Dear Andrew and Tom-- While the preindustrial temperature might be right for preserving/restoring Greenland and sea level, society has likely adapted to the conditions of the past several decades, so going back to the 19th century would likely lead to quite dramatic impacts to agriculture, killing frosts in many areas now being farmed, etc. I would think the world decision would thus likely be at a level somewhere between value in 1950 and about 1990. In any case, the transition to such a temperature range should likely be sort of gradual and not sudden--rapid changes cause increased impacts.
I would also suggest that we no one has yet done any tests on having more aerosols in one season than another. The average will likely be what controls ocean temperatures, but land temperatures can be significantly affected, so maybe focus on limiting summer warming and keep winters a bit warm. From the orbital element results, to build up glaciers and ice sheets, what we want is cool summers and warm winters (so there is more snowfall)--of course, there is a lot of checking to do about how the monsoons would be affected, etc. There is also the issue of latitudinal distributions. There are far more than the two choices that have been simulated, namely global and Arctic only. So, I would hold off on the idea of a single temperature change or goal--if we are going to take control of the climate through geoengineering, we can be subtle in our efforts, correcting the worst aspect of the changes, if not all. Thus, I'd tend to agree that ultimately, there is going to have to be some quite extensive consideration of what might be done. Best, Mike MacCracken On 1/13/09 9:17 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bearing in mind that we're still unsure as to the various feedback > effects, shouldn't the default position be that we should plan to go > back to pre-industrial temperatures. Anything that we can later show > is not needed is then a 'free gift' in terms of effort we don't need > to expend. The alternative could be that we suddenly have to ramp up > our efforts at the last minute when we realise that we've forgotten > some deadly feedback. That seems like a bad way of planning. > > A > > 2009/1/14 <[email protected]>: >> >> Dear all, >> >> This is a non issue as it is already covered by Article 2 of the >> UNFCCC. The global-mean temperature at which we should seek to >> stabilize, vide Article 2, is one that avoids "dangerous anthropogenic >> interference with the climate system" (etc., etc.) Whether we >> stabilize the climate through mitigation (Kyoto Protocol), geoengineering, >> or combined mitigation/geoengineering, the issue is the same. >> >> It is true that "dangerous interference" is not well defined, but >> there is a large literature on this. >> >> The main difference between stabilization via mitigation or via >> geoengineering is one of timescale. With mitigation there are two main >> timescales, that associated with the carbon cycle and the slow response >> of concentrations to emissions changes, and that associated with the >> thermal inertia of the oceans. With geoengineering, the first timescale >> is virtually eliminated (which might be seen as an advantage - see below). >> The second timescale is common to all climate stabilization methods. >> >> Furthermore, there are two major sources of uncertainty in both cases. >> In mitigation, there is uncertainty in relating emissions changes >> to radiative forcing, and uncertainty in relating forcing to equilibrium >> response (associated with climate sensitivity uncertainties). With >> geoengineering, there is uncertainty in relating injection rate of >> sulfur into the stratosphere to forcing, and the same climate sensitivity >> uncertainty. The parallels are clear and obvious. >> >> Eliminating the first response time with geoengineering is, at first >> blush. a big advantage. (Of course, we could do something similar with >> mitigation, at least partly, by, e.g., reducing CH4 levels -- where the >> timescale for concentration response is much less than for CO2, but we >> cannot solve the problem with CH4 alone.) >> >> This response time issue has been addressed in the mitigation case in >> the paper noted below. Here, we consider the issue of changing course, >> in, e.g., the case where we decide on a stabilization level (say 550 >> ppm) and then realize that we need a much lower level (e.g. 350 ppm). >> With mitigation this is a tough call, because of inertia in the carbon >> cycle. With geoengineering we would have a much better chance of saving >> the planet from doom should we suddenly realize that the proposed >> stabilization target was too high. Geoengineering might give us control >> that we can never get with mitigation. >> >> Please excuse my ramblings here. My main point is that the issue of >> what temperature to dial simply does not have to be considered any more >> than it is or has been already. It is already covered by Article 2. >> Perhaps not well covered -- but this is not a new problem. >> >> Tom. >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Wigley, T.M.L., Richels, R. and