Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#51

Post by ArkyBeagle » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

h4nkoslo wrote: post #44

zelias wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why everyone refuses to study the results (at least, from what the article seems to convey). Yeah, it was short-sighted and illegal and probably dangerous in ways that are currently inexplicable -- but isn't that the whole point? Go ahead and arrest the guy, or sue him, whatever -- but scientists should not pass up the opportunity to study the effects of an actual geoengineering intervention.

The global warming crowd is often linked to an anti-industrial puritanism. They see geo-engineering that deals with their supposed harm mechanism while simultaneously allowing fossil fuel based economic development as "cheating" and ipso facto immoral, like chugging liquor and avoiding the hangover.

If that's the case, I'd expect a "bootleggers and Baptists" equilibrium to form. Maybe it's happening out of sight but I certainly don't see it.

But a plank in your favor - the people who settled the regions where environmentalism has its most fertile soil are on a line of thinking from the old, rock-ribbed Congregationalist and Unitarian preachers from New England. ( source: "American Nations..." ISBN-13: 978-0143122029 )

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#52

Post by neffy » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 10:37 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #35

neffy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the real issue is the "It could be good for Ontario" problem. There is no global climate change catastrophe, rather there are a lot of local changes some of which are completely catastrophic, as in good bye Bangladesh, and some of which are improvements - shorter northern hemisphere winters, longer growing seasons etc. Flip the switch, because if the fresh water influx in the North Atlantic shuts down the g…

That's not necessarily a crazy opinion, but it's not a mainstream one. The mainstream opinions seem to be: 1. Climate change isn't real or isn't a big deal. 2. Climate change will be a global catastrophe or even lead to human extinction. Now, it would be reasonable for the people in group 1 to complain about geoengineering experiments, but actually they don't seem to care. And the people in group 2 are pretty much to…

Well, it used to be called global warming, and now it´s called climate change - did you ever wonder why?

The truly catastrophic climate change - human extinction - outcome is the runaway greenhouse scenario. That´s been floated, but it runs into the evidence that the earth has been considerably warmer before (both poles melted) without that happening. But I suspect it will get another look after this year.

The slightly less catastrophic climate change outcome is the next ice age being triggered. We know what causes them, but there´s a fair amount of variance as to when, and we don´t know what the exact trigger is. The next ice age though, isn´t a catastrophe everywhere, in particular there´s a lot of reasons to believe India benefits for example.

A general warming accompanied by a significant sea level rise is a catastrophe for Bangladesh (most of which is below 10metres above sea level), the Pacific Atolls, India, South America and Africa (heat extremes) extremely expensive for the USA, and Europe, and good news for Scandinavia, Canada and Russia.

However, the general tone of the climate change debate for the last couple of decades, is not such that it would encourage a nuanced debate about the possibility that it could go either way. Nor is the planet really ready for a reasoned debate between its two hemispheres as to which outcome would be preferable, and for whom. However, the rise this year though has even the alarmists scared - especially with the suspicion that it´s entirely probable that there´s been a tendency for scientists to favour the less extreme predictions when modelling the problem, and even those have been bad enough.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.ht...

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#53

Post by Fordrus » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 12:24 AM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #48

Fordrus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm flabbergasted at this, as well. It talks in the article about the attitude this guy takes, "Don't say what SHOULD happen, look at the data, let the data talk to you and tell you what's going on!" With the caveat that we must be cautious not to use statistical analysis of the data to lie outright, I want to say: Any attitude that does not at least INCLUDE the one Russ George advocates about LETTING THE DATA TELL Y…

Politicizing science is always bad. But James Hansen seemed quite determined to do that. It's even possible to note that NASA has an interest in Mars missions.... although that seems extremely farfetched. But who knows? If iron seeding works and causes no calamity we can't handle, we'd be derned fools not to do it at some point, assuming we need to of course. Then again, what is the preferred equilibrium for the plan…

I don't really get to term myself an environmentalist at all, because I'm absolutely in favor of a "stewardship" model of using the earth's resources- meaning, in this case, that if we see fit to set the equilibrium point to some other level, then we should do so guiltlessly- however, my major concern is that we haven't successfully managed to create long-term viable ecologies via planning yet. We don't understand the many complexities associated with organisms yet -we understand a LOT, but there is a LOT MORE to understand before we can replicate nature through artifice!

