Recent content by The Firebird

Expect to see stratospheric aerosol injection or other geoengineering efforts before the civilization destroying stuff. Those have their own risks, which in many cases are substantial.

It always seemed to me much more the engineering that got people exciting than the science. Everyone has seen the pictures from Cassini, but not many could tell you about it's science objectives.

Methane in particular is concerning, because its short term effect is substantial and there is a lot locked up in permafrost. Some heating will release it and cause a powerful positive feedback on a short timescale.

If energy is that abundant, the landscape will look very different in terms of possible responses!

The number I used (240 w/m2) is only that absorbed. If you include the part that is reflected, it is about 340 w/m2. What specifically are you imagining? The boiling oceans claim is the one I was responding to.

How I wish! I've some firsthand knowledge of this process. That's exactly the point of my comments. It is being funded more for reasons of national prestige than scientific output. That doesn't mean it is a bad thing, or a poor investment--I'm happy the mission is going on! But it is good to...

I confess I'm confused, because I don't see how you get from those limited effects to boiling the oceans.

Please let's not do an AI thread :) So more science funding is a good thing, from my perspective. I think the 0.35% of the federal budget is too small. The reason I brought up cost was to discuss the tradeoff between robotics and manned missions, which I think is relevant to the future of...

As it turns out, Artemis costs about $100 billion. I meant poorly in the sense of the post which stated "from a purely economic perspective". Yes, if you ignore that hedge, there are many other factors...but I never claimed otherwise.

I'm not going to respond to these in detail, but these views are not in line with the current scientific consensus. To get a runaway greenhouse on Earth, you'd need an increase in solar radiation. It may be possible in a few hundred million years, but for now an increase in CO2 is not likely to...

Yeah, there is just no chance that climate change will prevent the earth from supporting human life. There are enough bad consequences of climate change, there is no need to exaggerate. (Exaggerating the risks can be bad because it harms credibility). All of the risk, with respect to human...

You're trying to explain things that don't correspond to the position I hold. I'm not opposed to science funding. I don't think science funding has to justify itself economically. And I have some experience here: NASA money has paid my salary in the past. What I'm responding to is a narrow...

Well, no...that is the point of analyzing opportunity cost.

It makes sense to me...it's a claim about opportunity cost. There's a reason people invest in the market rather than in savings accounts, even though the savings accounts give a positive return. "Why not spend more" makes sense and there is an argument for increasing the science budget. But...

Why not just spend the money working on earth? The technologies, in many cases, are opposites. Earth needs to be cooler. Mars warmer.