6 ms·

Attempting to exercise control over such a chaotic system with simplistic solutions like giant space mirrors strikes me as a very bad idea indeed. Until we have

Attempting to exercise control over such a chaotic system with simplistic solutions like giant space mirrors strikes me as a very bad idea indeed. Until we have a complete understanding of how the climate is regulated naturally I really don't see how we can do any good at all. Not to mention that, as you say, the politics are beyond us at the moment anyway (global consensus? yeah, right...)

dy 15y ago
You're not following Lean Climate Control practices.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Failing Fast seems suboptimal, here.
  - arctangent 15y ago
    The morning weather forecast will promise that "some weather" will be delivered but they don't know what form it will take or how much of it there will be. They will go on to say that if you're not happy with the weather that is delivered then you shouldn't worry because they can guarantee that some more weather will be delivered the following day.
simonh 15y ago
That's assuming that there is any kind of natural 'regulation' of the earth's climate. It appears to veer erratically from mini-ice age to heatwave. However it's true we do need to vary carefully consider the downsides of any potential interventions and be flexible about it. There's far too much dogma and polarisation of debate in climate science at the moment.
- danparsonson 15y ago
  That is indeed an assumption on my part, although there is evidence of such regulation that I, at least, find compelling; for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insol... and it's worth pointing out that long term regulation and the shorter term variations that you mentioned aren't necessarily incompatible. IANA Climate Scientist though!
jerf 15y ago
The nice thing about space mirrors is that of all the climate mitigation methods I've heard, they are by far the most controllable. Solutions like "let's stuff the oceans full of iron to grow plankton to absorb CO2", even assuming they work as intended, have the problem that they are irreversible. Space mirrors can put heat where we want it, and remove it from where we want it, and can do so on hours of notice. It's actually the least simplistic solution. It also actually allows some reasonable engineering experimentation with commensurate levels of commitment. Unfortunately, it is also the easiest to turn into one hell of a weapon. Then, following that logic, climate control in general is one hell of a weapon. If anybody actually can control the climate, can we allow them that power? Things like "turn it over to the UN" aren't a magical answer to that problem because "the UN" is ultimately just another group of people, not particularly imbued with magical resistance to the temptations of power. (Arguably, quite the opposite.) But assuming the massive political problems can be solved, problems which all climate control schemes have equally, space mirrors are actually the one I favor most. Too many of the other ones have a failure case of "triggering an ice age", and for all the words spent on explaining how bad global warming is, ice ages are several orders of magnitude worse than the worst global warming story I've heard. A true ice age is the end of civilization.
- danparsonson 15y ago
  What makes it simplistic for me is really the idea that we can make the climate better by tinkering with a single variable (temperature in this case) - I'm not convinced we even know what 'better' is, let alone have enough understanding to predict what the side effects would be. What if we cause some imbalance that doesn't immediately manifest any problems but has a detrimental longer term effect? I do take your point about space mirrors and the ability to experiment, though - certainly more appealing than man-made plankton blooms shudder - and I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the political issues!
  - pyre 15y ago
    IIRC, plankton blooms were debunked. They tried it and the number of predators just a level removed from the plankton increased to offset the bloom.

dy 15y ago

You're not following Lean Climate Control practices.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Failing Fast seems suboptimal, here.
- arctangent 15y ago
  The morning weather forecast will promise that "some weather" will be delivered but they don't know what form it will take or how much of it there will be. They will go on to say that if you're not happy with the weather that is delivered then you shouldn't worry because they can guarantee that some more weather will be delivered the following day.

simonh 15y ago

That's assuming that there is any kind of natural 'regulation' of the earth's climate. It appears to veer erratically from mini-ice age to heatwave. However it's true we do need to vary carefully consider the downsides of any potential interventions and be flexible about it. There's far too much dogma and polarisation of debate in climate science at the moment.

danparsonson 15y ago
That is indeed an assumption on my part, although there is evidence of such regulation that I, at least, find compelling; for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insol... and it's worth pointing out that long term regulation and the shorter term variations that you mentioned aren't necessarily incompatible. IANA Climate Scientist though!

jerf 15y ago

The nice thing about space mirrors is that of all the climate mitigation methods I've heard, they are by far the most controllable. Solutions like "let's stuff the oceans full of iron to grow plankton to absorb CO2", even assuming they work as intended, have the problem that they are irreversible. Space mirrors can put heat where we want it, and remove it from where we want it, and can do so on hours of notice. It's actually the least simplistic solution. It also actually allows some reasonable engineering experimentation with commensurate levels of commitment. Unfortunately, it is also the easiest to turn into one hell of a weapon. Then, following that logic, climate control in general is one hell of a weapon. If anybody actually can control the climate, can we allow them that power? Things like "turn it over to the UN" aren't a magical answer to that problem because "the UN" is ultimately just another group of people, not particularly imbued with magical resistance to the temptations of power. (Arguably, quite the opposite.) But assuming the massive political problems can be solved, problems which all climate control schemes have equally, space mirrors are actually the one I favor most. Too many of the other ones have a failure case of "triggering an ice age", and for all the words spent on explaining how bad global warming is, ice ages are several orders of magnitude worse than the worst global warming story I've heard. A true ice age is the end of civilization.

danparsonson 15y ago
What makes it simplistic for me is really the idea that we can make the climate better by tinkering with a single variable (temperature in this case) - I'm not convinced we even know what 'better' is, let alone have enough understanding to predict what the side effects would be. What if we cause some imbalance that doesn't immediately manifest any problems but has a detrimental longer term effect? I do take your point about space mirrors and the ability to experiment, though - certainly more appealing than man-made plankton blooms shudder - and I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the political issues!
- pyre 15y ago
  IIRC, plankton blooms were debunked. They tried it and the number of predators just a level removed from the plankton increased to offset the bloom.