地球工程是多么糟糕的事情。- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 07 - 08 - t21:10:08z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/7584 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/7584 9 地球工程是多么糟糕的事情。 Gemechu芬达Garuma //www.hoelymoley.com/users/4877 2016 - 02年- 26 - t01:02:11z 2020 - 02年- 05 - t10:33:13z < p >只是好奇心迫使我去问这个问题。在某个时间点上,如果我们不能控制全球\科幻{二氧化碳}美元排放,温度会增加到一个临界点,这将是一个完整的灾难。然而,如果我们可以准备通过地球工程(如碳移除,阻止太阳辐射),然后我们可以返回温度恢复正常。我并不是说我们必须实验与地球母亲,但如果我们可以做weather-engineering实验控制实验室和大型强子对撞机(LHC)一样,我们可能有一天能够拯救地球的灾难。< / p > < p >,我的问题是,多么糟糕的地球工程会尽量控制在完全孤立的实验室实验吗?< / p > < p >在数值天气预报模型中,主要是可以控制的进化\科幻{二氧化碳},美元太阳辐射、水分、温度等。考虑到电流计算功率比在过去和将来最有可能是更好的,一旦我们有了这些气候/天气模型校准和验证,我们可以使用它们来对抗极端天气如洪水、干旱、飓风和其他所有风风暴?< / p > < p >当前天气预测的准确性是更好的预测提前5 - 10天。所以,这可能会给足够的时间来控制模拟之前和之后我们的干预。基于我们可能采取行动,例如,增加降水(例如,通过控制喷涂的凝结核)哪里有干旱,打击和分散飓风或改变他们的方向之前,打击和破坏城市等。错误的一个可以怎么想呢?< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/7584/-/7588 # 7588 17 gerrit回答的地球工程有多坏? gerrit //www.hoelymoley.com/users/6 2016 - 02年- 26 - t11:34:20z 2020 - 02年- 05 - t10:33:13z < p >对于地球工程是不好的部分< em >未知的未知< / em >,套用< a href = " https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " >一个美国政治家< / >。< / p > < p >我们的气候模型是错误的。< a href = " https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < em >所有模型都是错的,但有些是有用的。< / em > < / >。我们的模型是有用的,但不是非常有用足够信任他们,当他们告诉我们大量喷洒东西到平流层或海洋大部分是无害的。我们的模型不能正确重现我们当前的气候。他们同意一些趋势,但是有很多东西他们失踪。< / p > < p >我们曾经在我们的冰箱使用大量的有毒化学物质。这是一个坏主意,所以我们发现< a href = " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " >一些东西,不是有毒< / >。太好了,不是吗?几十年后,科学家们意识到这是南极洲上空破坏臭氧层。起初,测量被拒绝,因为他们没有意义。与我们理解的气氛,和为什么臭氧突然消失呢?< / p > < p >我们的气候系统是复杂的。 Very complex. Mess with one of the symptoms, and who knows what side effects are going to be? It's a risk that we cannot quantify, and those are probably the scariest risks out there. If even with stuff that doesn't seem remotely connected to each other (fridge coolants and ozone) we almost messed up very seriously, who is to say actively messing with our atmosphere or ocean isn't going to have nasty unintended consequences?

Better than offsetting one set of geoengineering (deforestation, ocean acidification, enhanced GHG emissions) with another equally radical one, it might be safer — from a risk management point of view — to try to not do any geoengineering at all. Certainly as long as our understanding of climate is just starting.

To borrow an analogy from medicine: preventing is better than curing. Patients are sometimes prescribed medicine where the side-effects are so bad that they're almost lethal by themselves, but only when the patient is surely terminally ill, so there is "nothing to lose". We do have a lot to lose on Earth.

Note that weather models are initial value problems and climate models solve boundary value problems, so mathematically speaking, the two are completely different.

