Engineering Climate science or related technologies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter node02
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Climate Science
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the balance between advancing scientific understanding of climate systems and developing practical technologies like energy solutions and carbon capture. Participants highlight the limitations of current weather and climate models, acknowledging that while improvements have been made, predicting climate accurately remains challenging. There's a debate on whether focusing on technology is more effective than enhancing scientific models, with some arguing that addressing CO2 levels directly may yield more immediate benefits. The conversation also touches on the economic viability of new technologies as a significant barrier to progress. Overall, the importance of integrating both scientific research and technological innovation in tackling climate issues is emphasized.
node02
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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.
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.

In any case, thanks for replying.
 
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.

One of my colleagues does 'cloud physics'- the dynamics of cumulus cloud fields. It's a lot of multiscale modeling, he's an expert in Large Eddy Simulations (LES).

https://www.tropos.de/en/research/a...luence-on-cloud-processes/les-cloud-modeling/
 
http://sites.agu.org/ The journals of the American Geophysical Union can give you a good idea of the linkage of physics to climate and Earth systems. I've been all over the place within the scope of Earth systems science, including geoneutrinos and cosmic rays, the magnetosphere, and some other areas. All this while being a member of the Global Environmental Change Focus Group. The group started out as "Global Warming" then changed its name to "Climate Change" and is now "Global Environmental Change" That last name reflects the understanding that things are happening that aren't directly measurable within the context of climate change. Things such as the movement of carbon in the mantle, the nature of that carbon, and ultimately touches on what some of us call "quantum geophysics".
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
256
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top