Two comments on the letter proposal... 1. "Only a few scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and they were ridiculed". This sour grapes statement does not strengthen a case for geoengineering. Then 'many more' scientists now agree with the more severe assessment -- that implies the number is still in the minority. Do you really expect action until you can say that the vast majority of scientists now agree with the direction.
2. I think the tone of the request should be explicitly to urgently *prepare* a SRM deployment capability, not for its ASAP deployment as implied. Deployment would be a second gate. We will lose precious time to develop a viable system if we try to pass the deployment gate first. At the same time a governance framework needs to be established and the holistic long-term consequences of any deployment need to be far better quantified - how safe is it. This work should be acknowledged as part of the process. A comment to Jousif... You say: "In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only option"". That's a fine motivational cliche but it is not hard coded into science that N=>2, where N is the number of options. It is of course entirely possible that SRM is the only thing we could do to stop catastrophic climate change. That's not to say that this has yet been adequately established within the scientific community. Best regards, Glyn On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Yousif Masoud <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/07/10 23:43, John Nissen wrote: > > Dear Ron, > > The letter argues that geoengineering is now our only hope - our only option > to avoid sea ice disappearance and the possibility of catastrophic methane > release - since only geoengineering can act quickly enough to cool the > Arctic. Procrastination will reduce chances of success, as well as increase > chances of unmanageable side effects. > > Cheers, > > John > > --- > > In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only option" > (precisely like Software Development). There are always plenty of options. > You are making bold claims to a problem you have not provided an adequate > quantitative examination of. > > At this juncture, there is a lack of peer-reviewed scientific observations > that corroborate your claims. Consequently, stating that a specific > solution is our "only hope" to solve a problem that not everyone in this > group is convinced exists is not going to be considered favorably. > > As has been pointed out by various members of this list, what is required is > more data so that a strong scientific report could be produced that provides > a *quantitative* measure of our current situation. Once this is understood, > I'm sure it would be possible to suggest more solutions. Perturbing a > chaotic dynamical system should only be considered as a last resort. > > When the Manhattan Project was commissioned, there was a clear and present > danger. In your case you are requesting (very) large scale action based on > qualitative arguments, predictions and models (many of which are strongly > contested). > > I would like to emphasize that I am just as concerned as all of you about > pollution and climate change. Homo Sapiens must respect nature much, much > more. > > Regards, > Yousif > > -- > 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.
