7 ms·

Rises the question which temperature is the "right" one. Assuming we can control climate change at some point in the future Like having a clima-council which v

Rises the question which temperature is the "right" one. Assuming we can control climate change at some point in the future Like having a clima-council which votes to lower or rise the temperature. Would definetly cause conflicts between very hot and cold nations

fifnir 8y ago
Imagine the entire planet fighting for the thermostat
- dalbasal 8y ago
  This is not impossible. There are a bunch bunch of ideas for how to build a "thermostat." Some of them might be affordable for even a mid sized economy. We could find ourselves in a world where 26 different countries have competing climate control agendas and toolkits. Presumably Vanuatu has a different take that Latvia. Perhaps this will be the 22nd century's alternative to resource wars.
  - credit_guy 8y ago
    “Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.” - John Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)
    - gaius 8y ago
      What’s the downside to that strategy? It seems like a no-brainer at first glance
      - gameswithgo 8y ago
        too many whales!
      - coldtea 8y ago
        That we barely know enough about how our changes will affect the ecosystem at large, and can get feedback loops that get out of control.
      - gpm 8y ago
        I think the main downside is that we are quite sure what would happen. The primary effect (a giant fucking algae bloom) is pretty well known. But the secondary effects are hard to predict and could be very negative. Running experiments on the planet we live on is usually frowned upon.
        wereHamster 8y ago
        > Running experiments on the planet we live on is usually frowned upon. We are in a big fucking experiment right now: what happens if we release fucktons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Most of the developed world doesn't give a fuck.
        arethuza 8y ago
        Purely anacdotal of course, but most of the really bad incidents I've been involved in with production systems were actually caused by a rushed response to an initial problem that seemed serious at the time....
        wereHamster 8y ago
        Nobody is pushing for a rushed response. Just some fucking common sense, and scientifically literate people. And nobody can cry 'rushed response' anyway because the effects have been known (more or less accurately) for dozens of years.
        close04 8y ago
        If a sufficiently large mass of people can be convinced of something that's where everyone is going. So the result is that if a small group of people want to get somewhere all they have to do is convince a larger group. Sounds difficult but with today's tech and money concentration it's not hard to convince someone that "more CO2 is better".[0] Regular people can't draw their own conclusions based on self study and own research. Scientifically literate is not enough when you rely on someone else's data and conclusions. So the only way is to present some evidence (plausible stuff) and the conclusion in a loud enough and convincing fashion. What you end up with is a great number of people who are genuinely convinced that global warming is a farce. They have scientists on their side so who are they to argue? [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/scientist-who-thinks-more-co%E2%82%82-is-great-joins-national-security-council/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/scientist-who-thinks...
      - Rubinsalamander 8y ago
        Guess they would have to scatter the metal so that the algae have more iron surface area. Would make it hard to remove if it turns out bad
      - jandrese 8y ago
        IIRC it was tested on a small scale and didn't work. Fish ate the algae before it could settle on the sea floor.
        fiter 8y ago
        It may vary with scale. Similar to how swarming populations (cicadas) can saturate the local predators.
        moultano 8y ago
        I know settling to the sea floor is the intended result, but locking up more carbon in the steady state biomass of creatures would do the trick too. If we did this continuously could we just grow the biosphere?
      - dalbasal 8y ago
        Erm... Isn't the downside that op will give us an ice age of empires unpredictable severity and duration?
      - credit_guy 8y ago
        Indeed, and you don't need to start with a half-tanker, especially if you are not aiming for an ice age. You can start with a half-bucket and work your way up to a half-kayak, half-fishing-boat, maybe half-trawler. Oh, wait. Some guy did just that in 2012 [1]. Some people claim it was an absolute success, while some others claim that more studies are needed (but they are not willing to fund them!), or we should not play with the only planet we have, etc, etc. [1] https://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/ https://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-danger...
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Vanuatu is 270k people. They can be bought off in any deal.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
There's a very large band for the "right" temperature. The problem is the rate of change. Given enough time, the ecosystem will adapt.
- Rubinsalamander 8y ago
  That large band exists only for mediterran regions. Some regions are already living on the hot/cold edge
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    The band of "habitable by humans" is as wide as you could want. People live in Alaska and in Libya. The problem is that stuff is adapted to the way things are. Alaskan trees, bugs, mail services and whatnot are all adapted to snow and ice and such. Bugs go dormant, mailmen hibernate. Libyan mailmen would freeze to death is they got Alaskan weather. Alaskan trees would die if they got Libyan weather. Crops would fail, etc.
    - Terr_ 8y ago
      > Bugs go dormant, mailmen hibernate. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
jghjg 8y ago
There is none
api_or_ipa 8y ago
The economic consequences would be absolutely huge. Take my native Canada for an example. There's breathtaking amounts of land that's currently of little economic value because of a shortened growing season and permafrost. A small increase in temperature would have a huge impact on the usability of that land. Conversely, other places in the world would suffer desertification and suffer greatly. As an amusing side-note I've pondered whether colder countries could/should/will intentionally spew C02 into the atmosphere to improve their own living situation. There's not a whole lot other countries could do about it except try and capture the C02 which is much more expensive than burning it. Obviously this doesn't take in effect other averse consequences from global warming but it was still an amusing train of thought.
- baxtr 8y ago
  BTW: it is CO2 not C02... (sorry)
  - api_or_ipa 8y ago
    Sorry that was me being lazy. On my dovark keyboard. C,0,2 are all right next to each other on my right hand and since numbers are behind the shift key, my left hand just holds the shift down. The alternative is a bit of a finger juggle because my caps lock is remapped as well.

