I was reading a Breitbart headline:
And took the meaning to be “it’s not our fault – but even so we must tackle it”, not the intended “just live with it”, when I realised it raised an intriguing question.
Imagine the following scenario.
- CO2 has been shown to have direct effect on climate of about 0.6C (Ref: Hermann Harde) and let’s assume strong negative feedback reduces that to 0.2-0.3.
- That incredibly, we found a way to change the environment. The obvious one is the one that we were all threatened by in the 1970s which is a “nuclear winter”. In other words, causing a massive explosion that caused lots of dust to go into the atmosphere (aka pollution).
Now let’s suppose we start to understand natural variation and we realise that we are heading toward a massive warming phase. And then we work out, that we can explode a suitable bomb without causing much if any nuclear contamination (or whatever the mechanism is) and so we effectively have a way to altar the world’s temperature to stop natural change.
Should we try to control it?
Logically, if warming (or cooling) is “bad” then it is bad irrespective of what causes it. Because dying from cold is just as bad if that cold is caused naturally or by e.g. the policy of government making it impossible for elderly people to heat their homes.
But if we wouldn’t control the climate as the greenblob has been urging us to do for years, why would we e.g. try to stop Ebola – because it’s ebola also part of the natural world and isn’t it also an endangered “species” that should be protected along with all other endangered lifeforms?