Slashdot Log In
Should We Change the Weather Even If We Can?
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Jan 02, 2003 06:45 PM
from the changing-the-weather dept.
from the changing-the-weather dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Only... (Score:2)
we alread have (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we can change it for the better.
Re:we alread have (Score:3, Funny)
Here in Alaska, it's a GOAL.
(And if the ultra-mild winters of late are any indication, we seem to be achieving it....)
Reminds me of a joke... (Score:3, Funny)
Waka waka waka!
Do we understand enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will take many decades before we know what the ramifications are. Weather is an enourmously complex system. I doubt the people who stand to profit from weather modification will willingly wait one year let alone decades.
As usual the extent of peoples concern for the rest of mankind and the future is but a shadow of their love of money.
Parent
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to applying chaos theory to weather. And in some situations it probably fits. However most of us who did physics studied lots of systems that stabilized or didn't behave chaotically. Even some chaotic "systems" had a range where they weren't chaotic. (Using the term system and range or starting point loosely)
I don't have the article handy, but New Scientist had an article a few months ago that compared the predictions of nonlinear behavior with measurement of how the weather corresponded to models. The article strongly argued that the problem was poor models and not chaos. The following [freeserve.co.uk] is a similar paper.
It's very nice to say that some problems are in principle "unknowable." However, as I said, that is sometimes a crutch of late in science. Hard isn't undoable.
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/npg/8/npg8/357.pdf [copernicus.org] Quoting from the conclusion: While the effects of chaos eventually lead to loss of predictability, this may happen only over long time scales. Exponential-on-average error growth does not necessarily imply rapid error growth. In the short term it is model error which dominates, and which must be considered in any scheme of quality control.
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this means is that the ramifications will never be known. We cannot measure the weather precisely enough to make meaningful long term predictions nor can we control our actions precisely enough such that their effects can be known.
See this [gweep.net] or this [duke.edu] for more information on chaos.
Parent
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like a big problem. Maybe we should kill all the butterflies in Japan.
Parent
Re:Do we understand enough? (Score:3, Funny)
> Sounds like a big problem. Maybe we should kill
> all the butterflies in Japan.
Not a good idea. You would likely incur the wrath of a certain moth in Japan. When she flaps her wings, she topples towers and creates supertyphoons.
And if you think Mothra can rain on your parade, you should have seen the temper fit her dark twin Battra threw after an early attempt at controlling the weather!
"Mothra, you are Life Eternal! Hear the prayers of your servants. Come back to us from out of the legend. Come and save us with your power of Life!"
US release of "Mothra", 1962
Chaos (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Population Control (Score:3, Insightful)
That's Not Population Control (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
CONTACT and thanks for all the fish (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:That's Not Population Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, I don't believe that if we figure out a way to nudge hurricanes we should just blindly use it. What if hurricanes serve a very important meteorological purpose that we don't yet understand. If we begin mucking about with weather patterns, we invite rather drastic effects later on. There's no gaurantee -- just like everything else in life -- but I'd rather we spend several decades studying the effects of minor projects rather than have every state and world power get involved.
No, I'm far from being a luddite or chicken little. I'm only saying we should be cautious when attempting something so vast. If everyone started increasing the rain that falls in their state, from where does that excess water come? Do massive droughts appear elsewhere? After awhile perhaps only the capital-rich nations can afford rain as everyone competes to cause more rainfall. Just as the developing nations don't have as much access to world oil, will they soon not have access to water? Scary.
Re:That's Not Population Control (Score:3, Interesting)
stop water treatment and filtration. The NUMBER ONE thing that saves lives and lengthens the human lifespan is drinking clean and treated water. remove that one pesky thing and you instantly take a population hit.
Everyone with an immuno-defeciency will die horribly within 2-3 months... dysentary can kill a healthy person, it will ravage someone that isn't up to par. Leigoniares Disease will take out another bunch... There are TONS of water borne diseases that can and will take a mighty healthy chunk out of the population.
real population contril though is as you say... Unfortunately the human as a species is pretty stupid.. Animals don't have babies if the food/water or environment does not have favorable conditions
Population control is needed DESPERATELY in many areas of the world. the problem is that effective population control is always looked upon as bad or monsterous.. (limit the number of children to a family, forced birth control) and yet nobody looks at the starving family that is having it's 3rd child after the 1st starved to death and the second has one foot in the grave already as doing anything wrong.
No, I meant it for ALL countries (Score:3, Interesting)
"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
Re:Population Control (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite.
You are making several questionable assumptions in your post.
First of all, you're assuming that there is a size that the human population "should" be. How did you derive this value, and what was it? As far as I can see, the human race can survive at just about any population level it pleases - there's just a sliding scale of consequences, which in turn depends very strongly on _how_ people choose to run their lives. So both the desired population and the effects of maintaining this population are pretty arbitrary decisions.
Second of all, you're assuming that there is a "balance" that must be maintained. Historically, the ecosphere has done a very good job of maintaining itself despite far greater changes than humanity has wrought. There is a continuum of possible balance points, each with their own consequences - where we want to place the balance point is a decision, not something dictated by nature.
Much like developing cures for disease, stopping hurricanes from hitting population centers is just another way to screw over any form of population control.