Edmonds, J.A., 2007: Overshoot pathways >> to CO2 stabilization in a multi-gas context. (In) Human Induced Climate >> Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment (eds. Michael Schlesinger, Haroon >> Kheshgi, Joel Smith, Francisco de la Chesnaye, John M. Reilly, Tom Wilson >> and Charles Kolstad), Cambridge University Press, 8492. >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >>> >>> Dear Group, >>> >>> The question of what temperature to "dial" in the Earth could also an >>> important topic this proposed group could discuss and possibly decide >>> on. >>> >>> Oliver Wingenter >>> >>> On Jan 12, 6:24 pm, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> No Oliver, I do think what's needed is an international Board of great >>>> scientists and engineers. Whilst this body develops, I see an interim >>>> Board composed of members of this group as a useful stepping stone. >>>> However, you should note that I've already asked people to think of >>>> non-googlegroup members who can contribute in order to 'raise the >>>> game'. I certainly never thought for a moment that it should be >>>> 'closed' to non-googlegroup people! >>>> >>>> Some of the initial members drawn from this googlegroup would probably >>>> remain on this Board as it developed into a high-level panel, as this >>>> googlegroup currently includes World-class scientists. Others >>>> members, such as myself, would probably step down as the Board took on >>>> other members. >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> 2009/1/13 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Andrew, >>>> >>>>> I think our plans are for different types of panels or boards. >>>>> Correct me if I am wrong but yours would be comprised exclusively of >>>>> Google geo members for the purpose of ranking project with yourself >>>>> included so as to aid casual wiki users. Some projects are still in >>>>> their infancy. >>>> >>>>> My notion is for an international panel comprised of scientist from >>>>> many disciplines that can approve or endorse geoengineering projects >>>>> nearly ready for deployment. Oversight is needed to avert possible >>>>> eco disasters. >>>> >>>>> We may first want have an international committee whose sole purpose >>>>> is to seat a permanent committee. >>>> >>>>> I am not proposing to take the lead. Some of Ken's stature is >>>>> required. >>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>>> Oliver Wingenter >>>> >>>>> On Jan 12, 4:32 pm, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> (I endorse John's comments.) >>>> >>>>>> We won't all agree, but we do need to move forward together with >>>> broad >>>>>> consensus. At the moment we seem to have about a 50% split between >>>>>> supporters and opposers. >>>> >>>>>> The way I see it we now have 4 choices for progressing the Board, and >>>>>> the discipline as a whole. >>>> >>>>>> 1) We do nothing, relying on the 'current process' (whatever that is) >>>>>> to deliver any necessary geoeng in time. I personally don't believe >>>>>> there's currently enough scrutiny and oversight to encourage >>>>>> politicians to take prompt action. >>>>>> 2) The volunteers set up the Board in defiance of those people who >>>>>> oppose such a move. This strikes me as divisive. >>>>>> 3) The opposers could come up with a list of changes or rules they'd >>>>>> need to see before they can support the board. This seems sensible, >>>>>> if people are willing to do this. >>>>>> 4) Someone can come up with a better idea, which we all do instead. >>>> I >>>>>> am sure there are some good ideas out there. >>>> >>>>>> Whilst I accept that not everyone will agree with whatever we decide >>>>>> to do, I would like to think that people can at least be positive and >>>>>> help the group make a decision that is supported by most people. I'd >>>>>> also like to see people being respectful of everyone's opinion and of >>>>>> the offer the volunteers have so kindly made. >>>> >>>>>> A >>>> >>>>>> 2009/1/12 John Nissen <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>>>> I see a lot of negative comment to Andrew's suggestion. >>>> >>>>>>> But supposing somebody finds strong evidence that the Arctic sea >>>> ice is very >>>>>>> likely to disappear (at end summer) in two or three years, where >>>> does he >>>>>>> go? Don't we need a body of people who can say - well - there are >>>> these >>>>>>> particular geoengineering techniques that have a good chance of >>>> helping to >>>>>>> save the Arctic sea ice? As Ken said, there is no alternative to >>>>>>> geoengineering for saving the sea ice. >>>> >>>>>>> If Gregory is correct, and there is little chance of Obama >>>> supporting albedo >>>>>>> engineering, we need a body capable of spelling out the requirement >>>> to him. >>>>>>> Is a lobby group of scientists such a bad idea? Didn't scientists >>>> get >>>>>>> together to persuade the President et al to carry out the Manhattan >>>>>>> project? We have just as much at stake here - perhaps a lot more. >>>> >>>>>>> Note that it is the duty of governments to protect our own futures >>>> - >>>>>>> everyone's