Jim-- I think this is the key takeaway from Kelly's note, which seems patently obvious to me.
"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." Dan On Nov 23, 12:30 pm, jim woolridge <[email protected]> wrote: > '...at some point within the next few decades...': Kelly, we have had > a scant 2 decades of major concern and political activism re climate > change; in that time things have moved rather more rapidly than anyone > anticipated and show no signs of slowing down. The concern that many > of us have is that we no longer have the luxury of decades in which to > ruminate about 'will we or won't we?' > Could you be more specific about the premises which are not confirmed > and in what way the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them? > > On Nov 23, 1:41 am, Kelly Wanser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > ... > > 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=.
