The discussion revolves around the intersection of climate science and technology, particularly focusing on the potential for scientific advancements versus technological applications in addressing climate change. Participants explore the effectiveness of weather and climate models, the role of economic viability in technology development, and the broader implications of climate-related research.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether scientific advancements or technological applications are more critical in addressing climate change. Multiple competing views are presented, reflecting differing priorities and perspectives on the issue.
Participants express uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of various approaches, including the economic implications of technology development and the accuracy of climate models. The discussion highlights the complexity of addressing climate change through both scientific and technological lenses.
More prudent to addressing the problems than science. I have moral assumptions about the suffering linked to climate change. For example, reducing atmospheric CO2 and therefore the overall effects of global warming would seem more prudent than getting more accuracy/precision in weather/climate models. It would sort of "chop closer to the roots." Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Perhaps better models is more feasible. I'm such a newbie that I haven't even considered economics.Asteropaeus said:We can't predict the weather tomorrow with total accuracy. Let alone the climate. But weather and climate models have been improving. By how much? I don't know.
Technology is more prudent? For what?
Often, applications that are economically viable are the bottleneck of new technologies.
node02 said:I just started studying physics in undergrad and am considering working on Earth systems/climate. How much more do you think we can do in terms of science? Surely a lot, but maybe technology (energy, carbon capture) is more prudent right now. Thanks.