My son is working on a school essay about cloud brightening and the great barrier reef. He is trying to understand why there is so much opposition to doing this research.
Any hints or reasoned arguments to share?
Any hints or reasoned arguments to share?
The first is what some calls spaceship Earth argument: Imagine that you are traveling on a generational spaceship. You have a really good life support system which keeps everyone able to breath, temperature comfortable or bearable and the agriculture pods ticking. It was built eons ago and nobody knows how it really works, but it works mostly. And then one day a bright eyed, young engineering cadet recommends that we tweak a subsystem. Now remember, you have one spaceship and no hangar, no safe harbour where you can dock if things go fubar. Do you let the engineer monkey with the system risking permanent damage?
Earth is like that spaceship. It is vast, and complex, and things affect other things in surprising ways, and we only have one of it.
The second is about international relations and conflicts: Interventions into weather modifications have the potential to be beneficial in one area and disastrous at other areas. You create a deluge here and a desert there kind of things. If Somewhereistan steals the water Otherland's farmers would depend on that's a direct threat to the existence of the Otherland state. Predicting and measuring these changes is challenging. Rectifying harm caused might be impossible even if everyone agrees on what happened, but getting such agreement in a noisy world is hard. This makes weather modification ripe for international conflict. The kind where angry man shoots missiles at each other. Which is better to be avoided.
Australia is "far" from other places, so maybe they are safer in this sense, but memetically they are connected to everyone. Once they proved they can manipulate their clouds who is to tell to Somewhereistan that they can't?
2. Developing technologies for weather control should be avoided because they could lead to conflicts of interest. Can't the same argument be made around any technology?
Second argument seems like the realistic outcome but I also think it underestimates the powers that be/will be. The conflicts of interest will be addressed too slowly and the powers that be will say too bad to their opponents.
Then humans come along again with another great novelty they'd like to introduce to this complex system (artificial clouds), which will also likely have "unpredicted", higher-order, long-lasting effects.
>But this time it's good!
>We actually understand what we're doing this time!
>Trust us - we fully understand this complex system and the consequences of our actions now, really!
>We understand with 100% certainty that this is a 100% net good and it cannot possibly have detrimental effects worse than those that have already occurred!
We said the same things about coal and DDT. The skepticism around this artificial cloud plot is warranted and welcome.
Let's just back off for a little while. Rather than add more novelty, let's try to undo some of what we've already added. Take the via negativa. Ease up on burning stuff. Let nature's clouds do their thing. Just relax for a bit.
Effectively this statist position boils down to "screw you, I got mine", which is generally considered unethical. The only alternative is to run forward as quickly as we can, fixing things as we go.
By the way, would you consider "undoing" ozone-destroying refrigerants by banning/reducing AC and fridge use, or would you prefer a technological, "positive" solution of ozone-safe refrigerants?
I think my unfinished back-of-the-envelope calculation strongly hints at this plan being not practical. Another factor to consider is the large scale impacts and assessment of the sheer predictability of outcomes for the ecosphere and for society alike. To me it looks a lot like some people just don't get that messing with the environment on a global scale is qualitatively different from, say, watering your 300m² garden or turning that knob on the radio.
Where do you see resistance to these mitigation attempts like cloud brightening?
"Three-hundred and twenty nozzles spewed a cloud of nano-sized droplets engineered to brighten clouds and block sunlight — providing a bit of cooling shade for the coral colonies below."
How big is the Great Barrier Reef?
"approximately 133,000 square miles"
How big is Germany?
"137987.506 square miles"
In other words -- use "cloud brightening" for an area the size of Germany? I would wonder if this is actually a good idea.
How bad is the coral doing? Let's get input from the Australian government":
https://www.aims.gov.au/news-and-media/reef-recovery-window-...
Moderate to High -- without cloud brightening.
Actually, I don't oppose the research. Just be careful if deployments are going to be "at scale".
Asking someone is the very prerequisite to develop your ideas. Looking at data is an asynchronous way of asking someone. There is no critical thinking without exchange.