Dear Alan: Thanks for your comments. Your points:
1. “You left off all the negative aspects. I think the Asilomar Conference is to discuss governance issues, and clearly all issues have to be on the table, not just one-sided advocacy. Arguments should be based on science and not just assertions.” You’ve already published 20 negatives; not point in repeating them, especially since they all come with powerful, unknown maybes and unknowns. Experiments illuminate unknowns, which is how engineering grows in ability. (We still can’t design bicycles from basic principles.) A list is all assertions; not a scientific paper. This is policy and engineering, after all. Ideas contend in free debate, conflicting views calling forth ingenuity that illuminates and challenges. Debate fosters understanding. 2. “ Just because the Arctic is warming more does not mean it is the most endangered. Sea level rises everywhere. Drought and flooding affects other areas. Disease spread and refugee migration are occurring in the subtropics. Just cooling the Arctic will not solve the problem of impacts of global warming.” Nobody said we’d solve all problems with regional limited experiments. There are plenty of reasons why the Arctic is arguably a fulcrum region, its influence broad and developing. We don’t even know how to judge impact estimates quantitatively, and won’t until we understand the entire climate system better. We cannot do that well and on a scale of decades without experiments, I think – but nobody knows, and won’t until we try. That’s the point. 3. “On the one hand, you say the U.S. can do it alone.” Nope; I said “The US has a large lead in such technologies, and economies of scale.” And that’s true. Also, I said, “Experiments can proceed from US territory.” We and Canada have a developed system of air bases and personnel, which could do the experiments at minimal cost and setup time. The Russians are much more limited and hard to deal with, generally. None of these facts means we can “go it alone,” that’s your phrase. The Montreal Protocol regulates CFC production. Period. It does not control the stratosphere. SRM is utterly different in the governance sense for many reasons. Asking for agreement by “the entire world, not just Arctic nations” is, as a friend at State said, “a classic bureaucratic device to do nothing; look at the UN.” 4. “Our published results show that this is not the case. We are completing spring and summer injection only cases, but have not completed the analysis yet.” Your results are suggestive, yes; and incomplete; nobody argues they aren’t. But SRM has many “knobs” to turn and we don’t know what effects we can get. Simulations are guides, not final answers. They seldom close doors, though they can open them. Trying to design anything complex with simulations alone is not smart engineering: which this had better be, as we have little time. I must admit, it’s hard to believe aerosols that fall out in October snow will alter the March monsoon, but there’s probably some small effect. It’s smart to know what you know only qualitatively, since that leads to quantitative understanding, when coupled with experiment. Every engineer knows this and does not confuse it with science. As an example of unknowns, we're certainly unsure best to put the aerosols in the lower stratosphere, or instead should focus on doing it in the troposphere. Tradeoffs are many: economic, diplomatic, urgency and much more. Even the constraints are unclear. I wanted to lay out a case, not make some scientific point. I hope we can contend, defend and learn at Asilomar. Gregory -----Original Message----- From: Alan Robock <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 9:18 am Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Agenda Dear Gregory, You left off all the negative aspects. I think the Asilomar Conferenceis to discuss governance issues, and clearly all issues have to be onthe table, not just one-sided advocacy. Arguments should be based onscience and not just assertions. As to your points: 1. Just because the Arctic is warming more does not mean it is themost endangered. Sea level rises everywhere. Drought and floodingaffects other areas. Disease spread and refugee migration areoccurring in the subtropics. Just cooling the Arctic will not solvethe problem of impacts of global warming. I am confused by 3 and 4. On the one hand, you say the U.S. can do italone. On the other hand, you say that the Arctic Council needs to beinvolved. In my opinion, without agreement by the entire world, notjust Arctic nations, we will move into serious political problems. Thefact that no treaties govern the stratosphere (which actually is nottrue - remember the Montreal Protocol and its amendments) is a problem,not a good thing. 5. This is just your assertion, with no science to back it up. Ourpublished results show that this is not the case. We are completingspring and summer injection only cases, but have not completed theanalysis yet. Furthermore, no technology has ever been created, letalone demonstrated, that can create an aerosol cloud in thestratosphere. AlanAlan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental PredictionDepartment of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-864414 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On 2/11/2010 12:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:All: Preparing for the Asilomar conference, I summed up major pointsfavoring doing aerosol cooling of the Arctic. Can others suggest further points? Feel free to dispute theirimportance, too. Gregory Benford STEPS TOWARD SAVING OUR ARCTIC GREGORY BENFORD Department of Physics & Astronomy University of California, Irvine This paper proposes experiments to halt Arctic warming. Theadvantages of first attacking climate change in the Arctic byreflecting sunlight are several: 1. The Arctic is the most endangered region, warming faster than otherareas. 2. The Arctic stratosphere is the lowest, beginning at about 38,000feet (11.5 km). This places it within range of the most suitableaircraft for spreading aerosols, the in-flight refuelers. The tropicalstratosphere is largely beyond range of these aircraft, so experimentsthere will demand fighter-class aircraft. The US has a large lead insuch technologies, and economies of scale. 3. The Arctic Council forms a natural group for managing suchexperiments. The US has many allies on the Council, and Russianobjections can be met there. Eventual cooling targets that allownorthwest passage in the summer can be negotiated as well, away fromlarger international bodies. 4. Experiments can proceed from US territory. We have the best spacetechnologies for diagnostics in the region. No treaties now govern thestratosphere. 5. Arctic experiments done in summer will have minimal effects onlower latitudes, despite some diffusion and convection of aerosols.Rainfall effects in monsoons, etc, will be minimal. Costs of Arcticexperiments (~$300 million) are far lower than tropical experiments (~$several billion). -- 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.
