On 30 Apr, 20:46, "The Cunctator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/26/07, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm putting this here because I'd like to hear a reasoned discussion > > > of the merits or otherwise of the proposal. Anyone got a response? > > > In my (probably minority) view, the general lack of interest in (or even > > mild revulsion at) the various geoengineering ideas is indicative of the > > extent to which various factions are actually hooking a general > > sustainability/conservation meme on the back of climate change. To these > > people, solving the "problem" of climate change by controlling the > > climate isn't actually their aim, it is merely the means to promote > > sustainable living. The latter is no bad thing in itself, and there is a > > rather obvious potential for overlap, but it is (IMO) a big mistake to > > be too wedded to the strategy one can be sneaked in under the pretense > > of addressing the other. > > I think that is certainly a component of the skepticism; another major part > is that the law of unintended consequences would imply that trying to solve > one global unintended consequence of industrialization, the burning of > fossil fuels, with another global scale industrial project could have bad > unintended consequences of a similar scale.
Gavin Schmidt at RC http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/ "Think of the climate as a small boat on a rather choppy ocean. Under normal circumstances the boat will rock to and fro, and there is a finite risk that the boat could be overturned by a rogue wave. But now one of the passengers has decided to stand up and is deliberately rocking the boat ever more violently. Someone suggests that this is likely to increase the chances of the boat capsizing. Another passenger then proposes that with his knowledge of chaotic dynamics he can counterbalance the first passenger and indeed, counter the natural rocking caused by the waves. But to do so he needs a huge array of sensors and enormous computational reasources to be ready to react efficiently but still wouldn't be able to guarantee absolute stability, and indeed, since the system is untested it might make things worse. " I agree with Gavin, we need to get the damn fool to siddown and stop waving his arms about. But as I don't think we can stop our emissions I think we need to accept the process, act to mitigate it's effects at the effects end (not the cause end). Because meddling with the causal end is as stupid and dangerous as our causing the problem itself. Adaptation by as organised a retreat as possible in the face of the changes. This is a battle we cannot win. I knew an old lady who swallowed a fly..... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
