Dear Alan,
Thanks for replying and expressing your view: that you "don't think we know nearly enough about the risk of inaction or the risk from possible side-effects to advise policymakers at this time." I am astonished. I did not think you would dispute the consensus of the geoengineering group - that the risk of Arctic methane release outweighed the risk of geoengineering to cool the Arctic, by orders of magnitude. This was the conclusion of the long thread "Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering", which focussed on geoengineering using stratospheric sulphate aerosols, and took your 20 objections as a starting point for the "cons". You have had plenty of chance to argue against this conclusion. Surely we should be encouraging the policy makers to take a precautionary view: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-2> [1]. See also [2]. There is no certainty as to how quickly the sea ice would disappear, if we let it. However there is pretty much certainty that if the total quantity of trapped methane in the Arctic were to be released, we'd have serious and irreversible damage from global warming, threatening the lives of everybody on this planet. Furthermore, there is no way that emissions reductions can halt the sea ice retreat on the required time-scale, so geoengineering has to be deployed. Surely it is our duty as scientists to point this out to policy makers. Kind regards, John [1] Rio Declaration, principle 15, quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle [2] UNFCCC article 3.3, in Peter Read's paper: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1755-1315/6/58/582023 Article 3.3 of the convention commits Parties individually, "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, to take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent and mitigate its adverse effects, ... lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures taking into account that [they] should be cost effective ... and take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases ... and may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties. --- Alan Robock wrote: > Dear John, > > Please stop speculating about what I think. If you are interested, > ask me first. > > I don't think we know nearly enough about the risk of inaction or the > risk from possible side-effects to advise policymakers at this time. > We need more research. Are my model results correct? Are Ken's or > Phil Rasch's? We need organized studies, with all modeling groups > doing the same experiments before we can begin to know what the > climate changes will be from various strategies, such as trying to > control the Arctic. And then we need to look at the impacts of these > climate changes on people. I am trying to get the IPCC modeling > groups to do this, but have not been successful yet. > > 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 Wed, 17 Jun 2009, John Nissen wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Gregory, >> >> Thanks for that. But I share Alvia's frustration that opportunities are >> lost at such meetings. In particular I'm always disappointed that the >> issue of Arctic warming and sea ice retreat seems never to be mentioned >> - at least never reported. I think we are all agreed that >> geoengineering to cool the Arctic and halt sea ice retreat is needed, >> for risk reduction (see the "Pros and Cons of geoengineering" thread). >> I don't think even Alan Robock would dispute that the risk of inaction >> is greater than the risk from possible side-effects (in particular >> monsoon weakening, which could actually be beneficial). >> >> And I also share David Schnare's frustration, that we pussy-foot over >> the seriousness and urgency of the problem - the risk of not >> geoengineering in time. Especially there is the risk that the Arctic >> warms sufficiently for massive methane release. And it is a life and >> death issue, if ever there was one. There is no way civilisation could >> survive the global warming that the methane could produce. >> >> Re DARPA, I agree with you that they could be useful. In particular, >> I'd like to see somebody treat global warming as an enemy (or at least >> as an extreme security threat), against which we need to use all the >> weapons at our disposal - together with some (such as Salter/Latham >> cloud brightening) that need to be developed. Only when we see global >> warming as a lethal threat will our instinct to fight for survival cut >> in. At present it seems that we, as a global society, are sleepwalking >> into oblivion. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> --- >> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> All: >>> >>> I agree with Ken that it's a tad dismaying that earnest efforts by NAS >>> get deplored. >>> >>> It's true we have some concrete agendas with a short time scale: the >>> Arctic, and Slater/Latham methods, etc. Focus on those and set a firm >>> ground for research. The Atlantic and other pieces are froth: neon ads >>> for an actual set of ideas. Let them run; it's part of dealing with the >>> many-heaqded moster of The Media. >>> >>> The DARPA initiative Ken and I disagree on. They can be useful: their >>> method is to put worked out possibilities on the table, mostly for >>> other agencies. They developed the internet this way; I had an email >>> address in 1969. But so often, they go first. I don't think DARPA >>> automatically colors our efforts, any more than they did the internet >>> we receive this email on. Or the mobile robots they encouraged these >>> last ten years. Or... >>> >>> Gregory Benford >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Margaret Leinen <[email protected]> >>> To: Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>> geoengineering <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tue, Jun 16, 2009 8:17 pm >>> Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering >>> workshop >>> >>> >>> 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 c >>> hoices' 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 res >>>> >>> earch 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 to >>>> >>> ward 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
