Hi Jim,
The essential conclusion from the "simple argument", is that
geoengineering is urgently needed to cool the Arctic and save the
Arctic sea ice. I have had no counter argument against this
conclusion, from any of the experts on this list. I'm still waiting!
THE CHALLENGE REMAINS.
In my view, the greatest danger to us all (and I mean all of us) is
leaving the geoengineering deployment too late. Positive feedbacks are
building up in the Arctic. The sea ice could suddenly melt away one
summer. There is no certainty about effectiveness of the various
techniques, given the lack of engineering and field experimentation.
Therefore delaying tactics could be absolutely fatal. We've delayed
too long already.
Cheers,
John
---
jim woolridge wrote:
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.
--
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.
|
