Hypothetically, if man were able master the climate...

Depends on what each particular person feels is important. If all that person cares about is humanity then they may feel that being able to control the climate is a good thing. I don't feel that way at all though. the Earth works most of its amazing wonders after catastrophe and severe climate change. It spices things up and new species fill niches left vacant by older species that didn't make it.

I was never a big fan of assuming we could manage anything natural let alone do it well. Now I find myself in a position that I do have to try and manage an ecosystem (grasslands) due to an invasion of exotic species brought over by man from other countries. Grrrr

 

While I don't believe we will ever be able to 'Master' climate, we definately can influence it.
We can also help deserts expand (China has been doing this for many years).
It is far easier to influence something than totally control it.
As for 'Should' we influence it if we can: I would say we should influence the climate/ecosphere for the benifit of mankind.
I don't know why, but some people seem to be concerned about their fellow man while others not so much. If I can improve the living conditions of people across the world, or in many years in the future, I would prefer to.
I see a difference between a random asteroid striking the earth and actually pulling the trigger ourselves.

 

That sounds like settled science!

 

I would suggest it would be potentially good to have the capability, but I'm almost afraid of what we might do with it. Who would be in charge? To some degree it would matter how fine your control is. If you can influence one continent at a time the weather becomes a weapon.

It would be unquestionably good if we were able to step in behind whatever it is that has regulated the climate up to now, and act as a backup for it during times of extreme stress. If we could duck or soften a Cretaceous type extinction event I would hold that to be unquestionably good for the living Earth.

I should perhaps mention, I consider the climate as being basically a heat engine(1) that redistributes heat away from the equator. If you can add or reduce heat purposefully(2) then you ought to be able to influence it. I expect us to get that capability. The problems would fall into modeling it, so you aren't just saying "lets push this Big Red Button and see what happen" and the question of responsibility. Right now we humans are roughly optimized for the existing climate everywhere. If you change anything, someone will suffer. Do you, who has the big red button, have any responsibilities towards those who do not?

(1) reference "Hadley Cells"
(2) reference "Solar Power Satellite"

 

It's much more likely that we would influence the climate locally (and maybe regionally) than globally. In fact, to a certain extent we already do - though not necessarily intentionally. To the extent this helps man, I think it is overall a good thing, though we have to always bear in mind the impact on the rest of the environment / living things.

Globally managing the climate though - it will never happen.

 

Agreed!

 

TimBikes

Globally managing the climate though - it will never happen.

To manage it intelligently & beneficently would be a huge job, but will this stop people from trying things and seeing what happen? As an example, any of the big players in WWII would not have hesitated to screw with the weather big time if they wanted something, and thought they could do it. Side effects were acceptable.

 

Regulations may stop people from trying but I'm sure plenty of people will or would like to try.

Doing it correctly would be a monumental task, especially when we don't even know what correctly is. lol

 

That is a far cry from climate mastery like your thread title suggested. I wouldn't call it management either. It is more of a way to reduce any additional anthropogenic inputs to the system.

 

Totally agree.

 

We could start with undoing what we've already done. We could replant the forests, restore habitat, and gain some respect for nature.

 

I'm so happy that is what I get to do for a living.

 

Nature didn't make the changes, humans did.

By resetting the stage you allow for a more natural process of evolution to take place. In the mean time we get to reap the benefits of ecosystem services from a non-degraded system.

 

Improved climate in Russia and Canada primarily means higher temperatures. This can increase agricultural productivity if water is not limiting. An obvious downside is that soils of those countries contain very large amounts of organic carbon, and this is also where the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration is the highest. The positive feedback has been a worry for quite a while: warmer -> more CO2 released from soils -> more warmer etc.

It would be difficult to claim pure benefit from that situation. Meanwhile the outlook for agricultural productivity in the near-equator countries does not appear to be so bright, largely because of anticipated moisture limitations. The possiblility for a collapse of the Amazonian forest is a distinctly minority view. I also hope that it is incorrect.

On climate mastery, the closest we can probably ocme in the near and medium term is to stimulate terrestial carbon uptake, by several means that are well understood. That, and REDD. Substantial reductions in fossil fuel emission seem more distant as they are so closely linked with money.