Does Climate Engineering promises good solutions in combating climate change?
I am doing a research paper on climate engineering and I am to convince my readers that CE really is a matter of consideration. What good evidence could help me prove my thesis?
Come up with good lies. That is what the climate change crowd has been doing for years.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642
There are various techniques of climate engineering possible but they all have both positives and negatives. You can look up things like cloud seeding, plankton farms, and so on.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35693
http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_KCaldeira_geoengineering.pdf
No, all one has to do is look at how well we can control nature in respect of floods. We build levies and other barriers to keep water out and nature still finds a way to flood areas.
I have a feeling that climate engineering will have the same problems if not more.
I think there are various geoengineering solutions that might work to stop global warming, but I think any attempt to change climate on a global scale is obviously risky, because we may not foresee all the consequences of our actions, and what’s good for one region may be bad for another, or may even be bad for different people in the same region. I see it as a desperation measure that would be used if things are going downhill very quickly.
It’s good to remind your readers, though, that we are already engineering the climate right now through the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but we are engineering it in an uncontrolled and unplanned way.
Our present climate problem is basically the result of the world industrialization of the last century or so coupled with the fact that we’re going to continue to rely on fossil fuels for a while. This shows that humanity as a whole is capable of effective climate modification.
If we continue accelerating our fossil fuel use, we are capable of changing the world enough that most human infrastructure and the majority of earth’s species will not be suited to the climate. We can do this long before the supply of fossil fuels runs out. This shows the need for purposeful, engineered climate modification.
Small-scale experiments have had some results in achieving desired effects – previous answers have given links – but nothing yet has been found that shows economic feasibility. Branson’s Virgin prize has yet to be awarded.
While there is a need and a promise, the promise has yet to be fulfilled. Engineer’s track records, given a need and a promise, have been pretty good over the last few centuries.
You really need to move your vision of the effects down from mass populations to small town or tribal areas. The effects will be gigantic on the family level. But the effects can be separated into two groups. The first is the extremely well off. They will do fine and always have fuel and the food of choice. The masses, quite separately, will be lucky to have even a refrigerator, and then only if they can provide the power themselves.
Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore will do fine, thank you. Climate Engineering will make sure of that. The rest of us will have to make other plans.
No, all one has to do is look at how well we can control nature in respect of floods. We build levies and other barriers to keep water out and nature still finds a way to flood areas.
I have a feeling that climate engineering will have the same problems if not more.
I remember there is a question similar to your question asked by someone few days ago. Someone has answered it very well, and the answer has been chosen as the best answer. You can try to search it in search function above, hope you luck