5 ms·

Somewhy climate engineering as a whole gets very negative responses from people who care about environment. But the climate we had in 1800s was not particularl

by chr1 9y ago

Somewhy climate engineering as a whole gets very negative responses from people who care about environment. But the climate we had in 1800s was not particularly great either. 1/3 of the land surface was still desert, hurricanes and droughts were common too, so the strategy of reducing human population, using only clean energy, etc. won't get us to a much better place. Of course some ideas are not great, but it doesn't mean that any attempt of improving climate via engineering is automatically bad.

intended 9y ago
You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result. As opposed to getting a project with moving targets, hard to prove results, great optics and massive funding requirements. I think climate engineering/geo engineering are on the lines of the same ideas as clean coal. But the good part is, that we live in a world where the system will demand that this be carried out.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Climate is a complex, dynamic system, but is not magic. I have the feeling that most people desperately try to pretend everything is a static system (so it can be described, once, in a non-time-evolving form, and then called done), and in the few cases it fails, they throw their hands up and say "it's complex, dynamic, beyond human comprehension". I mean, you could use the same argument against entire modern medicine - someone got sick because they led an unhealthy life style, so it's their fault, but we shouldn't try to heal them because that's "actively meddling with a complex system", which will obviously only make things worse... Instead of being afraid of touching the climate, we should stop pretending everything around is static and being surprised when it requires more work of us. Yes, climate engineering means continuous work, continuous vigilance. Yes, it will surprise us. But it's normal, and we have to deal with it, just like we deal with every other surprise in life.
  - mimhoff 9y ago
    It's an interesting comparison, but people do die because of bad medical interventions.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Yes. But many more survive where, without interventions, they wouldn't. Geoengineering, if implemented, will definitely be responsible for some deaths, suffering, and negative environmental changes. But the alternative, doing nothing while on current trajectory, is going to be much worse.
  - intended 9y ago
    And the first bone setters and medicine men killed a phenomenal amount of people as much as they helped, and solutions were terrible until the modern methods arrived on the scene. Similarly Humanity has been inadvertently geo-engineering the planet. Modern techniques are here, and they tell us that the best way to treat the patient is not via geo-engineering. Look my point is cynical and its not about climate science. MUCH More importantly I am saying that it is the kind of pseudo-science-hope-springs-eternal-last-ditch-effort that people LOVE to support. Its a product in itself. That is what I am highlighting. I believe that Climate engineering/geo engineering sits at a special hype junction, a future sweet spot that is going to be irresistible to politicians, media types and lay people who are scared and desperate. And YES - I hope and keep my mind open to the possibility that we find good tech that helps reduce global temps which is not "pollute less". This would truly be a magic bullet which would let us continue to grow as we have for so long, while stopping the effects of climate change, and it is something to earnestly hope for.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > MUCH More importantly I am saying that it is the kind of pseudo-science-hope-springs-eternal-last-ditch-effort that people LOVE to support. > Its a product in itself. That is what I am highlighting. Uh. You're right. Thanks for bringing it up. Maybe I'm not that cynical, but I agree the "hype juction" exists. I hope we can avoid the outcome you describe, but that's in no way a given thing.
- credit_guy 9y ago
  Why can't we use the climate models?
- AKrumbach 9y ago
  "You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result." Any model of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is sufficiently accurate for generating public policy should suffice in predicting the results. After all, the model itself should not care what simulated means are being employed in increasing or reducing the amount of said compound, only its' effect at each concentration level.
  - intended 9y ago
    there are multiple models modelling aspects of climate, many of which individually need super computer levels of horsepower. So separate models for ocean heating, or air currents etc. all of which would have to re-work to account for the new entropy being added to the system, and its intended effects. And this gets further complicated by different methods to change the environment. Unless a climate scientist corrects me, its not as simple as just plugging in a x=x-c. And that adds more complexity to the model too, not to mention the change in all the data - before G-eng, after G-eng.

by chr1 9y ago

intended 9y ago

You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result. As opposed to getting a project with moving targets, hard to prove results, great optics and massive funding requirements. I think climate engineering/geo engineering are on the lines of the same ideas as clean coal. But the good part is, that we live in a world where the system will demand that this be carried out.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Climate is a complex, dynamic system, but is not magic. I have the feeling that most people desperately try to pretend everything is a static system (so it can be described, once, in a non-time-evolving form, and then called done), and in the few cases it fails, they throw their hands up and say "it's complex, dynamic, beyond human comprehension". I mean, you could use the same argument against entire modern medicine - someone got sick because they led an unhealthy life style, so it's their fault, but we shouldn't try to heal them because that's "actively meddling with a complex system", which will obviously only make things worse... Instead of being afraid of touching the climate, we should stop pretending everything around is static and being surprised when it requires more work of us. Yes, climate engineering means continuous work, continuous vigilance. Yes, it will surprise us. But it's normal, and we have to deal with it, just like we deal with every other surprise in life.
- mimhoff 9y ago
  It's an interesting comparison, but people do die because of bad medical interventions.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Yes. But many more survive where, without interventions, they wouldn't. Geoengineering, if implemented, will definitely be responsible for some deaths, suffering, and negative environmental changes. But the alternative, doing nothing while on current trajectory, is going to be much worse.
- intended 9y ago
  And the first bone setters and medicine men killed a phenomenal amount of people as much as they helped, and solutions were terrible until the modern methods arrived on the scene. Similarly Humanity has been inadvertently geo-engineering the planet. Modern techniques are here, and they tell us that the best way to treat the patient is not via geo-engineering. Look my point is cynical and its not about climate science. MUCH More importantly I am saying that it is the kind of pseudo-science-hope-springs-eternal-last-ditch-effort that people LOVE to support. Its a product in itself. That is what I am highlighting. I believe that Climate engineering/geo engineering sits at a special hype junction, a future sweet spot that is going to be irresistible to politicians, media types and lay people who are scared and desperate. And YES - I hope and keep my mind open to the possibility that we find good tech that helps reduce global temps which is not "pollute less". This would truly be a magic bullet which would let us continue to grow as we have for so long, while stopping the effects of climate change, and it is something to earnestly hope for.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > MUCH More importantly I am saying that it is the kind of pseudo-science-hope-springs-eternal-last-ditch-effort that people LOVE to support. > Its a product in itself. That is what I am highlighting. Uh. You're right. Thanks for bringing it up. Maybe I'm not that cynical, but I agree the "hype juction" exists. I hope we can avoid the outcome you describe, but that's in no way a given thing.
credit_guy 9y ago
Why can't we use the climate models?
AKrumbach 9y ago
"You will have to forgive me when I cannot fathom how actively meddling with a complex system, which requires a substantial investment by our species in terms of scientists, research departments, universities, government offices - is going to result in a tightly controlled, well predicted result." Any model of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is sufficiently accurate for generating public policy should suffice in predicting the results. After all, the model itself should not care what simulated means are being employed in increasing or reducing the amount of said compound, only its' effect at each concentration level.
- intended 9y ago
  there are multiple models modelling aspects of climate, many of which individually need super computer levels of horsepower. So separate models for ocean heating, or air currents etc. all of which would have to re-work to account for the new entropy being added to the system, and its intended effects. And this gets further complicated by different methods to change the environment. Unless a climate scientist corrects me, its not as simple as just plugging in a x=x-c. And that adds more complexity to the model too, not to mention the change in all the data - before G-eng, after G-eng.