If we are going to get into such debates perhaps it is time to have a mission statement on which at least 90% of the group agrees. I for one am puzzled as to why geoengineering should be limited to side effects. Certainly the many interesting discussions to date were not limited to side effects. Sounds like trying to emasculate geoengineering.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Robock Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 4:25 PM To: Oliver Wingenter Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here Dear Oliver, I agree with everything in your message, except your claim that "We seek through geoengineering to reduce or reverse some of these side effects." I would say, rather, "We seek to discuss geoengineering, whether and how it could be used to reduce or reverse some of these side effects, and to evaluate both its potential benefits and problems." Your statement is that everyone on this forum has agreed that geoengineering is a good idea, and that is not the case. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Oliver Wingenter wrote: > > Dear David, > > Your arguments remind me about how Fred Singer tried to convince us > that CFC where not harmful to stratospheric ozone. He ended up > wasting a lot of people?s time such as Sherry Rowland?s, Ralph > Cicerone, Mike Prather and others by refuting his articles. > > However, to reiterate Ken's email, the premise of this group is global > warming is causing climate change. We seek through geoengineering to > reduce or reverse some of these side effects such as Arctic ice > melting, sea level rise, etc. It is my opinion that your discussions > on whether or not the Earth's temperature is rising or not, although > of interest to many, belongs in another forum. I cannot afford to > spend any more time discussing issues outside of geoengineering with > you in this Google group. > > Sincerely, > > Oliver Wingenter > > > On Dec 6, 2:33 pm, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Oliver and Mike: >> >> I'm a climate change agnostic, and am openly supportive of >> Geo-Nurtring, including activities such as solar radiation management >> and rebalancing the carbon cycle, which would surely include energy conservation. >> >> The problem I have faced comes when someone like Prof. Jagadish >> Shukla, Ph.D., at the Center for Ocean, Land and Atmospheric Studies, >> attempted to undermine my promotion of research on solar radiation >> management by claiming that the scientific underpinning is too >> uncertain to allow its use. My response argument is that the >> identical GCMs used to project climate change are used to project the >> effects of solar radiation management. Then, individuals with a dog >> in this fight argue that, indeed, all the projections are too >> uncertain to provide a firm basis for the kinds of actions climate alarmist demand. >> >> My view is that all this uncertainty should result in application of >> the policy paradigm typically used to address potential, but perhaps >> not yet manifest threats public health - the insurance paradigm. >> This approach requires development of tools for use when the threat >> is manifest, but otherwise only marginal responses until the >> uncertainties can be brought into reasonable limits. [And, Ken, that >> is why this discussion is not about whether climate change can or >> should be attributed to mankind, which we all agree should be on some >> other discussion platform, but rather is about the quality of the >> science needed to support actions, including solar radiation >> management with large, deep and broad economic consequences, both >> positive and negative.) >> >> Mike MacCracken is completely correct with regard to some of the >> uncertainties. There do appear to be systematic feedbacks that would >> prevent a 100 deg. C temperature increase or decrease. Indeed, some >> argue that the feedbacks would prevent anything more than 10 deg shifts. >> Nevertheless, it's the 2 to 5 deg C shifts that concern me, and our >> uncertainty as to whether these will arise (in either direction, by >> the way, as the adverse effects of a significant drop in temperature >> are potentially as bad as a similar increase). The uncertainty >> remains so large that I don't see a basis to apply anything other >> than the insurance paradigm (which, by the way, reflects the >> precautionary principle, but is not hostage to that principle). >> >> Finally, for those of you interested in the Huntsville program, >> perhaps John Christy's work is the more accessible material. He >> heads the program and Roy Spencer is one of his staff. Here's a list >> of John's relevant publications on the temperature data set, leading >> off with the ones that discuss the relationship of the Huntsville >> data to that of other sources, and to projections. Note, although >> they spend a great deal of time measuring tropospheric temperatures, >> they measure and report surface temperatures for both land and ocean in their data sets. >> >> Cheers, >> David. >> >> Pubs link:http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html >> >> * Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. >> Science, 310, 972. >> >> * Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A >> comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. >> International J. Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. >> (pdf)<http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy/2007_Dougless_etal.pdf> >> >> * Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2006: Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde >> intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences. J. Atmos. Oc. >> Tech., 23, 1181 ? 1194. >> >> * Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell and W.B. Norris, 2006: >> Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. >> Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 417-423. >> >> * Christy, J.R., 2006: The ever-changing climate system. Cumberland >> Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504, >> >> * Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: >> Methodology and results of calculating central California surface temperature trends: >> Evidence of human-induced climate change? J. Climate, 19, 548-563. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. >> Science, 310, 972. