News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Climeworks lays the foundation to scale up carbon dioxide removal significantly. Parent comment

Re:Climeworks lays the foundation to scale up carbon dioxide... by ekianjo on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @12:36AM (#24405239)
> 275 ppm (Target PPM, based on pre-industrial levels)

Who says this is the ideal level to be at?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Climeworks lays the foundation to scale up carbon dioxide... by jaggederest on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @01:31AM (#24405466)
Me, I say. That's the atmospheric level as of 1776, before large-scale industrial intervention. Good enough for George Washington, good enough for me.

If you have other opinions, by all means, do your own math :)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Climeworks lays the foundation to scale up carbon dioxide... by notabee on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @07:13PM (#24414748)
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical...

There are dozens, hundreds more studies, graphs, and other data to answer that question. At this point, due to the overwhelming amount of research data available, this kind of question should be considered as made in bad faith.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Climeworks lays the foundation to scale up carbon dioxide... by ekianjo on Friday September 11, 2020 @08:43AM (#24442108)
This graph does not answer the question at all. Why is not the ideal level 100? 200? 300? 500? If you have never been at 500 how would you know if the outcome is actually detrimental overall? You can't make models when you don't have historical data outside of your training set, that's a very simple rule that everyone can understand.

Al Gore made ridiculous claims back in 2008 about how bad it would get in just 10 years (making it seem that the trend was linear, which it isn't) and he was completely wrong on most of them - so the question I raise is very much valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]