Under that view, things like biodiversity are valuable because they contribute to systemic stability - we can exterminate a species if we need to, nobody has to give us any further 'right' to do so (as in a typical attidue, "What gives you the right to play God with Nature?!")- but it is wise to take a preservationist attitude until we have a proven track record of creating long-term, moderately stable ecological systems - until we can replicate our 'Starship Earth,' we'd do well to keep from destroying it! In other words, at least for me, the currently preferred equilibrium point is one that maintains a semblance of the historical ecology's relative balance, because that's the kind of point where I and my descendants get to not go extinct, and once we can reliably replicate and control such ecologies, it won't matter much anymore, we'll be in a position to choose what happens to which things - right now is the tender point where can destroy naturally developed situations, but cannot reliably replicate them.

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#54

Post by Fordrus » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 12:27 AM UTC

aab0 wrote: post #46

Fordrus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read in that wiki article that the data from Russ George's efforts discussed in the OP article - that all that data was opened to the public in 2014 - but I can't find the data so far. Do you know where it might be found?

Just follow the WP links. "Researchers, interested organizations or individuals are welcome to use our scientific data library for legitimate research endeavours. This data is available free of charge, however we do ask that a memorandum of understanding is executed for access privileges to our data. Please send us a message using the Contact Us form and state the nature of your request." http://www.haidasalmonrestor…

Whoops!!! I think I must've opened the page of frenzy of tab-opening, but then either not return to it, or closed it immediately without realizing what it was - that link has been visited, but I clearly didn't check it for the desired content. Thank you! :)

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#55

Post by ArkyBeagle » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 12:38 AM UTC

Fordrus wrote: post #53

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicizing science is always bad. But James Hansen seemed quite determined to do that. It's even possible to note that NASA has an interest in Mars missions.... although that seems extremely farfetched. But who knows? If iron seeding works and causes no calamity we can't handle, we'd be derned fools not to do it at some point, assuming we need to of course. Then again, what is the preferred equilibrium for the plan…

I don't really get to term myself an environmentalist at all, because I'm absolutely in favor of a "stewardship" model of using the earth's resources- meaning, in this case, that if we see fit to set the equilibrium point to some other level, then we should do so guiltlessly- however, my major concern is that we haven't successfully managed to create long-term viable ecologies via planning yet. We don't understand th…

But we have much about which to be humble. It's always the sort of thing where - if we can do it and it causes less harm ( and we're dead certain that this is true ), then do it.

The shock from "All Cared..." is - what stability? Which equilibrium? If we choose them, how do we defend our choices? Obviously, nobody was doing this 70,000 years ago ( at least presumably not consciously ) and here we are, so...

To a single-digit approximation, all species are extinct. Is it hubris to think we're smart enough to keep from destroying ourselves, or that we're powerful enough to destroy ourselves?

Suppose we add Pigou carbon taxes. Does that mean poor people suffer more? So can we exempt them? Then isn't that sort of ... Empire-ey, the sort of thing a 19th Century Brit like Rudyard Kipling wrote about?

I find the various anthropic principles to be of good use for this sort of thing.

Re: Can Anyone Stop the Man Who Will Try Just About Anything to Stop Climate Change?

#56

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

zelias wrote: post #5

I just don't understand why everyone refuses to study the results (at least, from what the article seems to convey). Yeah, it was short-sighted and illegal and probably dangerous in ways that are currently inexplicable -- but isn't that the whole point? Go ahead and arrest the guy, or sue him, whatever -- but scientists should not pass up the opportunity to study the effects of an actual geoengineering intervention.

Ethical standards exist for a reason.