site banner
srid  17d ago (cafeamericainmag.com)   Edited 17d ago   2974 thread views

The Vacuity of Climate Science

cafeamericainmag.com

There has been a lot of CW discussion on climate change. This is an article written by someone that used to strongly believe in anthropogenic global warming and then looked at all the evidence before arriving at a different conclusion. The articles goes through what they did.

I thought a top-level submission would be more interesting as climate change is such a hot button topic and it would be good to have a top-level spot to discuss it for now. I have informed the author of this submission; they said they will drop by and engage with the comments here!

-5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Most actions don't have externalities at that scale.

If you over correct you just stop, it requires constant pumping into the upper atmosphere. A snowpiercer apocalypse isn't even possible.

It takes years for it to come down, and some of the possible failure modes can't wait years (e.g. crop failure).

Well you don't go crazy with it all at once, you add a little more till you get the climate you want. If we were on on the edge of crop failure we would pull back.

We're doing the same experiment now, only with zero controls or plans, we may as well take charge.

GHG has nothing to do with incoming shortwave; the only crop-relevant effect is temperature. I don't object to longwave geoengineering such as, y'know, air capture or olivine beaches; that's bounded to stuff we're fucking with anyway, as you say.

I object to shortwave geoengineering via aerosols and such, because there are other effects than temperature and some of those could have dire consequences. Almost everything in the Earth system comes back to sunlight in one way or another; you fuck with it at your peril.

We already are fucking with it, so does nature, volcanoes etc.. at least this would be on purpose and controlled.

The amount they're talking about doing, to cool Earth by over a degree, is more than any volcano in recorded history, and the eruptions that even came close caused worldwide famines (most notoriously, the Year Without a Summer). As such, I am not assuaged.

You heat it up by a degree, you cool it down by a degree. I don't see the problem here. We were doing it with bunker fuel on cargo ships for decades, some papers suggest it was keeping the temp down by quite a bit. We just switched over to cleaner fuels and now have the hottest years on record. Again, it doesn't happen all at once, we can fine tune as much as we want. It is literally like pumping water or adding sand, the amount of control is high.

You heat it up by a degree, you cool it down by a degree. I don't see the problem here.

As I've said, I agree with this logic when restricted to longwave. Removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere with air-capture is indeed fine.

The problem is that reducing shortwave - i.e. blocking sunlight - doesn't just cool the planet. Sunlight is also needed for photosynthesis, which has massive indirect effects through the carbon cycle and, more directly, is how we grow food.

We can bound the harms of global warming pretty well. The harms of global dimming are much harder to bound, particularly at the unprecedented levels needed to do multiple degrees of cooling via dimming. You fuck with sunlight at your peril.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats