dear Gregory Benford, It seems that there is an assumption that cooling the arctic is essential and trumps any potential impacts in other parts of the world.
I'm not sure how it would be achieved but I believe that an in-depth cost-benefit assesment of any proposed geoengineering scheme is essential. For example, If the suspected impact of an arctic intervention was a cooling of the arctic but also a change in hydrology in another part of the world; surely to justify the intervention it would have to be proved that the overall effect was positive? I can imagine their are a lot of tricky things to quantify, the impacts of runaway climate change for tundra melt, the subjective value of any predicted change in the climate, etc. (and a lot of unquantifiable things besides) but I believe the principle should remain. Do you agree that this principle of a calculated or expected positive global impact should be satisfied before any geoengineering intervention s undertaken? The alternative seems to justify regions or countries modifying regional climate for their benefit regardless of detrimental impacts elsewhere. regards, Pete Irvine On Feb 20, 4:44 pm, [email protected] wrote: > All: > > Stephen, this transfer function is for tropospheric spraying, yes? The > strato cases are not nearly so predictable. I'd expect the tropo sprays > don't propagate far, anyway. > > National legislation to protect geo experiments from lawsuits is > crucial. As David says, international treaties will help, but I'd > estimate they will take far longer, and delay is our enemy. I'd be > happy with the Arctic Council defending their experiments, as they have > clout and standing. > > Gregory Benford > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schnare <[email protected]> > > Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 7:56 am > Subject: Re: [geo] SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers? > > Pete: > > My sense is that who will be a winner or loser is an unknowable > unknown. While I agree with Professor Salter that we could take a stab > at it, and indeed others on this list have made some preliminary > attempts to look at precipitation issues, the sad reality is that > models are dreadfully inadequate for regional analyses and greater > computing power will not be enough to make them much more useful. > > In the absence of quality information, humankind has used a best guess, > iterative approach, achieved through international treaty. My > suspicion is that will be what will have to happen here to address > winners and losers. I am concerned, however, that such an approach > will not work if potential "losers" demand stipulated reparations. > > Schnare > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, p.j.irvine > <[email protected]> wrote: > It is likely that any SRM geoengineering intervention will create > winners and losers and some nations may always be against any > intervention whatsoever. > > Gregory Benford raised the issue of reaching agreement on the global > scale and how problematic it would be. If for example the arctic > council of nations agreed to initiate a decade-long field trial to > cool the arctic by 1 C, how could they deal with complaints from > nations who felt that this experiment had induced a negative change in > their climate? > > In any given year there are floods, droughts, heatwaves, etc. but > during this field trial a fraction of these events would be attributed > (rightly or wrongly, partially or fully) to the intervention. Two > questions arise: > > Could it be determined if any changes in the climate (outside of the > target area) had occurred as a result of the intervention during a 10 > year trial? > > How would aggrieved nations or peoples seek reparations for perceived > negative impacts (scientifically proven or otherwise)? > > best regards, > > Pete Irvine > PhD student > School of Geographical Sciences > University of Bristol > > -- > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > -- > 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 > athttp://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.
