4 ms·

After rats were accidentally introduced to Macquarie Island and started ravaging the local ecosystem, efforts to rebuff them -- which included introducing cats

by wwwtyro 14y ago

After rats were accidentally introduced to Macquarie Island and started ravaging the local ecosystem, efforts to rebuff them -- which included introducing cats -- only made things worse; the cats -- and the rabbits later introduced for food -- have since "resulted in the annihilation of two native bird species and the stripping of Macquarie Island's vegetation." (http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/epic-fail-efforts-to-fight-invasive-species-could-cause-ecosystem-meltdown.html http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/epic-fail-efforts...) In case my analogy is not perfectly clear: the rats are the greenhouse gasses, and the cats are your sulfate aerosols. > This particular approach wouldn't be completely unprecedented, because the same thing happens when large volcanoes erupt... The implication here is that because volcanoes spew sulfates into the atmosphere and it results in lower temperatures is that it is okay for us to do so, considering only the first-order temperature-lowering result (or some tiny subset of the practically infinite number of variables involved). This is a dangerous hubris, and I reject the naïveté of it. It is absolutely not the same. One is a volcano exploding, another is aerosols sprayed from an airplane. Just because something in nature has been imbalanced because of our actions does not mean that we must respond - especially when we cannot predict the results of that response! I'll say it again: this sort of tinkering with our biosphere based on first-order predictions terrify me. They are far more likely to result in something awful than something beneficial.

DennisP 14y ago
A big difference between sulfates and cats is that cats reproduce. Once you've introduced them, they're really hard to stop. With sulfates you just turn off the spigot and they're gone in a year or so. It's not my favorite method. Another, which got some funding from the Gates Foundation, involves seeding low-altitude clouds. You can shut that one down in a week. We already know the second-order effects of doing nothing to counteract warming, and they really are awful. The earth will quite naturally shrink the icecaps, release a large amount of methane, along with CO2 from drying forests and peat, and tip into the state it was in fifty million years ago, when crocodiles were swimming in the tropical seas at the north pole. The whole thing was kicked off by an orbital variation that very slightly raised the temperature. > Just because something in nature has been imbalanced because of our actions does not mean that we must respond True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do something. I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was more substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what."
- wwwtyro 14y ago
  > With sulfates you just turn off the spigot and they're gone in a year or so. There's no "just" about this. The sulfates may be gone, but the effect of their presence will never be, no matter how tiny or great it is. Again, your consideration of this is first order. I can make this clear with this question: what are the long-term effects of releasing sulfate aerosols into the air, and how do you know? > True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do something. I'm not following your logic. As I've outlined with the rats and cats example, doing something can cause a larger problem than the initial one. If we want to do something, it should be scaling back our effect on the natural environment, not giving it a good whack and hoping that the trajectory we send it on turns out correct. > I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was more substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what." The unintended consequences of actions in chaotic systems is a damned good argument, no matter how simply you try to state it. If no one offered an argument against the cats on Macquarie Island other than "something might go wrong here, though I can't predict what", would they have been wrong? No. They'd be recognizing that they were turning knobs on a system that they did not understand, and that unpredictably bad reactions could result.
  - DennisP 14y ago
    Behind door #1 is a hungry tiger. If you choose door #1 it will jump out and eat you. Behind door #2 is something else. There's no particular reason to think it will eat you, but who knows, it might. Which door do you choose? If there's a door #3 that will definitely not eat you, then choose it. But so far we don't seem to have found a door like that. Just "scaling back" to any realistic degree is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid door #1, unless we succeed soon in converting our energy supply to advanced fission or cheap fusion. Geoengineering approaches that pull carbon back out of the atmosphere are another avenue, which I prefer to albedo adjustment since they simply return the atmosphere to its original state. But those are much bigger and more expensive, and in some cases have their own side effects.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    There's no "just" about this. Gerald Weinberg once suggested that whenever you hear the j-word ("just") you should mentally swap it out for "have trouble". For example, "we'll just add that feature" means "we'll have trouble adding that feature". I think that may apply to "just" turning off that spigot. He also recommended that the s-word, "should", be replaced be "isn't". Funny rules, but they work: you learn to notice those words as signs that we don't have a clear view of what we're talking about.
coldarchon 14y ago
I prefer to use the Futurama scenario when Bender becomes a god to his small alien inhabitants. More sunlight to make more booze kills the aliens, more booze creates more crime, laws to prevent crime creates a religious war ..

by wwwtyro 14y ago

DennisP 14y ago

A big difference between sulfates and cats is that cats reproduce. Once you've introduced them, they're really hard to stop. With sulfates you just turn off the spigot and they're gone in a year or so. It's not my favorite method. Another, which got some funding from the Gates Foundation, involves seeding low-altitude clouds. You can shut that one down in a week. We already know the second-order effects of doing nothing to counteract warming, and they really are awful. The earth will quite naturally shrink the icecaps, release a large amount of methane, along with CO2 from drying forests and peat, and tip into the state it was in fifty million years ago, when crocodiles were swimming in the tropical seas at the north pole. The whole thing was kicked off by an orbital variation that very slightly raised the temperature. > Just because something in nature has been imbalanced because of our actions does not mean that we must respond True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do something. I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was more substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what."

wwwtyro 14y ago
> With sulfates you just turn off the spigot and they're gone in a year or so. There's no "just" about this. The sulfates may be gone, but the effect of their presence will never be, no matter how tiny or great it is. Again, your consideration of this is first order. I can make this clear with this question: what are the long-term effects of releasing sulfate aerosols into the air, and how do you know? > True, but in this case, if we want civilization to survive we'd better do something. I'm not following your logic. As I've outlined with the rats and cats example, doing something can cause a larger problem than the initial one. If we want to do something, it should be scaling back our effect on the natural environment, not giving it a good whack and hoping that the trajectory we send it on turns out correct. > I haven't seen a single argument against albedo adjustment that was more substantial than "something bad might happen, I don't know what." The unintended consequences of actions in chaotic systems is a damned good argument, no matter how simply you try to state it. If no one offered an argument against the cats on Macquarie Island other than "something might go wrong here, though I can't predict what", would they have been wrong? No. They'd be recognizing that they were turning knobs on a system that they did not understand, and that unpredictably bad reactions could result.
- DennisP 14y ago
  Behind door #1 is a hungry tiger. If you choose door #1 it will jump out and eat you. Behind door #2 is something else. There's no particular reason to think it will eat you, but who knows, it might. Which door do you choose? If there's a door #3 that will definitely not eat you, then choose it. But so far we don't seem to have found a door like that. Just "scaling back" to any realistic degree is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid door #1, unless we succeed soon in converting our energy supply to advanced fission or cheap fusion. Geoengineering approaches that pull carbon back out of the atmosphere are another avenue, which I prefer to albedo adjustment since they simply return the atmosphere to its original state. But those are much bigger and more expensive, and in some cases have their own side effects.
- gruseom 14y ago
  There's no "just" about this. Gerald Weinberg once suggested that whenever you hear the j-word ("just") you should mentally swap it out for "have trouble". For example, "we'll just add that feature" means "we'll have trouble adding that feature". I think that may apply to "just" turning off that spigot. He also recommended that the s-word, "should", be replaced be "isn't". Funny rules, but they work: you learn to notice those words as signs that we don't have a clear view of what we're talking about.

coldarchon 14y ago

I prefer to use the Futurama scenario when Bender becomes a god to his small alien inhabitants. More sunlight to make more booze kills the aliens, more booze creates more crime, laws to prevent crime creates a religious war ..