Slashdot Mirror
Should We Change the Weather Even If We Can?
jonerik writes "According to this article in today's Christian Science Monitor, science will be able to make significant changes in weather systems in the next few decades. More than simply seeding clouds to produce rain, the technology will be available to nudge hurricanes out of the path of population centers, for instance. The big question is 'Should we?' 'Even if we can do this, is this something we really want to do?,' says Dr. Ross Hoffman, a vice president with Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., who adds, 'Before we can really control weather, we have to be able to observe the weather and forecast the weather much better than we do now.' On the other hand, according to the article the genie may already be out of the bottle: 'According to the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization (WMO), at least 25 countries are engaged in weather modification projects to enhance rain and snowfall, or suppress hail. In the United States, 12 states have had weather modification programs. Texas runs a program at the county level for rain enhancement, while North Dakota is focusing on hail suppression.'"
We already have changed the weather by all the polution we produce. So why not.
Maybe we can change it for the better.
Waka waka waka!
Given the protections for natural habitats and that people are hit with large fines for plowing fields because that impacts wetland noone legally can change weather. That is if it is though through.
Fight Spammers!
I may sound like a horrible person here, but I really think that as soon as we start screwing around with nature, we throw the balance out the window. The human population is already way too large as it is. Much like developing cures for disease, stopping hurricanes from hitting population centers is just another way to screw over any form of population control. We may save more lives now, but I bet you its going to cost us in the end.
Ultimate weapon? Tell you what, a duel: You get weather control and I get the nukes. :)
I just think we've crossing the "ultimate weapon" line.
Storm is not the most powerful of the X-Men, after all -- though close. (Who is? Hmm. A major theme there is teamwork.)
I may sound like a horrible person here, but I really think that as soon as we start screwing around with nature, we throw the balance out the window. The human population is already way too large as it is. Much like developing cures for disease, stopping hurricanes from hitting population centers is just another way to screw over any form of population control. We may save more lives now, but I bet you its going to cost us in the end.
As a big supporter of population control, I feel I must respond to this. Population control is not about finding ways to kill existing people or even turning a blind eye to ways to save existing people from being killed. Population control is about trying to reduce the number of births. Once a person living their life, I don't think anyone in their right mind would say its in the best interest of humanity to let them die (and, please, let's not get into an abortion discussion here). The way to curb the population explosion is through economic, societial and educational reform.
You don't favor weather control? Fine. But please don't wrap yourself in the cloak of population control. You make us look like monsters. Population control is very humane. It has nothing to do with letting people die.
GMD
watch this
So you change the weather patterns so that hurricanes don't hit the coast (or at least not as hard).....suddenly, fertile farmlands 200 miles in from the coast have a severe drop in annual rainfall....those interviewed say "we have no food - we are going to die"
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
This is an arguable item on many levels. I believe that because we can make a hurricane move away from the coast we should. An even better notion would be to calm the storm a bit and let it hit with a lessened force (this was actually tried in the 1970s with devestating effects, so perhaps trial and error should not occur near populous coasts).
And for anyone who says we shoudl NOT modify the weather, I have a wakeup call for you. Your argument is weak because humans are always going to adapt their environment to suit their needs. This is human nature and it flies in the face of our ability to survive. Our natural instinct is to change our world in order to suit our needs, from changing arid land to farmland or building a shelter so that the rain does not soak us while we sleep. We are always going to seek ways to make our environment more appealing to us and this is just the next logical step in that direction.
Hammer of Truth
for "stealing" somebody else's rain. Not to mention the legal "oops" factor that happens when you nudge that hurricane just a liiiiiiiiiiiittle too far to the left.
For other weather control in fiction you might want to check out Poul Anderson's "Orion Shall Rise."
KFG
And Lord, it wasn't good.
And the brethren went away edified.
In fact, I'm writing a letter to my congressman to introduce legislation to prevent any butterflies from flapping their wings in Beijing. That ought to keep any crazy weather changes from happening.
Water rights and international accords for allocating them are nothing new. Many river cross boundaries. Even bitter enemies (e.g. middle east) often can at least come to accomodations they can accept even if they protest them.
On the other hand few things can get more bitter since the supply is inelastic and its use critical. We (the US) certainly dont give mexico one more drop of water than we absolutely have to.
In the werstern US states more than the eastern US or in europe, Water rights are in fact more critical and more precious because the water distibution is paradoxically plentiful where it existis yet generally sparse. In fact its more sparse than the typical homestead land grant. hence in days of yore the guy that homsteaded around the water source effectively owned everything as far as he wanted to (or till the next watering hole) regardless of the actual property boundaries.
In the US west we have very recently reached the elastic limit of the supply. Many places (e.g. santa fe new mexico) are pumping at an unsustainable rate (which by the way causes depletion that is also irrevrsable even if you quit pumping it). And california, which has routinely taken unused water rights form other sates can no longer do so and thus is actually going to experience not just a water limit but an actual deficit when those rights are asserted by others.
So now we come to the final frontier: rain allocation. My guess its that the moment the amount of rain taken from the skys reaches a value that causes a depression of rainfall eleswhere that is detectable on the scale of the annual varialtion, perhaps like 1 or 2% of the available rain, then there's gonna be a show down.