fifnir 8y ago

Imagine the entire planet fighting for the thermostat

dalbasal 8y ago
This is not impossible. There are a bunch bunch of ideas for how to build a "thermostat." Some of them might be affordable for even a mid sized economy. We could find ourselves in a world where 26 different countries have competing climate control agendas and toolkits. Presumably Vanuatu has a different take that Latvia. Perhaps this will be the 22nd century's alternative to resource wars.
- credit_guy 8y ago
  “Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.” - John Martin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_(oceanographer)
  - gaius 8y ago
    What’s the downside to that strategy? It seems like a no-brainer at first glance
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      too many whales!
    - coldtea 8y ago
      That we barely know enough about how our changes will affect the ecosystem at large, and can get feedback loops that get out of control.
    - gpm 8y ago
      I think the main downside is that we are quite sure what would happen. The primary effect (a giant fucking algae bloom) is pretty well known. But the secondary effects are hard to predict and could be very negative. Running experiments on the planet we live on is usually frowned upon.
      - wereHamster 8y ago
        > Running experiments on the planet we live on is usually frowned upon. We are in a big fucking experiment right now: what happens if we release fucktons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Most of the developed world doesn't give a fuck.
        arethuza 8y ago
        Purely anacdotal of course, but most of the really bad incidents I've been involved in with production systems were actually caused by a rushed response to an initial problem that seemed serious at the time....
        wereHamster 8y ago
        Nobody is pushing for a rushed response. Just some fucking common sense, and scientifically literate people. And nobody can cry 'rushed response' anyway because the effects have been known (more or less accurately) for dozens of years.
        close04 8y ago
        If a sufficiently large mass of people can be convinced of something that's where everyone is going. So the result is that if a small group of people want to get somewhere all they have to do is convince a larger group. Sounds difficult but with today's tech and money concentration it's not hard to convince someone that "more CO2 is better".[0] Regular people can't draw their own conclusions based on self study and own research. Scientifically literate is not enough when you rely on someone else's data and conclusions. So the only way is to present some evidence (plausible stuff) and the conclusion in a loud enough and convincing fashion. What you end up with is a great number of people who are genuinely convinced that global warming is a farce. They have scientists on their side so who are they to argue? [0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/scientist-who-thinks-more-co%E2%82%82-is-great-joins-national-security-council/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/scientist-who-thinks...
    - Rubinsalamander 8y ago
      Guess they would have to scatter the metal so that the algae have more iron surface area. Would make it hard to remove if it turns out bad
    - jandrese 8y ago
      IIRC it was tested on a small scale and didn't work. Fish ate the algae before it could settle on the sea floor.
      - fiter 8y ago
        It may vary with scale. Similar to how swarming populations (cicadas) can saturate the local predators.
      - moultano 8y ago
        I know settling to the sea floor is the intended result, but locking up more carbon in the steady state biomass of creatures would do the trick too. If we did this continuously could we just grow the biosphere?
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      Erm... Isn't the downside that op will give us an ice age of empires unpredictable severity and duration?
    - credit_guy 8y ago
      Indeed, and you don't need to start with a half-tanker, especially if you are not aiming for an ice age. You can start with a half-bucket and work your way up to a half-kayak, half-fishing-boat, maybe half-trawler. Oh, wait. Some guy did just that in 2012 [1]. Some people claim it was an absolute success, while some others claim that more studies are needed (but they are not willing to fund them!), or we should not play with the only planet we have, etc, etc. [1] https://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/ https://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-danger...
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  Vanuatu is 270k people. They can be bought off in any deal.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

There's a very large band for the "right" temperature. The problem is the rate of change. Given enough time, the ecosystem will adapt.

Rubinsalamander 8y ago
That large band exists only for mediterran regions. Some regions are already living on the hot/cold edge
- dalbasal 8y ago
  The band of "habitable by humans" is as wide as you could want. People live in Alaska and in Libya. The problem is that stuff is adapted to the way things are. Alaskan trees, bugs, mail services and whatnot are all adapted to snow and ice and such. Bugs go dormant, mailmen hibernate. Libyan mailmen would freeze to death is they got Alaskan weather. Alaskan trees would die if they got Libyan weather. Crops would fail, etc.
  - Terr_ 8y ago
    > Bugs go dormant, mailmen hibernate. Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.

jghjg 8y ago

There is none

api_or_ipa 8y ago

The economic consequences would be absolutely huge. Take my native Canada for an example. There's breathtaking amounts of land that's currently of little economic value because of a shortened growing season and permafrost. A small increase in temperature would have a huge impact on the usability of that land. Conversely, other places in the world would suffer desertification and suffer greatly. As an amusing side-note I've pondered whether colder countries could/should/will intentionally spew C02 into the atmosphere to improve their own living situation. There's not a whole lot other countries could do about it except try and capture the C02 which is much more expensive than burning it. Obviously this doesn't take in effect other averse consequences from global warming but it was still an amusing train of thought.

baxtr 8y ago
BTW: it is CO2 not C02... (sorry)
- api_or_ipa 8y ago
  Sorry that was me being lazy. On my dovark keyboard. C,0,2 are all right next to each other on my right hand and since numbers are behind the shift key, my left hand just holds the shift down. The alternative is a bit of a finger juggle because my caps lock is remapped as well.