The premises of the simple argument for SRM geoengineering are not all confirmed, and the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them. Your case for when to geoengineer (e.g. now), what type of geoengineering to do (e.g. stratospheric particles) and whether the benefits outweigh the risks is based on a number of assumptions and, where evidence is scant, is likely to give rise to (justifiable) skepticism and controversy.
An alternative way to think about it is that climate change has a risk curve that we are traversing (and still trying to project accurately) and geoengineering (here referring to SRM) has a risk curve about which we know relatively little, including very little for specific methods. Our hypothesis today might be that, given what we know about the risk forecast for overall climate change, at some point, the curves will intersect where the risk of geoengineering may become lower than the risk of not doing so. To determine when, and to influence both curves, we require extensive research. We need research both to understand the relative risks, and to reduce them. We need research to know if, when and how we would ever use geoengineering, including knowing whether there may be no circumstances under which we would do so. We need research to know whether and how we may already be inadvertently geoengineering, and how to know if anyone, anywhere is geoengineering actively. And, if it is possible that the perceived or actual risk of climate change could exceed the perceived or actual risk of geoengineering at a point in the near future, this research becomes rather urgent. A simple case for geoengineering research can be soundly drawn from the facts of our situation. Research is required to understand whether we would ever use geoengineering, when the benefits would outweigh the risks of doing so and what methods and approaches to geoengineering may ever be viable components of managing climate change (even temporarily). Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high-risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge. A Simple Case for Geoengineering Research: 1. Climate change incurs substantial risk of future loss of life, property, ecosystems, population centers, industries and human well being. 2. Evidence strongly suggests that this risk is increasing, and may accelerate rapidly at various points in the future, toward catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of many parts of the world. 3. There is a possibility that some forms of geoengineering, used independently or jointly, may reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change. 4. Every form of geoengineering has risks, about which we know relatively little, and, based on what we do know, some of those risks may be very large. 5. We have inadequate knowledge about the feasibility, risks and benefits of any form of geoengineering: - We do not know whether any methods or combination of methods can feasibly reduce overall climate risk - We do not know their risks, benefits and optimum method of utilization - We do not currently have the technology, or know how to implement, monitor or manage them 6. We hypothesize that, as climate change proceeds as currently forecast, at some point within the next few decades the risks of geoengineering may be perceived by some to be lower than the risks of not doing so, and a country, group or other party may attempt to geoengineer the climate. 7. We can say with some degree of certainty that research lowers the risks of geoengineering, so that if any party were ever to geoengineer at some point in the future, research would be an extremely sound investment to understand and reduce this risk. 8. Independently of any case for actively geoengineering in an attempt to reduce catastrophic outcomes, research in geoengineering requires both granular understanding of climate phenomena that we lack currently, and yields understanding of the unintentional geoengineering (man-made effects) that we are currently producing and may inadvertently alter (such as the large quantities of polluting particles thought to be producing cooling effects today). A letter along these lines may be tougher to dispute and compelling for many researchers (including those that may oppose geoengineering deployment) to sign, and may help set the right activities in motion, deferring debate about the relative merits and morality of geoengineering deployment until we have more information to work with. Best Regards, Kelly Wanser Silver Lining Project CEO eCert Inc. On Nov 22, 4:24 pm, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear John, > > And just because I ignore you does not mean I agree with you. > > 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 > > Ken Caldeira wrote: > > Just so you don't fool yourself into thinking there is a consensus, I > > think it is premature to start deploying a climate intervention system > > at scale. > > > I think there is potential for risk reduction through climate > > intervention, but it is not obvious to me that such interventions will > > actually reduce overall risk, especially when complex socio-political > > feedbacks are taken into consideration. > > > That said, be my guest, go ahead with your sign-on letter. I think > > there is room for a diversity of views. Consensus is unnecessary. We > > are large and contain multitudes. > > > /Do I contradict myself? > > Very well then I contradict myself, > > (I am large, I contain multitudes.) > > / > > /-- Walt Whitman (1855) > > / > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > >http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, John Nissen <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Hi Raymond, > > > Thanks for your support. So far I've not had a single person > > arguing against my reasoning for SRM geoengineering. So I'm > > beginning to think there might be consensus - marking a tipping > > point in scientific thinking on geoengineering. I'm really > > surprised that Alan Robock hasn't commented, since has been so > > against doing anything in the immediate term. He must be able to > > counter my argument - if he's convinced that it's wrong. > > > BTW, I agree we should also be looking into long term solutions, > > so we can see the SRM geoengineering in context, and add in the > > CO2 capture side as well as all the other things that have to be > > done. Have you looked at Kyoto2 from Oliver Tickell [1], or Plan > > B from Lester R Brown [2]? > > > Cheers, > > > John > > > [1]http://www.kyoto2.org/ > > > [2]http://www.earth-policy.org/ > > > --- > > > Raymond Law wrote: > >> *Hi John,* > > >> I have said that your train of logic is just what we would be > >> needing today. Go for your *manifesto,* I am all for it ! > > >> We have been talking about long term solutions for too long, > >> let's act on the immediate term solution from *John * -- this > >> might even buy us time to come up with a set of really good long > >> term solutions, too. > > >> All the best, > > >> *Raymond Law > >> * > > >> On 11/21/09, *John Nissen* <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> Hi Jim, > > >> I want to follow up on your email of 15th November. > > >> So far, nobody has challenged the logic of my argument. So > >> we all seem to be in agreement! It's not what we'd like to > >> believe, but the conclusion is clear. > > >> Why are most academics among us so reticent? Jim Hansen has > >> noticed this too. When the outlook is bad, nobody wants to > >> be the messenger. So why don't we have a manifesto, which > >> people can sign up to? When I originally suggested this, > >> Alan Robock flatly rejected the idea that we had any > >> agreement in the group. > > >> So I put out the challenge again. Does anybody disagree with > >> my simple argument for SRM geoengineering? I'll repeat it: > > >> --- > > >> > 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according > >> to the > >> > concentration above its pre-industrial level. > > >> > 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the > >> > concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective > >> lifetime > >> > of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. > > >> > Therefore: > >> > 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot > >> and will > >> > not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. > > >> > Therefore: > >> > 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the > >> warming > >> > due to the albedo effect. > > >> > Therefore: > >> > 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing > >> quantities > >> > of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many > >> degrees to > >> > global warming; and > > >> > 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > >> > potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 > >> metres. > > >> > Therefore: > >> > 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic > >> quickly > >> > enough to save the Arctic sea ice. > > >> > 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar > >> radiation > >> > management (SRM) geoengineering. > > >> > 9. SRM is not to be left as a last resort; it is needed now to > >> cool the Arctic. > > >> --- > > >> Cheers, > > >> John > > >> --- > > >> jim woolridge wrote: > >>> Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid > >>> clarity, in > >>> fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed > >>> are > >>> in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than > >>> in > >>> the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are > >>> saying and > >>> must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and > >>> what is > >>> doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many > >>> examples as > >>> one cares to ennumerate. > > >>> We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at > >>> which > >>> they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on > >>> politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the > >>> acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/ > >>> opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right > >>> kind > >>> of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great > >>> help to have the environmental NGOs on board.) > > >>> On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> It is incredible. It is so obvious. > > >>>> 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according > >>>> to the > >>>> concentration above its pre-industrial level; and > > >>>> 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the > >>>> concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective > >>>> lifetime > >>>> of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. > > >>>> Therefore: > >>>> 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot > >>>> and will > >>>> not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. > > >>>> Therefore: > >>>> 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the > >>>> warming > >>>> due to the albedo effect. > > >>>> Therefore: > >>>> 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing > >>>> quantities > >>>> of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many > >>>> degrees to > >>>> global warming; and > > >>>> 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > >>>> potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 > >>>> metres. > > >>>> Therefore: > >>>> 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic > >>>> quickly > >>>> enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and > > >>>> 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar > >>>> radiation > >>>> management (SRM) geoengineering. > > >>>> 9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the > >>>> Arctic. > > >>>> It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of > >>>> logic - > >>>> it is so obvious. > > >>>> Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to > >>>> refute this > >>>> argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to > >>>> cool the > >>>> Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1] > > >>>> So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming > >>>> that > >>>> emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet > >>>> safe. [2] > > >>>> And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that > >>>> geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3] > > >>>> How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving > >>>> geoengineering > >>>> too late? > > >>>> John > > >>>> P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and > >>>> accept the > >>>> logic as self-evident. > > >>>> [1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the > >>>> Royal > >>>> Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response > >>>> from the > >>>> team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd. > > ... > > read more » -- 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=.