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about >> tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, No. 6, L0621. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and R.W. Spencer, 2003: Reliability of satellite data sets. >> Science, 301, 1046-1047. >> >> * Christy, J.R., 2003: Climate Research - Response to "Wanted >> Scientific Leadership on Climate" by Pielke, Jr. and Sarewitz. Issues >> in Science and Technology. Spring 2003, 9-10. >> >> * Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. >> Parker, >> 2003: Error estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric >> temperatures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 20, 613-629. >> >> * Christy, J.R., 2002: When was the hottest summer? A State >> Climatologist struggles for an answer. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 83, 723-734. >> >> * Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel and W.B. >> Norris, 2001: Differential trends in tropical sea surface and >> atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 183-186. >> >> * Winter, A., O. Tadamichi, H. Ishioroshi, T. Watanabe and J. R. >> Christy, >> 2000: A two-to-three degree cooling of Caribbean sea surface >> temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 3365-3368. >> >> * Hurrell, J., S.J. Brown, K.E. Trenberth and J.R. Christy, 2000: >> Comparison of tropospheric temperatures from radiosondes and satellites: 1979-1998. >> Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 81, 2165-2177. >> >> * Gaffen, D.J., B.D. Santer, J.S. Boyle, J.R. Christy, N.E. Graham, R.J. >> Ross, 2000: Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the >> tropical troposphere. Science, 287, 1242-1245. >> >> * Christy, J.R., 2000: Global Climate Change: Scientific and Social Impacts. >> Bridges. 7, 39-57. >> >> * Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU >> Tropospheric >> temperatures: Data set construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. >> Oceanic Tech. 17,1153-1170. >> >> * Stendel, M., J.R. Christy and L. Bengtsson, 2000: Assessing levels >> of uncertainty in recent temperature time series. Climate Dynamics, >> 16(8), 587-601. >> * Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E. Lobl, 1998 Analysis of the >> merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. >> Climate, 11, 2016-2041. >> >> * Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and D. Braswell, 1997 How accurate are >> satellite 'thermometers'?, Nature, 389, 342-3. >> >> * Christy, J.R. , 1995 Temperature above the surface layer. Climatic >> Change , 30, 455-474. >> >> * Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and R.T. McNider, 1995 Reducing noise >> in the MSU daily lower tropospheric global temperature data set. J >> Climate , 8, 888-896. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and J. Goodridge, 1995 Precision global temperatures >> from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data. >> Atmos. Env. 29, 1957-1961. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and R. T. McNider, 1994 Satellite greenhouse signal. >> Nature, 367, 325. >> >> * Christy, J.R. and S.J. Drouilhet, 1994 Variability in daily, zonal >> mean lower-stratospheric temperatures. J. Climate, 7, 106-120. >> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Oliver Wingenter < >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dear David, >> >>> The prudent and conservative to do is to be cautious and try and >>> maintain the status quo, which is our present climate or one not too >>> long ago. It does know one in this country (well a lawyer could >>> argue against this) any harm to conserve energy. It helps them >>> personally, the countries trade imbalance and slows CO2 build up. >> >>> I went to the University Alabama Huntsville web site and could not >>> find in the Huntsville temperature record you mentioned is better >>> than the analysis of Hansen and his collaborators. If this work >>> were so important, they would let it shine like a beacon. I think >>> we need to continue to move away from the fringes of science, as >>> this is killing precious time on real issue like solving our climate problem. >> >>> Sincerely, >> >>> Oliver Wingenter >> >>> On Dec 6, 9:24 am, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Mike: >> >>>> I'm going to ignor your ad hominem attacks, as that is the ground >>>> rule >>> for >>>> this group. >> >>>> The article raises the point of what happens when a feedback >>>> mechanism multiplies error. I did not cite to the entire article, >>>> but only that portion that properly reflects the error bands in >>>> projecting 100 years >>> into >>>> the future with these models. It is an appropriate analysis for >>>> honest scientists, and the IPCC does no such analysis whatever. If >>>> you want to take issue with it, then do a proper error analysis and let us see it. >>> I'm >>>> not sure you have the expertise to do that, but I'm fairly sure you >>>> could find or fund someone to do it for you. >> >>>> In the mean time, if you want to argue the matter of cloud >>>> feedbacks, and good lord someone should, considering the massive >>>> impact of the feedback assumption for clouds and the error that the >>>> feedback assumption >>> propogates >>>> within GCMs, then come on over to EPA, as described below, and take >>>> on >>> Dick >>>> Lindzen. He will be explaining his concerns about the projection >>>> of temperature under uncertainty of the feedback effects of clouds. >>>> In >>> fact, >>>> I'll keep a careful watch for you and will take close notes that I >>>> can >>> share >>>> with the group so they can have a second hand view of your >>>> destruction of Lindzen's science and credibility all in one. >>>> *December 9, 2008 Seminar >>>> (Tuesday) - 1:30 PM - Room 1117A EPA East* Topic: "Global Warming: >>>> What >>> Is >>>> It All About?" Speaker: Richard Lindzen (MIT) >> >>>> Here's the most recent electronic flyer on these sessions. Anyone >>>> in the Washington, D.C. area is welcome. You only need to call the >>>> contact >>> person >>>> to get access to the session. >> >>>> EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) will host >>>> our >>> next >>>> Climate Economics seminar >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.14/1832 - Release Date: 12/5/2008 9:57 AM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
