I was just about to send links to the same.
The reason it's relevant, is that this undercuts the common claim that concern about warming is recent and that atmospheric scientists in the 60s and 70s were mainly concerned about cooling. When you read the relevant documents (that is the high-level synthesis reports that should have been people's best shot at the science) the answer is the opposite, folks were worried about warming due to CO2 for exactly the same reasons they are now. We have fancier models, but the underlying physics is still simple and convincing. As in any case where a signal gradually sticks its head up above the noise there's room to argue about exactly how much of the 20th century warming is anthropogenic. But it's not the 20th century warming, nor the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature that are the basis of concern. The fundamental reason for concern is the same as it was when the report was written for President Johnson. It was cooling then, but it was clear that substantial increases in atmospheric CO2 would drive warming. We know much more now, but the issue is the same. We are worried about the consequences of a CO2 doubling or tripling under business as usual would happen on a timescale approximately 10^5 times faster than the decline in CO2 concentrations from the PETM to about 10 M years ago. I think it's just nonsense to say that a discussion of geoengineering need not be encumbered by this science. If this science was fundamentally flawed, as it would have to be if CO2 turns out "not to be a major forcing", then there would be little basis to trust the science that underlies the understanding of geoengineering. Yours, David ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: May 3, 2009 10:29 PM To: David Schnare Cc: David Keith; [email protected]; [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Televised debate The report to Johnson is available at: http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Research_ge orefs.html A direct link to the pdf is at: http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads /PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf I attach jpegs of two relevant passages that make it clear that global warming (not cooling) was the concern. On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:45 PM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: David: I must rely on you for the history of geoengineering, that being one of you academic interests and areas of expertise. My reference to the beginning of geoengineering was to the discussions in the Johnson White House related to what then was thought likely to be global cooling, and alternative means to mitigate such cooling. I do not recall what folks were saying would be the cause of such cooling, but I don't believe it was CO2. With regard to greenhouse gases and global warming, I did not state that they had no forcing effect. The argument is as to the size of their role, and GHGs significance as compared to "natural" cycles. That argument is ongoing, and "people who have actually rolled up their sleeves do work serious work in atmospheric science" include many who discount CO2 as a major forcing. That set is not empty, and if you want a list, I can jin one up. It would include former authors and lead authors for the IPCC. I do agree that those who believe "there is no connection between increased CO2 and warming" are wrong. I agree because you used the phrase "no connection". The argument is about how much connection there is. Finally, you did not respond to my suggestion that for SRM related approaches, it does not matter too much as to the GHG versus "natural cycles" arguments. SRM is a bandaid, not a cure. Carbon sequestration, on the other hand, is a "cure", but only if GHG forcing is a significant contributor to the forcing. If, however, GHGs are not a large element of warming, they remain a potentially large element of ocean acidification, and thus carbon sequestration still remains an important potential means to address a global problem. Thus, a cogent discussion on geoengineering need not be encumbered by arguments about causality of climate change. Those seeking carbon emissions reductions, include many of whom study geoengineering. Those folks do not wish to ignor, diminish or dispute the need for carbon reduction. Others interested in geoengineering, but not as concerned about GHGs, are more agnostic on carbon reduction, but believe geoengineering should not be used as a response to the AGW alarmists' arguments. Rather, they recognize the potential need for geoengineering on other grounds, and simply discount the moral dilemma argument. David Schnare. On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM, David Keith <[email protected]> wrote: David While there is legitimate and sensible argument about how much warming we might get from anthropogenic CO2, I think the overall physics and atmospheric science linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the expectation of increased warming is as solid as about anything in science. The set of people who have actually rolled up their sleeves do work serious work in atmospheric science and who also believe that there is no connection between increased CO2 and warming is all but empty. Of course, there are people who passionately believes there are aliens on Air Force bases in Nevada, and likewise there are folks who have very strong opinions about how the climate science is fundamentally wrong, but I've yet to run into any of them who hold such opinions and actually know the underlying science. Do not over-read this statement. Of course, there are many thoughtful scientists who think that the environmental risks posed by anthropogenic climate change are overhyped (they often are), and also folks who believe climate sensitivity will be on the lower end of the scale (it may be). Finally, your latter assertion is simply false. Discussion of the concept of geoengineering arose in the 60's out of concern about CO2 driven climate change. See #26 at www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Geoengineering.html <http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Ekeith/Geoengineering.html> . The actual name arose in the late 70s out of the same concern. Yours, David ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Schnare Sent: May 3, 2009 2:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate Ken: There is no argument about long-term global warming. That warming, if it continues, will justify geoengineering. There is, however, significant argument as to the causes of global warming. Indeed, there if far more valid, science-based argument made by well respected university academics working specifically on the issue, as to the causes of global warming, by far, than there is argument over biological evolution or plate tectonics. To characterize the argument regarding the causes of global warming as in the same state of knowledge as biological evolution or plate tectonics is not merely in error, it is an unwelcome damper on legitimate research into these phenomena. A public presentation on geoengineering need never address the causes of global warming other than as necessary to discuss the physics of management techniques. Direct cooling efforts such as Solar Radiation Management do not rest on the cause of global warming, only on the fact of that warming. Carbon sequestration techniques do presume a major greenhouse gas component. Any discussion of carbon sequestration techniques should be conditioned on a clear statement of the presumption. Whether carbon is at the heart of the warming problem need not be argued or discussed, other than for purposes of predicting the likely degree of cooling expected from any particular geoengineering technique. Finally, geoengineering rose out of a concern of a pending ice age, not out of concern about any anthropogenic global warming. Overall, geoengineering is intended to be a large scale response to climate change, whether human or