Granted, it is the key takeaway and of course more research is needed--
am assuming 'research' here includes 'demonstration and development'
and that all three categories include the caveat a.s.a.p. ('as soon as
possible' in case initials not known.)
As we know unauthorised research was carried out recently with regard
to ocean iron fertilisation, it is crucially important that a proper
international framework is put in place so that the necessary next
steps can be taken in a coherent and transparent fashion--and, of
course, it looks as though the US and UK are making the right kind of
moves in that direction.
But our real area of disagreement is not over the necessity for
further research but rather over the urgency of that need. It is only
to be expected that there will be a variance of views on what is,
after all, a matter of judgement. For me the sooner we get beyond
funding and research courtesy of the Discovery Channel the better--and
major thanks to Discovery, BTW--without them were would we be?
On Nov 23, 9:02 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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=en.
