Dear John: The Arctic risk was ignored by all but one speaker at the NAS Workshop on geoengineering, but Mike MacCracken did mention it in a question to one of the panels on the second day. He pointed out that geoengineerng does not have to be global to be useful. He referred to the decline in SO2 over the Arctic as something that could be reversed.
I followed with another question to the same panel: "Isn't there a risk that is immediate? It is the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic. How important is this risk? I don't know but the possible positive feedbacks are worrisome. The only way to reduce this risk is geoengineering. It is the only strategy with the right time constant. SRM can be limited to higher latitudes, and it may work as Ken Caldeira's modeling shows. The deployment decision would involve only a handful of nations and indigenous populations. It is a perfect limited application. It puts a time clock on getting the needed R&D done. This risk and its implications for the clock on geo has not been discussed at the meeting. How should this risk be treated by the workshop and by the full ACC Committee?" Alan Robock on the panel said that his modeling results were different from Ken's. He found that stratospheric aerosols injected at high latitudes would have significant global consequences if I understood him correctly. If I had had the wit I would have followed up by saying that an intense R&D effort should be focused on the Arctic because of the immediate risk. It should be in the context of a broader R&D program more global in nature. The Arctic problem would need to confront most of the issues faced by a global program of governance, ethics, management and verification, physical and life sciences ( the Arctic ecosystem impacts need to be estimated), modeling, and of course engineering. I found the workshop as highly relevant and most important. I believe it focused the attention of the ACC full Committee very well from a few comments I heard. I believe we all owe a debt to those who organized and carried out the meeting including the speakers. With best regards, Bill On Jun 17, 2009, at 6:43 AM, 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 [email protected] 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
