4 ms·

Climate engineering as a response to climate change

2 points by limist 17y ago

limist 17y ago
To see the proposed climate engineering solutions, look for the Climate Engineering/Read More link on the bottom right of the page. I don't know whether to be impressed by the technical audacity, or horrified by the hubris. Given that we currently can't predict the weather accurately for the medium/long-term, nor reliably prevent and cure disease, nor create bug-free software on time and on schedule, I lean towards the latter reaction.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  I think the general principle is this: if we understand climate well enough to draw conclusions like "with 95% certainty, global warming is anthropogenic", then we also understand climate well enough for geoengineering.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    That general principle is wrong. We are more than 95% certain that cancer and radiation sickness can be caused by prolonged exposure to radioactive substances, but that doesn't necessarily imply we can do anything but reduce cancer and radiation sickness by reducing exposure to radioactivity. Likewise, just because we understand that releasing excess CO2 into the carbon cycle increases the average temperature of the earth doesn't mean that we can do anything but reduce that effect by reducing the amount of CO2 we release. Climate change is a result of unforeseen consequences. So instead of reducing the activities we already know lead to these consequences--activities that are already unsustainable and bad for us whether or not they cause climate change--we should bank on some longshot, never-before-tried geoengineering project with unforeseen consequences of its own? That's the equivalent of saying, "instead of eating better and exercising, I'm going to lose weight by doing drugs and having liposuctions".
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      The general principle is fine. The principle (stated more precisely) is, "if you have an accurate mathematical model, you can do engineering." In the case of cancer, we don't have an accurate model. All we managed to do is use a large statistical sample to average out over the non-radiation variables. In the case of climate modeling, we have a sample size of 1. All our conclusions come from a family of models which are claimed to be very accurate. According to the IPCC, our models are accurate enough to make the claim (with 95% confidence) that CO2 and not other unforeseen factors is the cause of the current global warming trend. If our model is that good, what prevents us from using it for engineering? And if the model misses all sorts of important facts, how can we draw conclusions like "AGW is true" from it?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        The sample size is >1: global warming through high CO2 has been observed on the planet Venus. Our model for radiation poisoning is pretty good, but mechanistically there's no way in that system to easily undo the damage of radiation. Also, it's disingenuous to say that the sample size for climate modeling is 1. We have multiple samples, from multiple methodologies, of the global temperature and the global atmospheric CO2 throughout time. We also have multiple samples of experimental data confirming and quantifying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. Your argument is kind of like saying, "we know bombs work, we know how bombs work, and we know that all of these bombs we've been dropping on Berlin are positively correlated with the increasing destruction of the city, but there's insufficient evidence that the problem will get any better if we stop dropping bombs on Berlin. So let's build a gigantic dome over Berlin made out of nanotubes." To do engineering on a system, you have to know nearly everything about how all of it works. To diagnose a single problem you can narrow down your knowledge a lot more and have much higher certainty. So even your restated principle is wrong. We know that not irradiating yourself will lower your risk of cancer. We don't know how to undo the damage caused by radiation. Again, your argument is kind of like saying, "if we're not sure how to fix radiation damage to tissue, we have no proof that radiation has negative health effects". Furthermore, your decision theory is wrong too. We have to be 99% confident that geoengineering won't cause any bad, unforeseen side effects before we even do it. But we are even 50% confident that something we are doing (emitting CO2) is having a potentially catastrophic effect, we have to act on it.
limist 17y ago
Here's a more direct link to the climate engineering section: http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-engineering/ http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-resea...
azgolfer 17y ago
The "Copenhagen Consensus Center" - LOL "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." R. Feynman

2 points by limist 17y ago

To see the proposed climate engineering solutions, look for the Climate Engineering/Read More link on the bottom right of the page. I don't know whether to be impressed by the technical audacity, or horrified by the hubris. Given that we currently can't predict the weather accurately for the medium/long-term, nor reliably prevent and cure disease, nor create bug-free software on time and on schedule, I lean towards the latter reaction.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I think the general principle is this: if we understand climate well enough to draw conclusions like "with 95% certainty, global warming is anthropogenic", then we also understand climate well enough for geoengineering.
- philwelch 17y ago
  That general principle is wrong. We are more than 95% certain that cancer and radiation sickness can be caused by prolonged exposure to radioactive substances, but that doesn't necessarily imply we can do anything but reduce cancer and radiation sickness by reducing exposure to radioactivity. Likewise, just because we understand that releasing excess CO2 into the carbon cycle increases the average temperature of the earth doesn't mean that we can do anything but reduce that effect by reducing the amount of CO2 we release. Climate change is a result of unforeseen consequences. So instead of reducing the activities we already know lead to these consequences--activities that are already unsustainable and bad for us whether or not they cause climate change--we should bank on some longshot, never-before-tried geoengineering project with unforeseen consequences of its own? That's the equivalent of saying, "instead of eating better and exercising, I'm going to lose weight by doing drugs and having liposuctions".
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The general principle is fine. The principle (stated more precisely) is, "if you have an accurate mathematical model, you can do engineering." In the case of cancer, we don't have an accurate model. All we managed to do is use a large statistical sample to average out over the non-radiation variables. In the case of climate modeling, we have a sample size of 1. All our conclusions come from a family of models which are claimed to be very accurate. According to the IPCC, our models are accurate enough to make the claim (with 95% confidence) that CO2 and not other unforeseen factors is the cause of the current global warming trend. If our model is that good, what prevents us from using it for engineering? And if the model misses all sorts of important facts, how can we draw conclusions like "AGW is true" from it?
    - philwelch 17y ago
      The sample size is >1: global warming through high CO2 has been observed on the planet Venus. Our model for radiation poisoning is pretty good, but mechanistically there's no way in that system to easily undo the damage of radiation. Also, it's disingenuous to say that the sample size for climate modeling is 1. We have multiple samples, from multiple methodologies, of the global temperature and the global atmospheric CO2 throughout time. We also have multiple samples of experimental data confirming and quantifying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. Your argument is kind of like saying, "we know bombs work, we know how bombs work, and we know that all of these bombs we've been dropping on Berlin are positively correlated with the increasing destruction of the city, but there's insufficient evidence that the problem will get any better if we stop dropping bombs on Berlin. So let's build a gigantic dome over Berlin made out of nanotubes." To do engineering on a system, you have to know nearly everything about how all of it works. To diagnose a single problem you can narrow down your knowledge a lot more and have much higher certainty. So even your restated principle is wrong. We know that not irradiating yourself will lower your risk of cancer. We don't know how to undo the damage caused by radiation. Again, your argument is kind of like saying, "if we're not sure how to fix radiation damage to tissue, we have no proof that radiation has negative health effects". Furthermore, your decision theory is wrong too. We have to be 99% confident that geoengineering won't cause any bad, unforeseen side effects before we even do it. But we are even 50% confident that something we are doing (emitting CO2) is having a potentially catastrophic effect, we have to act on it.

limist 17y ago

Here's a more direct link to the climate engineering section: http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-engineering/ http://fixtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-resea...

azgolfer 17y ago

The "Copenhagen Consensus Center" - LOL "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." R. Feynman