Ken, Thank your for expressing your views.
You wrote about: distinguishing between advocates of geoengineering and advocates of geoengineering research. If I refer to you by name (which I didn¹t in the Slate piece) I will be sure to mention that you are a strong advocate for geoengineering research. My sense is, however, that a big R&D push with field deployment by geoengineering research advocates might result in attempts to engineer the climate. Recall that some panelists were floating a ³Plan B² for climate to Congress, which was no ³plan² at all. You wrote: I am an advocate of improving our information base, our state of knowledge. Me too. But what counts as knowledge? In my written response to the Congress, I said: > A comprehensive research program in geoengineering cannot be merely a > scientific and technically-based effort. It must be led by > historically-informed humanistic and social science efforts to understand the > precedents and contextualize human desires (and hubris) involved in > intervening in natural systems. Such discussions should seek to avoid being > dominated by Western technocratic influences, and would need to be fully > international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational in nature so that a > global conversation emerges. > Also: > Geoengineering research is currently not ready, and may never be ready for any > field testing, large scale or otherwise. It is best done indoors using > computer simulations and in other controlled conditions, such as laboratories > and wind tunnels. For decades, verification of weather modification > experiments has been stymied by natural variability in cloud and weather > conditions. The same is true many times over for experiments on the global > climate. > > What is most needed in atmospheric science today is more focused and basic > research on atmospheric dynamics and chaotic forcings. If, as Edward Lorenz > maintained, the climate system exhibits modes that are extremely sensitive to > perturbations, what unknown effect might [attempted geoengineering] have on > the global or regional climate? Also needed, especially now, is a concerted > effort to restore scientific and public confidence in the atmospheric > sciences, their peer review practices, Earth¹s instrumental and proxy > temperature records, and the authority and behavior of computer models and > their results. I did not mention Mt. Pinatubo in my Slate piece, so I don¹t know why you asked about it, but I do recall Mike MacCracken telling me about direct beam vs. diffuse sky radiation issues following volcanic eruptions. Also, in 2008 Alan Robock listed ³Whitening of the sky, with no more blue skies, but nice sunsets,² ³The end of terrestrial optical astronomy,² and ³Greatly reduced direct beam solar power,² in his list of twenty reasons (subsequently pared down to seventeen) why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Robock, Alan. ³20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea.² Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64 (2008): 1418, 59. Alan might have change his mind about optical astronomy since, but a recent article by astronomers Christian Luginbuhl, Constance Walker, and Richard Wainscoat [in Physics Today 62 (2009): 3237] discusses the rapid growth of light pollution from ground-based sources, suggesting to me that any added aerosols in the atmosphere could also be an unwanted burden on seeing conditions, not from any past volcanic eruption, but from geoengineering and other sources. Remember that geoengineering has been attempted before (in operations Argus and Starfish Prime in near space) and that history matters when it comes to policy decisions, since everything seems to be unprecedented when you don¹t read history. Jim On 9/24/10 12:10 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > I am afraid that you appear to have trouble distinguishing between advocates > of geoengineering and advocates of geoengineering research. You write: > > In November 2009 the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology held > hearings on the implications of large-scale climate intervention. I was the > only historian on a panel of five, which included three strong advocates for > geoengineering and a climate modeler who warned of unintended consequences. > > I believe you are characterizing me as a "strong advocate for geoengineering." > I do not consider myself an advocate of geoengineering. > > I have repeatedly stated that I am uncertain whether geoengineering (solar > radiation management) techniques could in fact reduce overall risk, but that > there is potential that it may do so and that therefore we should conduct > relevant research. > > Please do not inappropriately represent my views in your published materials. > > Hyperbolic, sloppy, and misleading statements do not serve to advance a > well-informed discussion. > > Best, > > Ken > > PS. Furthermore, you make a number of scientific statements that appear to be > wrong. For example, perhaps as a historian you can tell me whether the sky was > milky white after Mt. Pinatubo. While you are at it, perhaps you can tell me > what happened to Earth-based astronomical observations after this eruption. > > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:18 AM, James R. Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: >> James Rodger Fleming, ³Weather as a Weapon: The troubling history of >> geoengineering so far,² Slate Magazine, >> >> http://www.slate.com/id/2268232/ -- 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.
