I agree with Mike's direction below. I've served on red/blue teams before and was surprised at how many new, useful ideas emerged in the throes of competition. It's a much more concentrated version of the slow-motion academic/scientific model, which assumes that the journals or meetings are enough to elicit the best work.
Often so, but the customary methods and conventions are also slower -- and we don't have a career-lifetime to resolve this, for we are driven not by the schedules of human society, but by the inertia of a climate system that's been driven for centuries. Gregory Benford -- Ignoring the effects of the sulfate aerosol cooling offset as its lifetime in the atmosphere is at most a couple of weeks once emissions stop, the CO2e concentration is over 450 ppmv already (the level the EU, after considering scientific findings on dangerous change, calls the limit that should not be exceeded--though hard to do, I agree), and with the CO2 concentration above what leading scientists are suggesting is likely to cause major ice sheet loss, it seems to me that we cannot just sit back and say give us lots more time for research and study without also saying that it appears there may be some possibilities that could possibly moderate GHG induced impacts (although causing some impacts of their own). And, indeed, IPCC essentially says this, while also noting many unknowns. It is certainly true that much more needs to be known. I think (and David Keith wrote a while ago ) that the best way to be progressing may well be to have a red-blue team approach, with one group (well set of people as there are different ideas to be considered) pushing forward to see what can be done, so looking at new ideas, designing and adjusting approaches to work to get around problems and to limit side effects, basically trying to tune up the ideas of what can be done (e.g., sulfate injected to the stratosphere only for some seasons or only some latitudes, etc.)--certainly acknowledging there are unknowns, but not assuming that they will necessarily create problems and limitations. The other group should be then taking a very critical look, doing as Alan has done and list all the conceivable problems that they think need to be worked on and resolved. That's fine, but at the same time there need to be those saying, well, let's do it a bit differently than you are saying, so working to get around the problems that arise, or at least the most serious aspects. Periodically, as IPCC does (and is likely the group to do), there should be an outside authoritative, independent review that provides information for policymakers (and few, if any of us, would likely qualify for being on such a panel as independent, unbiased members, though some might well be to provide their wealth of insight and information). Along the way we'll have lots of media doing their evaluations and people urging one course or the other for a wide range of reasons, some scientific, many not), and that will generate lots20of discussion and inquiry. And somehow, the decision makers will weigh what is known and not known and how important and solid the evidence is and how dangerous the situation is, using their decision metric and not that of the scientists, and decide whether to start to take some action on geoengineering, whether do nothing, do more research, do a demonstration, go at it, etc.--and they will do this when they feel the need to--not waiting until some arbitrary level of scientific confidence is reached. I should add that the two groups (whether formalized or informal--that is, individuals making their pitches) can certainly cooperate and interact, but we should all welcome (and respect) that there is and will be a range of views about the relative risks of geoengineering versus the risks of not intervening as GHG-induced climate change goes on. It is by respectfully working to consider ideas, reduce uncertainties, and then reconcile and explain differences in understanding that we all will learn and gain insights. We can disagree--indeed, we have to disagree, but let's do so respectfully and focus on talking about the issues involved, giving reasons for positions and not claiming there is one right or wrong position (there are wrong facts, of course). Certainly, this is happening on the energy/mitigation side, with advocates and critics of various approaches, and others doing analyses. In the broad area of geoengineering, we quite clearly have two perspectives on iron fertilization--some optimistic that experiments can provide the information that would merit proceeding, and others very worried about possible, but not yet demonstrated, impacts--so we need to make sure that the experiments are being done well and safely. SCOR, on which I am on, has tried to urge making sure the experiments are done in a thoughtful way, and is funding a WG that is charged with getting the experimental records together into a single data base from the past experiments and initiating some analysis and comparison. There are also those who are trying to come up with other approaches, such as brining the nutrients up, etc. I certainly agree that we have to be cautious of and speak out about taking new ideas to the fore without a good critical analysis, but the whole issue has so many aspects and perspectives, we do have to recognize that there will always be proponents and critics--we are or are nearly past the point of a soft global landing. Mike On 1/17/09 3:57 PM, "Oliver Wingenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Let¹s 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,20how 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 b e 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 di rectionless >>>>> 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 last20individual 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