Since weather is generally west to east, the eastern states will be robbed. This also means it will propably show up first intra-nationally rather than internationally since in the americas the countries are mostly divided north-south more than east west (or when they are east-west there is a mountain range making the rain issue partly moot). Even europe may experience some pain because some scientist belive the gulf-stream is about to be overrun by colder artic "underwater" rivers. This should depress their expected rainfall. Good thing they formed the EU or theired be some fights.
Interestingly specualtors are already buying up land in many northern US states on the assumption they may get some sort of water right allocation.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
People talk about lofty goals such as ending world hunger - this would go a long way. All though the dangers are unknown and possibly severe, I don't think there is a chance anyone will wait and see. They didn't with cell phones, and this would have a much larger impact.
Random is the New Order.
I know a lot of people get upset about screwing with nature, but as i've said above, technical progression in our wiring, you cannot stop us scientist types doing it.
Perhaps knowledge gained through weather control could actually _SAVE_ our species, because we can use it to create a suitable environment when we populate other planets.
Dont't you see? Man isn't part of nature, we're seperate from it, we only seek to destroy it. Seriously though, I would say that human cultural and technological evolution can be seen as part of a natural process. We are, after all, creatures of the earth, we've got just as much right to use the land as any other animal, we're just hundreds of thousands of times more efficiant at doing it (stupid baboons, let's see you develop a written language!).
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
Relax and grab your towel, this is not new. Life forms on other planets have routinely attempted weather control when they become advance enough. Generally this is about 100 to 200 earth years after the discovery of radio technology.
By the way, this is also why the Seti project has been completely unsuccessful at detection other life forms since they are all dead.
It is also why, the people of planet beta-3 have told me to tell you earthbeings, not to fret about your water. they're going to exterminate you and water their lawns with your planet.
have a nice day, so long and thanks for all the fish.
--ford perfect.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Would be like a world without tigers. Safer, maybe, but less interesting.
"Chaotic" does not mean random, so it does not mean that ramifications will never be known. We may find conditions in which something we can do will very regularly (and perhaps through magnification of effects - chaos that is) increase rainfall or evaporation off the ocean in some area. Taking advantage of the regularity that we discover in the chaos will not prevent us from seeing the ramifications of our actions.
Rank comments and posts against each other at We-Rank.com
This problem makes it extremely hard to do weather modification in a scientific way. We don't have access to a "control atmosphere." There is no fixed reference point to compare results against. We can never tell if our manipulations were the true cause of the effects we observe. And if we perform experiments in closed laboratory conditions, then we are no longer studying the real atmosphere by definition.
If we gave serious thought to large-scale weather modification, we'd be insane. We only have one atmosphere. Not only is it unscientific, it's dangerous.
I know that the logical question is "should we?" There are bound to be some consequences that we don't understand but what better way to try to understand than to experiment?
If we proceed carefully, I think that it is unlikely that we will cause any disturbances that are more catastrophic than a volcanic eruption or other large natural event. The world always seems to recover from these events.
If we do gain more understanding and are able to tune our weather the benefits could be enormous. Imagine steering hurricanes away from population centers or directing a little rain to an area that needs it or directing it away from an area that is already flooding.
This is as good an argument as "But think about the children". The real question is, of course: Can we really prevent weather catastrophes without harmful side effects, both short and long term? If we save 5000 people from a tornado, but doom another 5000 people (or more, or less) to a flood in a possibly distant part of the world, should we do it?
I feel that is the question being asked here. We don't really understand the atmosphere. We may understand it well enough to prevent a single hurrican from happening in a certain area (or causing it to happen), but we don't know enough to understand the implictaions on a global scale. Our atmosphere is a highly comple system that intertacts globally. Local changes can have unpredicatble results (think of the butterfly causing a storm). Until we understand it better, we shouldn't use a weather changing system either as a safeguard or a weapon. Not a safeguard because we don't know whether we will harm others by using it, and not as a weapon because it might backire horribly.
Fuck with it at your own peril.
No, fuck with it at our peril.
"Population control is about trying to reduce the number of births."
I find one thing aggravating about this. When people make this statement, they often neglect to mention that this applies only in countries where the birth rate is way out of control (e.g. Kenya which used to have avrg. 8 kids/woman). In other, developed countries (e.g. Europe, N. America) there is no harm in having 2-3 children/couple to maintain a sustainable population.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that population control is only necessary for 3rd world countries. Many environmentalists are very concerned about overpopulation in developed countries. Why? Simply because a single person in a developed country uses way more natural resources than a single person in a 3rd world country. Overpopulation is a problem for EVERYONE, not just those unfortunate enough to live in China or India.
Personally, I agree with you that allowing everyone 2-3 kids/couple to sustain the population is fine. What I'm less pleased about is couples that have more than this, regardless of what country they live in.
GMD
watch this
I was working a while ago with some folks from the national weather service, and they mentioned that cities grossly affect weather patterns. As they retain heat better than unpopulated areas (ie fields, natural grasslands).
The specific instance that he pointed out was that he has witnessed storm systems in the southeast US, moving from the gulf of mexico towards Georgia, and have them go around Atlanta, b/c of all the heat it retains.
-HockeyPuck
If they think there's anything wrong with developing technology that could have mitigated killer cyclones and torrential floods.
I think you'll hear a resounding silence.
...about cloning. Based on what I've seen here, the answer is conditional.
If controlling the weather will piss of religious people, then yes, we should do it. If not, then the usual prudence with regard to new science applies.