Hi, David's observations are right over Ken.
If people were entirely rational, Universities of Paris Sorbonne, and Pontificial Gregorian University would have responded positively by sending their experts to stay few nights with Galileo Galilei in 1610 to see that Jupiter's moons did go round Jupiter. They were too 'busy'. Similarly, the complaint UNGA 101292 made to the United Nations' General Assembly: we asked for a short-life cosmogenic radioisotope carbon-14 run in a spectormeter to be made from the willow-tree branch found under 3 km Greenland ice dome. The "answer" was there before experiment. UNGA 101292 states that some nations have 'recollections' as if ice age resulted from a rapid volcanically-induced snow percipitation when Iceland was building up. If Greenland's ice (and other ice of the ice age) piled up rapidly, carbon-14 shows up before all the climatic problems induced event had started. Another example of refusal to look into 'scope'. World is full of this kind of pre-conceived stuff, that blinds us from simple test to see who is right and who is wrong. With no real additional cost to other isotopes. The main thing of course of the complainant nations is that the terrestrial Greenland ice slides immediately after Arctic sea ice is gone if their First Nations' recollection of Hudson Ice Dome recollections are real. Carbon-14 would just add credibility that these nations also have some contributions to make for history writing and get first Indigenous Physics Prize by undoing great deal of the stuff put up by the Western Nations. [You are not alone. Thanks David.] Regards, Albert Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:17:36 -0400 Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Dear Ken: I'd be happy to be wrong, if you can show you are right. But you are completely wrong - at least in Washington, D.C. This is not about science. This is about policy and polity. It is about assumptions, not facts. It is about the competition for resources, not their preservation. Further, you make the following statement: "I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith. "Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we become true believers. "I have no desire to be a true believer." If these statements were true, then you would be perpared to be skeptical about GCMs, skeptical about GHG's role in warming, and skeptical about those who disallow debate on the underlying assumptions and presumptions from which federal regulation and legislation build. You would question the IPCC summary report and the policy implications that stem therefrom. Finally, as to this group's attention to your perspectives. You are the moderator. If you don't like where the discussion is going, then go ahead and censor it. You are free to be the center of attention. This is America, and google groups are private. You can do whatever you want. This is not a democracy. That is reserved for government. That is for open discussion about issues. That is why there are town cryers who do not whisper about important public meetings, but who yell it loudly. This group is not the NRC/NAS, where all should be invited to participate with broad public dissemination and loud public attention. This is a private group, your private group, where one can demand attention. I'll now be very silent and listen to you about "true faith," or I may not. It's up to me whether I listen to you, right up until you, as moderator, banish me, and others, from the group. That too is up to you. Cheers, David S. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: Alvia, [and David S.,] I think you are completely wrong. I think this National Academy meeting was a historic meeting in that it was the first time that I know of that a National Academy ran an open public meeting on intentional alteration of climate. I think it may be a key step towards a national research program. Some people in this email group see the world in black and white.I am not one of them. I suggest that those who are prepared to intentionally alter Earth's climate without some sense of fear and trepidation fail to appreciate the complex set of issues we are facing. I believe ambivalence is an appropriate attitude when faced with an unpleasant set of choices. The comment that David Schnare made in criticism of my remarks ('Here's your choice - we all die, or we don't all die. Pick one and enough of this "conflicted" sillyness.') illustrates the kind of hyperbolic, simplistic, and binary thinking we should be working to avoid. Regarding my earlier remarks about DARPA: I continue to believe that if DARPA took the lead it would fuel international suspicions about US motivations for wanting to develop effective climate intervention approaches, and ultimately make it more difficult to develop these technologies. Regarding Alan Robock: I often disagree with Alan's tone and framing and have argued with him publicly, but he also happens to be correct on most matters of fact -- and where we disagree on matters of fact, these are differences that can be maintained by well-informed people, where more research is needed to resolve uncertainty. Alan is a good hard working scientist who is doing his best to develop a sound scientific basis for making sound policy decisions. He annoys me sometimes as I am sure I annoy him. But that is no reason to question his value as a scientist. I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith. Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we become true believers. I have no desire to be a true believer. Best, Ken PS. I sent an email to this group on May 29 with acopy of the proposed agenda for the workshop, the email specifying the location to submit written input to, and a link to a web site that at the time had instructions on how to request to attend the meeting. I was suprised my email received so little attention, but it is becoming obvious that my perspectives are becoming irrelevant to this group. http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/1c6c05c85f7fad13 ___________________________________________________ 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 Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Margaret Leinen <[email protected]> wrote: While many meetings indeed do little to advance thinking about geoengineering, I think that the mere fact that the NAS convened this meeting did a lot. The study by the Royal Society, the workshop and the inclusion of its results by the NAS in their 'climate choices' study both show substantial acceptance of the importance of geoengineering research by mainstream academies. This is enormous progress in a very short timeframe. And the studies are important stepping stones to federal funding in the US. The opportunity to attend the NAS workshop was on the web, but it wasn't advertised, so I do understand the frustration about attendance. -- Margaret Leinen, PhD. Climate Response Fund 119 S. Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 202-415-6545 > From: Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:10 -0400 > To: <[email protected]>, geoengineering <[email protected]> > Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop > > These meetings accomplish little or nothing as it is the same people saying > the same things over and over again. Just filling up that resume. If you > are truly so conflicted about the subject, (doubt it) why don't you get out of > the business or better yet, stop interfering with others who are in it (The > I'm going to the DARPA meeting to stop it stunt you pulled a while back). > Better yet, next time you guys schedule one of these get togethers, you can > announce you are going to hold it so you can stop it. At least announce it > far enough in advance so we can all plan not to go. BTW, I've come up with a > new job description for people like Alan Robock and Dale Jameison: > Professional Critic. Since they are both employed by universities, let's ad > an un to that. Yeah, that sounds right: Unprofessional Critic. More > candidates as I get time. > > > ----- Original > Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix > by Richard Harris > > All Things Considered, June 16, 2009 ยท Engineering our climate to stop > global warming may seem like science fiction, but at a recent National Academy > of Sciences meeting, scientists discussed some potential geoengineering > experiments in earnest. > > Climate researcher Ken Caldeira was skeptical when he first heard about the > idea of shading the Earth a decade ago in a talk by nuclear weapons scientist > Lowell Wood. > > "He basically said, 'We don't have to bother with emissions reduction. We > can just throw aerosols - little dust particles - into the stratosphere, and > that'll cool the earth.' And I thought, 'Oh, that'll never work,' " Caldeira > said. > > But when Caldeira sat down to study this, he was surprised to discover that, > yes, it would work, and for the very same reasons that big volcanoes cool the > Earth when they erupt. Fine particles in the stratosphere reflect sunlight > back into space. And doing it would be cheap, to boot. > > Caldeira conducts research on climate and carbon cycles at the Carnegie > Institution at Stanford University. During the past decade, he said, talk > about this idea has moved from cocktail parties to very sober meetings, like > the workshop this week put on by the National Academy of Sciences. > > "Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about all this," he said during a break in > the meeting. "I've been pushing very hard for a research program, but it's a > little scary to me as it becomes more of a reality that we might be able to > toy with our environment, or our whole climate system at a planetary scale." > > Attempting to geoengineer a climate fix raises many questions, like when you > would even consider trying it. Caldeira argued that we should have the > technology at the ready if there's a climate crisis, such as collapsing ice > sheets or drought-induced famine. At the academy's meeting, Harvard > University's Dan Schrag agreed with that - up to a point. > > "I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency > response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already > experiencing a climate crisis - whether we've already crossed that threshold," > Schrag said. > > In reality, carbon-dioxide emissions globally are on a runaway pace, despite > rhetoric promising to control them. University of Calgary's David Keith > suggested that we should consider moving toward experiments that would test > ideas on a global scale - and do it sooner rather than later. > > "It's not clear that during some supposed climate emergency would be the > right time to try this new and unexplored technique," Keith said. > > And experiments could create disasters. Alan Robock of Rutgers University > cataloged a long list of risks. Particles in the stratosphere that block > sunlight could also damage the ozone layer, which protects us from harsh > ultraviolet light. Or altering the stratosphere could reduce precipitation in > Asia, where it waters the crops that feed 2 billion people. > > Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the > planet, Robock said. On the plus side, it's also possible that diffusing > sunlight could end up boosting agriculture, he said. > > "We need to evaluate all these different, contrasting impacts to see whether > it really would have an effect on food or not," he said. "Maybe it's a small > effect. We really don't know that yet. We need more research on that." > > Thought experiments to date have focused primarily on the risks of putting > sulfur dust in the stratosphere. There are many other geoengineering ideas - > like making clouds brighter by spraying seawater particles into the air. But > none of them is simple. > > "I don't think there is a quick and easy answer to employing even one of > those quick and cheap and easy solutions," said social scientist Susanne > Moser. > > There's no mechanism in place to reach a global consensus about doing this - > and a consensus seems unlikely in any event. Who gets to decide where to set > the global thermostat? And will this simply become an excuse not to control > our emissions to begin with? These were all questions without answers at the > academy's meeting. > > Message ----- > From: Ken Caldeira > To: geoengineering > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:17 PM > Subject: [geo] NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105483423 > > ___________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