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/7584/-/7590 # 7590 8 回答的特雷弗·j·史密斯对地球工程有多坏? 特雷弗·j·史密斯 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/5536 2016 - 02年- 26 - t17:14:14z 2016 - 02年- 26 - t17:14:14z < p >调派@gerrit提到。< / p >

Additionally, another major problem with geo-engineering is that once we've started these processes and essentially borrowed time to offset mitigation measures, we'll have put ourselves in a situation where these measures will need to be continued almost indefinitely, regardless of the risks of negative side effects of geo-engineering to begin with (ie: chemical intrusions, biological system degradation, geopolitical concerns). Present climate models suggest that if we were to engage in climate engineering and then remove these after several years, warming rates will come back with force (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045103).

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/7584/-/19121 # 19121 1 答案由助教麦凯为地球工程有多坏? 助教麦凯 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/18851 2020 - 02年- 05 - t04:55:59z 2020 - 02年- 05 - t04:55:59z < p >我一直工作,作为一个爱好者,一个替代方法的太阳阴影感觉我觉得我可以帮助回答这个问题。< / p > < p >从技术上讲,任何项目影响地球的气候是地球工程的一种形式。这包括当前温室气体危机jamessqf上面提到的。但扭转温室气体排放回到工业化前的水平也是地球工程的一种形式。因此,无论我们做什么(继续当前的趋势或修改它们),我们将执行地球工程。这是生命的教训是一种平衡。< / p > < p >大多数人认为的地球工程是一个大规模的项目旨在缓解某些气候在全球范围的影响。这包括诸如将雾化颗粒释放到空气也增加seafoam或喷洒海洋盐/盐水到空气中创建小云层反射太阳光。< / p > < p >其他要考虑的是经常进行的实验是特别失败。火箭测试火箭摧毁的新闻,因为他们要确保备份是否按预期的方式工作。科学工作与地球工程。他们试图打破的东西更好地理解它们是如何打破。

Some things else to consider is the effect on different biomes of different sizes. The world literally operates differently for life of different sizes such as a microbe compared to ants, and an ant compared to us. An ant can fall off the empire state building and be just fine and us, well, not so much. Some insects are so small they swim through the air rather than fly. Thus we have to keep all sizes of life in our consideration. Seafoam may cause certain bacteria to flourish and kill others and we might not know for years. This effect might not be that big or it could cause dangerous algae blooms (this is a theoretical example not backed by any experiment). This plays into your LHC example. LHC operates on the smallest units we can manipulate. The earth is the largest unit we can currently manipulate and the rules are very different.

Going back to your original questions and worst-case scenarios we could cause issues with the earth's ozone layer, collapsing it and wiping out humanity, we might cause massive storms, we might kill off keystone species (some of which might exist on a microscopic level making it hard to detect until it's too late) causing great dyings releasing more GHG into the atmosphere.

The most realistic issue is that we don't apply geoengineering evenlyish (I add ish because optimal applications won't actually be even. Studies have shown that adopting certain areas, or engaging only certain areas with geoengineering, will make negative effects of climate change worse in the least modified areas. This means that is the USA implements geoengineering and Africa doesn't Africa will have a harder time. Conversely, studies have also indicated that well-implimented geoengineering can reduce inequality between nations which would drastically boost the quality of life and economy of the world's population as a whole.

Other than that the next most likely possibility is that geoengineering causes some large scale issues which will cause great dyings which will release more GHG into the atmosphere. Life is a giant cycle of carbon and other compounds and messing with that cycle causes levels of different chemicals and elements to change.

I see the argument that once we start geoengineering we can't stop. This is assuming GHG levels are maintained or increased (which is what we are going for) and suddenly removing a technology that lowers the temp by 0.5-2C would result in fast changes than would happen 'naturally'. However, this concern assumes that we only have 1-2 geoengineering projects to work with. A more realistic view is that we will use multiple methods in conjunction. Not only does this redundancy remove the concern that any single project can't be removed but it allows for some projects being better or safer in different circumstances. We will learn a lot, and it lowers the number of unintended side effects for any particular project.

I hope this helps. -Tristan

Baidu
map