I think "Pinatubo option" is a descriptive visual image that can communicate in broad terms what we are talking about.
Of course, there are many real and significant differences between a volcano and engineered production of stratospheric aerosols, but I think that it can be a good public communication tool to use "the Pinatubo option" to refer to efforts to alter climate by emplacing aerosols in the stratosphere. (And it will also give Alan many chances to re-remind us of all the terrible things that happened after the Mt Pinatubo eruption.) ___________________________________________________ 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 Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:49 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > I've obtained movie rights. Here's the current "The Pinatubo Option" > casting line-up: > > > Tom Hanks playing David Keith > > Paul Giamatti playing Ken Caldeira > > George Clooney playing Alan Robock > > and Darren McGavin (in his persona as Carl Kolchak) playing David Schnare. > > It will be easier to get funding for the movie than it will be to get > research dollars. Hence, we can require all action sequences to be actual > field tests. > > We still need a female lead. Please advise. > > ;-))) > d. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ray Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Ken >> >> I searched the archive and web and note this is >> the first time anyone used the phrase: >> >> "Pinatubo option". >> >> Are you happy for this to become a fixed >> phrase for deliberate injection of stratospheric >> aerosols? It sounds good - like a movie title. >> >> And it might be a good benchmark vid: >> >> "This is what we have to start doing in Copenhagen, >> to avoid having to resort to the Pinatubo option." >> >> Ray >> >> On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: >> > For future sulfur emissions, >> > seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/5-20.htm >> > >> > For past sulfur emissions, see the attached paper. >> > >> > Current sulfur emissions are on the order of 50 Tg/yr and for this half >> > century is likely to be in the range of 50 to 100 Tg/yr. >> > >> > The EGU abstract >> > (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf) foresees >> > emissions rates of 5 to 10 Tg/yr for the first half of the century, >> > which is >> > roughly the 10% range of current emissions, with this percentage scaling >> > up >> > if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and tropospheric >> > sulfur emissions decline. >> > >> > So, this is not negligible, but it is unlikely to be a game changer >> > either. >> > >> > It is my view that there would need to be some mighty compelling reasons >> > to >> > deploy a stratospheric aerosol system, if not only because people who >> > experience bad weather in subseuqent years might be incented to sue (or >> > even >> > attack militarily) parties engaged in aerosol release. >> > >> > So, if we in an emergency situation acid rain, ozone loss, etc would be >> > among the costs taken into account before making a decision, but these >> > costs >> > may not be decisive. >> > >> > I still think Mt Pinatubo is the poster child for stratospheric aerosols >> > approaches: We know it can cool the Earth, we know it can do this >> > quickly, >> > and we know it does not immediately cause a global catastrophe. Were we >> > faced with a real climate emergency, there could be a lot of pressure to >> > exercise the Pinatubo option. I do not see that the abstract by Eliseev >> > et >> > al markedly changes this picture. >> > >> > 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 Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > ** >> > > *Some items from the EGU programme* >> > > ** >> > > *Cryosphere - how much longer?* >> > >> > > This should be an interesting session: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/142 >> > >> > > Also on cryosphere is the session chaired by Peter Wadhams: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/196 >> > >> > > And some potentially interesting presentations here: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/702 >> > > and here: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/706 >> > >> > > *Geoengineering, session CL27* >> > >> > > There seems to have been a disappointing response for this session. >> > > However the session does include a poster presentation from Russians >> > > on >> > > SRM using stratospheric sulphur aerosols: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf >> > > I'd be interested in Ken Caldeira's comments on this. >> > >> > > *Carbon stock management* >> > >> > > In "carbon-constrained future", I see no mention of geoengineering: >> > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/143 >> > > For example, there is this presentation: >> > >> > > ---- >> > >> > > Can we control climate change risks and what does it cost? >> > >> > > B. Metz >> > >> > > Fellow, European Climate Foundation and former co-chair IPCC Working >> > > Group >> > > on Mitigation >> > >> > > For controlling climate change risks to manageable levels global >> > > emissions >> > > of greenhouse gases have to start >> > >> > > declining by 2015-2020 and need to be reduced to more than 50% below >> > > 1990 >> > > levels by 2050. >> > >> > > An overview will be given of the options that exist to achieve these >> > > very >> > > challenging objectives. The economic >> > >> > > reduction potential of these options will be given as well as their >> > > costs. >> > >> > > Finally, the policies needed to realize the reduction potential will >> > > be >> > > discussed. >> > > *----* >> > > ** >> > > There seems little sense of emergency, despite the looming cryosphere >> > > dangers. Disappointing. >> > >> > > Cheers, >> > >> > > John >> > >> > >> > >> > Stern_Chemosphere_2005.pdf >> > 562KViewDownload >> >> >> -- >> David W. Schnare >> Center for Environmental Stewardship >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
