3 ms·
I think we have an extremely robust understanding of exactly what would happen from reducing atmospheric CO2. You seem to be overstating the danger of that one
by thrownaway2424 12y ago
I think we have an extremely robust understanding of exactly what would happen from reducing atmospheric CO2. You seem to be overstating the danger of that one. There is a lot of unknown territory around things like dumping iron into the seas, or spraying salts into clouds. Nobody knows all the pitfalls there.
There are other avenues with less possibility of side-effects, e.g. launching something into space to partially block the sun would have a direct impact.
- gtt 12y agoIs it based on first-hand experience with atmospheric models or something related? If so, could you elaborate where robustness comes from?
- marcosdumay 12y agoIt's based on first-hand experience with an atmosphere with less CO2 than the current one. Like what everybody here had yesterday, for example. Of course, things never change back to exactly what they were in the past. But to state that the risk of that option is similar to doing a completely new experiment on a global scale is insane. Also, I always love those people that say that, since we've made Earth a worse heat sink, we should compensate by making the Sun a worse heat source. First principles do not go away just because you have a chaotic system.
- scrumper 12y agoI'm not sure those other avenues (like blocking the sun) would have less possibility of side effects. Light & IR energy reaching the earth is just another variable that would change, again perturbing a very complex system.