future. But they need to understand the situation and >>>> what they >>>>>>> have to do. What we are asking for albedo engineering is not much >>>> - a drop >>>>>>> in the ocean financially. >>>> >>>>>>> We also need a body capable of withstanding the attacks of people >>>> who are >>>>>>> against geoengineering in principle - people who may prove to be >>>> just as >>>>>>> dangerous as the deniers of anthropogenic global warming. >>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>>>>> John >>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: Dan Whaley >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; >>>> [email protected] ; >>>>>>> geoengineering >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:05 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering Projects Approval Committee >>>>>>> For what its worth so do I. Completely. I think the intentions >>>> you have >>>>>>> need to be accomplished in other ways. >>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Alan Robock >>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> I agree, too. >>>> >>>>>>>> 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 Mon, 12 Jan 2009, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree completely -- a bad idea. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom. >>>> >>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the development of a board like this at this time is >>>>>>>>>> counter-productive and a bad idea. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> As scientists, we should be attempting to provide new >>>> information and >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> passing judgment on what ought or ought not to be done. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> As citizens, we should be saying what we think ought to be >>>> done, but we >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> no special authority to balance diverse competing interests >>>> that go far >>>>>>>>>> beyond the domain of the environmental sciences. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> At this point, I think it far better to promote reasoned >>>> discussion of >>>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>> complex and emotive issues than to set ourselves up as if we >>>> are in a >>>>>>>>>> position to collectively pass judgment. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken >>>> >>>>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Ken Caldeira >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >>>>>>>>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>> >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab >>>>>>>>>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Lockley >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I fully endorse the comments below and I respectfully ask the >>>> notable >>>>>>>>>>> Scientists among us to put their names forward for a role in >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> advisory board of an 'Institute of Geoengineering' which would >>>> fulfil >>>>>>>>>>> this function and others. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2009/1/11 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the time is rapidly approaching that a Geoengineering >>>>>>>>>>>> Projects >>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluation Panel (or something like it) be set up to evaluate >>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> recommend projects for deployment. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We don't need the likes Dr. Dogooder, his trusted colleagues, >>>> backed >>>>>>>>>>>> by the Mr.BigandRich Foundation or the Crowned Prince of >>>> Dubai going >>>>>>>>>>>> out and Cowboying it. Plans for a large scale geoengineering >>>> need to >>>>>>>>>>>> well thought out. There exists potential projects that can >>>> be done >>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> the 1 to 10s million dollar range. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Board should international in nature and be composed of >>>>>>>>>>>> scientists >>>>>>>>>>>> from many disciplines. A seemingly innocent regional project >>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> the potential to disrupt global dynamics if a key temperature >>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>> buoyancy gradients are disrupted. Plans for a pilot research >>>>>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>>>> should be quickly separated from larger scale activities so >>>> as not to >>>>>>>>>>>> burden research as in theLOHAFEX case. The board should have >>>> at its >>>>>>>>>>>> disposal sufficient expertise and resources to do independent >>>>>>>>>>>> modeling >>>>>>>>>>>> studies to verify claims of the applicant and to bring out >>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>> unforeseen consequences. The panel's mission should not be >>>> just to >>>>>>>>>>>> tear down projects but to aim to improve them. >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oliver Wingenter >>>> >> >> >>> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
