-engineering efforts. And should have similar accuracy. Whether we should pursue those efforts is a matter of policy. But, rationally, we should definitely consider it. Personally, I think that a small-ish (and growing) CO2 tax combined with a realistic effort to invest in nuclear will be enough to save us from really bad results. But plenty of people push back on those two things (from each "side"). So, here we are.
rcxdude 3y ago
Well, it's a balance of risks. The issue being there's a lot of uncertainty and potential for bad outcomes on basically every path.

jl6 3y ago

Yeah, this has “trust me, I’m a doctor” vibes. The climate is a complex nonlinear system with self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms. We had better make damn sure we understand what we are doing before embarking on global geoengineering. Let’s test it on Venus.

prepend 3y ago

We can model what can happen. Using the “we have no idea” logic, we don’t know what happens if we reduce carbon output to 0 and wait 100 years. It’s not that geoengineering is the answer, it’s that it might be. We can model and do tests until we have confidence. What is the other alternative? Just let billions suffer and millions die?

eppp 3y ago

Yes because we gave such a shit when we lit billions of tons of crap on fire and dumped it into the atmosphere without any regard? We are doing untested geoengineering already and have been for over a century and now you are worried about it?

HPsquared 3y ago

How expensive is failing to reduce CO2 emissions? That's the current plan.

timmg 3y ago

That doesn't really follow. We know that the planet will warm from CO2 because of the physics of it. We spend gazillions modeling the climate. The scientists will tell you that the models have been very accurate (other will say otherwise, but...) Those same models can be used to test various geo-engineering efforts. And should have similar accuracy. Whether we should pursue those efforts is a matter of policy. But, rationally, we should definitely consider it. Personally, I think that a small-ish (and growing) CO2 tax combined with a realistic effort to invest in nuclear will be enough to save us from really bad results. But plenty of people push back on those two things (from each "side"). So, here we are.

rcxdude 3y ago

Well, it's a balance of risks. The issue being there's a lot of uncertainty and potential for bad outcomes on basically every path.