Hurricanes do not contribute substantially to population control.
Neither does disease, really. We'll always die of _something_. The lag time is pretty much irrelevant over the long term. The period of fertility for women is pretty much the same, so people could live to age 300+ without affecting the number of children they had over the 20-year window. The number of children per couple is a social issue, not one of longevity.
In summary, your argument makes no sense.
Re:Population Control (Score:3, Funny)
Pfft, humans. (Score:5, Funny)
and the weather is sacred... why? (Score:4, Interesting)
At one point it was the common belief that if you were to fly or drive a land vehicle faster than 100mph you'd be violating the laws of physics, making those domains permanently beyond the reach of man. Technology advanced and the impossible became mundane. All technological barriers look like hard walls from one side...
Re:and the weather is sacred... why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cuba nudges a hurican away from Havana and it then strikes a heavily populated area of Florida. Intentional attack or just a horrible accident?
Pakistan changes the wind patterns and the Monsoons fail, leaving India to die of thirst.
Some well meaning weather wizard tries to stop the tornados that routinely pummel the American southeast and accidently creates a weather system that produces tornadoes so powerful they kill tens of thousands of people?
El Nino and La Nina are caused by very small changes in the tempurature of the Pacific ocean and yet they have powerful effects on the weather. What dangers will our intentional changes bring? And who will be responcible for these dangers?
Parent
We do it all the time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's a good idea to understand how we could control the weather better, but we seem a long way from understanding long term results.
Chaos Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chaos Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
On what do you base this assertion? Despite decades of scientists saying that "accurate weather prediction is just a few years off", we still don't get warning about tornados until someone on the ground sees the freakin' funnel forming. The thing about chaotic systems is that they are chaotic across all scales. If there were some predictability at "medium scale", why haven't they exploited it yet? And "organized systems"? What the hell is an "organized" weather system? Please, describe for me some "non-chaotic" weather.
We have the ability, but must act responsibly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It's been tried. (Score:5, Interesting)
No way (Score:3, Funny)
Water rights (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Water rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Water rights (Score:4, Informative)
Also factor in a porlonged draught and the draining of the aquifers and you get a water shortage which will cause all kinds of strife and civil unrest.
For a prime example look no further then Oregon. The farmers had a bitter battle for water with the US govt until the Govt caved in and diverted water for farmland. Within two months it lead to a massive kill or salmon coming up the river to spawn which will effect salmon populations for years. The fishermen, indians, farmers, environmentalist, ranchers are now at each others throats all fighting over what little water there is left in the klamath basin. After years of mismanagement in the face of draught the people of Oregon now have to choose between farming and salmon. They can no longer have both.
Parent
Are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh come on (Score:3, Insightful)
No, fuck with it at our peril.
Could come in handy on other planets; (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
A world without Hurricanes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not real science. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not real science. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not real science. (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a very interesting point there, but I partially disagree, at least when it comes to comparing our results from the "control".
Our control condition would be, more or less, all past meteorological data. Sure, it changes drastically from day to day, but it's still fairly periodic on an annual basis.
A profound effect on the weather would be measurable and very easily noticeable. Say we manage to increase the rainfall in a region: we'd see a markedly increased rainfall which would then become the norm after several years. This rainfall might possibly adversely affect water levels elsewhere, which would also be measurable.
That's a simplistic example, but my point is we'd still have a basis for comparison, so in effect we would have some form of control condition.
It's worth a try (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
We already modify the weather... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Ask the millions of drowned Bangladeshis... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This reminds me of another discussion... (Score:4, Interesting)
...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.
Re:This reminds me of another discussion... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this new science perform an action previously left up to God. Alright, when do we start!
That's a good paraphrase of the position I described. Absurd, isn't it? It interests me to see scientists allow an irrational urge to disprove the existence of God to determine their actions, and indeed, to sweep aside the ethical concerns of their work. In order to allow them to return to a thoughtful analysis of their work, unfettered by the belief that they can and must destroy God, I would like to make the following statement.
As a Christian, there is no scientific achievement that can reduce either my personal esteem for God, or my willingness to discuss and demonstrate that esteem. You have nothing to prove. Please proceed with your experiments accordingly.
Re:The ultimate weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, there *will* be lawsuits. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
For other weather control in fiction you might want to check out Poul Anderson's "Orion Shall Rise."
KFG
Parent
Re:Indeed, there *will* be lawsuits. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Back when Hurricane Andrew (I think it was Andrew) blasted across lower Florida and flattened neighborhoods far from the ocean, I remember one victim who thought that thermonuclear weapons should have been used against the storm. "This hurricane could have been prevented!" he angrily insisted.
Somehow I doubt he would have been happy if he had ended up instead being merely showered with moderate soggy nuclear fallout, but since a hurricane dissipates thermonuclear-bomb quantities of energy every few seconds, I really doubt much is ever really going to be done to divert them. Which is probably a good thing, since if hurricanes were suppressed, the lack of atmospheric mixing and droughts resulting would probably cause more damage than the storms themselves.
Re:i'm sure farmers wouldn't complain (Score:5, Insightful)
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!).
Parent
But think about the children (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent