Dear Tom, I did not catch the name of the committee responsible for the "dial" and who is on it.
Oliver Wingenter On Jan 13, 7:01 pm, [email protected] wrote: > 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, 84–92. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
