Dear Group, This is an interesting bomb field to step into. I am not taking sides, just offering my observations of this thread. It seems to me the problem is over time scale. Some are frustrated over the political inaction over CO2 and feel geoengineering is needed now to save a major tipping point, the Arctic. Other may be taking a more planetary perspective and their timescale is longer. They feel that if hasty action is taken, it would discredit all of geoengineering.
I am sure we all feel a level of frustration over the ineptitude of our political leaders. Let’s not start bickering amongst ourselves. Oliver Wingeneter On Jan 17, 1:17 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Dear all, > > Alan is right in principle. It is just crazy to suppose that, > without geoengineering, (we) "will destroy mankind as we know it > due to the otherwise inevitable climate change". Of course, this > might depend on what is meant be "as we know it". But the magnitude > of future climate change and the extent to which we can mitigate > change through "normal" mechanisms is highly uncertain. The impacts of > these changes, even if the changes were well defined, are also highly > uncertain. Furthermore, it is likely that many parts of the globe can > adapt either before or in response to climate change to reduce much of > the impacts. To suggest unequivocally (as in the above statement) that > disaster is imminent is tantamount to crying wolf, and is sure to > reduce credibility. > > As I have said previously, we must try to operate within the existing > international framework on the UNFCCC, and think in terms of the > probability of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" (DAI) with the > climate system. DAI includes "destroy mankind" at an extreme end, but, > as most scientists would surely agree, this is a *very* low probability > event even under the most pessimistic of future climate change scenarios. > > My view is that we will need geoengineering, but the timing for such > intervention is not yet clear and there is much to learn about the > science, costs and technological challenges of this strategy. Crying > wolf is not the way to go -- if anything it will severely harm the > "cause". > > Tom. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > I can't stand it anymore. > > > How can all of you advocate geoengineering and try to build public > > support for it before the science is done? How can you advocate > > something that may be much worse than the problem it is trying to solve? > > > You are acting like politicians or lawyers trying to win an argument, > > having already made up your minds with no regard to other information. > > > Why don't you behave like scientists and evaluate all the information? > > Granted, we will never have everything, but why not wait a couple years > > until much more research is done into the climate effects, engineering > > of delivery mechanisms, psychlogical effects of changing sky color, > > ozone depletion, and many other things? > > > Why can't we agree to advocate together for enhanced research funding > > for geoengineering, and stop this premature advocacy for geoengineering > > itself? > > > This irresponsible behavior of advocacy for geoengineering now will hurt > > responsible calls for research. You will tarnish the rest of us who are > > trying to learn abouth the issue. > > > If you were a program manager, how much money would you give a global > > warming denier for global warming research, knowing he has already made > > up his mind? Think about it! If you want to start a geoengineering > > advocacy group, go ahead but clearly separate yourself from responsible > > scientists. > > > 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 Sat, 17 Jan 2009, David Schnare wrote: > > >> Albert has asked me how to argue in a manner that will help build wide > >> public support for geoengineering. Here are my suggestions, drawn from > >> my > >> paper of last March entitled The Uncomfortable Middle Ground (see: > >>http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/Schnare_speech_2.pdf > > >> Step 1 - Identify all the high profile statements that the Kyoto limits > >> have > >> not worked, that governments refused to pass laws strict enough to > >> prevent a > >> climate catastrophe, and that people world wide refused to give up > >> economic > >> and personal growth in the name of climate change. > > >> Step 2 - Explain the belief that the failures of step one will destroy > >> mankind as we know it due to the otherwise inevitable climate change. > > >> Step 3 - Explain that Step 1 and Step 2 result in the destruction of > >> civilization as we know it, either by economic catastrophe or by > >> environmental catastrophe. > > >> Step 4 - Offer a third way - geoengineering (See the Wigley papers on > >> how to > >> use it in companion with carbon emission reduction) - an option that > >> avoids > >> destruction of civilization as we know it; and admit that it may harm 5% > >> of > >> the world (and less than 1% of civilization), but that is a much smaller > >> risk than harming 100%, than seeing food riots, than seeing mass > >> starvation, > >> than