natural. David Schnare On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: It is not a distraction. A good mechanistic understanding of causes of change is essential. If you do not understand the mechanisms behind global warming, how can you sensibly intervene in the climate system? How can you simultaneously believe that (a) you can add a bunch of radiatively active gases to the atmosphere and not affect climate and (b) you understand how affecting Earth's radiation balance will affect climate? There is no argument about whether most "global warming is anthropogenic", just as there is no argument about whether there is biological evolution or plate tectonics. ___________________________________________________ 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, May 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Ron <[email protected]> wrote: To some extent the whole argument about whether global warming is anthropogenic is a distraction. Regardless of cause, understanding global warming enough to counter it is more important. We may need to rank possible solutions according to how fast and cheaply we can implement them. We may need a two or three tier approach, implementing the first tier to buy us enough time to do the next tier. The vast changes in forest, ocean plants, combined with projected increases in new coal fired power plants present a daunting challenge. We will need to continuously work the problem and analysis at all levels. So far, I have not seen any combination of actions that bring warming under control. Shading the poles and deserts, making artificial snow at the poles, reducing carbon emissions in spite of political and economic pressures, Placing non-polluting power stations in orbit are all good ideas. Meanwhile, Australis seems to be burning to the ground. -----Original Message----- >From: dsw_s <[email protected]> >Sent: May 1, 2009 9:22 PM >To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > > >> There are also another much less studied sink under our feet: the cold soils and >> bedrocks, warming ice on glaciers and ice sheets, melting of marine and terrestrial >> ice. The ever increasing break-up of ever larger and ever more frequent ice shelves >> into sea water also mops up huge amounts of heat. > >I would call those reservoirs, rather than sinks. It lets the point >be summed up with a contrast of just two words. > >On May 1, 5:01 am, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear Eugen (?), >> >> "While a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase average surface temperature through what is improperly called the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be increasing in any case independent of anthropogenic emissions." >> >> I totally repudiate this statement that it is "improper" to call CO2 as greenhouse effectant. If carbon dioxide did not produce heat trapping our planet would be just a cold snowball. >> >> If there are a natural climatic forcing from chemicals called greenhouse gases that trap the heat, surely there will be also for the anthropogenic sources that have been added into air. >> >> This seems argument similar to Holocaust deniers. If greenhouse gases are added, more climatic warming forcing is added, if greenhouse gases are deducted climatic forcing reduces. What one might debate, is how much is the underlying forcing in relation to variability. Even this question setting is highly dubious due to risen GHG concentrations and the added heat flows into the polar regions being absorved by melting ice and cold grounds. >> >> All too often the meteorologists look to the sky and space beyond as the sink of the heat. There are also another much less studied sink under our feet: the cold soils and bedrocks, warming ice on glaciers and ice sheets, melting of marine and terrestrial ice. The ever increasing break-up of ever larger and ever more frequent ice shelves into sea water also mops up huge amounts of heat. >> >> Let us only await when the Antarctic Penisular ice shelve breakups extend to Ronne and Ross and once these have their spectacular break-ups, we see a sudden the "latest Dryas" in parts of the world where these ice masses dissolve and melt into sea water. >> >> I am also surprised of the surface temperature increasing over long-term context, could you please explain this as most people think the opposite that it is decreasing as without addition of greenhouse gas effectants the Milankovits' orbital forcing tends towards cooling. >> >> I am here assuming the prevailing assumption that the orbital changes originated the ice age(s) rather then my own thesis of geothermal fluctuations from the Mid-Atlantic ridge inducing large scale warming of the North Atlantic Ocean leading to percipitations that rapidly built up the Laurentide Ice sheet on the north of the North American continent as the complainant nations behind UNGA 101292 say to the United Nations General Assembly. If you take Milutin Milankovits away, then you are free to say anything you like. But I just can't take geothermal heat fluctuations and large scale volcanic seabed eruptions around Icelandic seas to take away any argument for us from constraining from CO2 emissions. >> >> So where you get your idea that we are heading towards warming, do you mean sun is turning now into supergiant phase, that heat output increas will occur over billions of years, not even during millions of years this is yet to be seen and well below solar radiation variability. In fact, the sun is now cooling down rather than hotting up and lacks sunspots. >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Veli Albert Kallio >> >> The climatic >> >> >> >> > From: [email protected] >> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> > CC: [email protected] >> > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate >> > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:16:52 -0400 >> >> > I keep saying it but you all seem to either disagree, but say nothing, or do >> > not understand. While a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should >> > increase average surface temperature through what is improperly called the >> > greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be increasing in >> > any case independent of anthropogenic emissions. It is what the Earth has >> > done many times in the past and is doing again quite independent of AGW. So >> > even if we stopped all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the >> > Earth would continue to warm; albeit more slowly and not monotonically; but >> > warm it will. Ultimately geoengineering will be needed independent of >> > whether we cease the AGW component or not. Don't view geoengineering as a >> > stopgap until we can get out act together. It will prove to be essential. >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] >> > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:15 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: geoengineering >> > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate >> >> > Are you crazy? This is not the question. No-one on the geoeng "side" >> > is suggesting we give up on mitigation. We MUST MUST MUST do this. >> > Geoeng will (in my view) probably needed as well. >> >> > Please see my paper on Combined Mitigation and Geoeng in Science a couple of >> > years ago. >> >> > Tom. >> >> > ++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > > Dear all, >> >> > > We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a televised >> > > debate on geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house >> > > believes we should give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate >> > > instead on finding a technofix". >> >> > > Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be >> > > interested in sponsoring such a debate? >> >> > > Many thanks >> >> > > Gus >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos - Free.http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ >> -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
