I agree you have made an excellent case to research geoengineering methods. I'm still planning to start a nonprofit research foundation devoted to find strategies for dealing with climate change and to find ways to modify the climate so as to mitigate greenhouse warming and to stop a runaway greenhouse effect.
On Nov 24, 12:47 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 them6. 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... > > 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.