seeing inundation of the homes and businesses of over half the > >> world > >> economy, of death of families, neighborhoods, and nations. > > >> Publicly challenge the environmental activists to pick a side - death by > >> economic harm, death by political inaction, death by climate change, or > >> life > >> through geoengineering. > > >> End of argument. > > >> Now comes the hard part - getting that message out. I have thoughts > >> about > >> that too, but until I see some environmental activists, including > >> several on > >> this group, speak up and admit their approach (world socialism, > >> population > >> reduction, and economic misery) is not going to be politically > >> acceptable, > >> and thus geoengineering research NOW is essential, then I'm just going > >> to > >> watch this area of research remain in its muddle, since any further > >> effort > >> would be a waste of time. Leadership must come from the extreme left at > >> this point. > > >> David Schnare > > >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Albert Kallio > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> I just wonder if you could suggest we overcome these innate > >>> evolutionary > >>> tendencies. > > >>> I think our best chance as a survival of human species is to > >>> intensively > >>> train ourselves and society to sustainability. > > >>> Otherwise, there is a risk that mankind becomes like overgrown > >>> mushroom, > >>> still growing but rot inside and full of worms. In a way this is how > >>> the > >>> Popcorn Theory of Evolution sees the apex of evolution. Classical > >>> evolution > >>> being the thesis where life develops into higher and higher forms > >>> (physical > >>> evolution >> biological evolution >> social evolution), then comes the > >>> antithesis, the crash and all advanced higher forms began to fail due > >>> to > >>> resource over-exploitation, the final phase being the synthesis where > >>> all > >>> the advanced life degenerates back into a stable form of primitive > >>> single > >>> cellular life, the consumed resources being locked until the solar > >>> system > >>> comes to its natural end. > > >>> In a way the pop-n'-puff ('popcorn') evolution is a directionless > >>> movement > >>> of life phenomenan through spacetime that creates and degenerates life > >>> indiscriminately without any indefinite, deterministic, > >>> directional tendencies for the higher species continuously becomed > >>> 'better > >>> and better' as the classical Darwinian theory of natural selection may > >>> suggest. > > >>> As it is Darvins 200 year anniversary, I would not accuse Darwin not > >>> spotting 150 years ago that the process is entirely directionless: so > >>> far we > >>> have been riding on the rising wave crest, but now the climate change > >>> may > >>> well reach the tipping point of the wave crest in our evolutionary > >>> phase > >>> within the Earth's history. > > >>> SETI proves that the Earth system may be a typical executor of the > >>> 'popcorn' evolution where the dominant leading species is hell-bent to > >>> dismantle its own collective ecological foundations. > > >>> People who say Darwin is so wrong, I think they should look better at > >>> him > >>> more like Isaac Newton of his age who created basic theory of > >>> mechanics, it > >>> later to be complemented with the additional perspectives and > >>> complexities > >>> of Albert Einsteins theory of relativity and quantum phenomena. > > >>> In case of Darwin he could never have seen that man was about to > >>> destroy > >>> major Earth systems in their entirety such as the Amazon rainforest, > >>> world > >>> wide coral reef bleachings and ocean acidification, fish out the ocean > >>> to > >>> the last individual fish, starting to melt the Arctic Ocean sea ice and > >>> glaciers by all his greehouse gases emissions, excessive recless tree > >>> felling, fossil fuels use, and over-fishing destroying the balances > >>> from tropics to permafrost. > > >>> Your comments would much be appreciated how do we encounter and > >>> re-train > >>> ourselves away from this suggested deterministic evolutionary outcome > >>> of a > >>> more recent evolution so that we as a species do not produce the final > >>> crest > >>> and get back to Martian stable state of incapacitated single cellular > >>> live > >>> that ekes out its existence in the silts. > > >>> *I do believe the only solution behind all the other soltutiosn is to > >>> solve the global warming is education, education, education.. towards > >>> sustainable energy and land use and forms of transportation to get > >>> between A > >>> and B. People need to be educated to the sustainability and then all > >>> the > >>> rest of action will follow.* > > >>> Rgs, > > >>> Albert > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >>> [email protected] > >>> Subject: [geo] Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of > >>> Earth > >>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:55:15 +0000 > > >>> E: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of Earth > > >>> *SETI Implication to Geoengineering* > > >>> I have > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
