But didn't Robock et al claim to gain knowledge about untoward local precip effects from tests using climate models?
*Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2008: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. **J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16101, doi:10.1029/2008JD010050.** * In the light of this, what is the meaning of phrases such as: *"We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation."*Robock is busy testing geoengineering in his day-to-day work. Obviously, testing the thing itself yields more information than testing something other than the thing itself, but the statement (of which you are co-author) is false as it stands, because there are tests that can be (and have been) performed without full-scale implementation. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Martin Bunzl <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Almost nobody disputes the value of technical experiments to see > for example, how to deliver SO2 and the like. > > 2. Almost everyone agrees that short of planetary wide insertion, it > would be very hard to gain knowledge about untoward local effect (especially > in re precip.) > > 3. Some people suggest that we could get reliable planetary-wide data > re point 2. if we did a low intensity insertion for long enough – say 30 > years. > > > > Martin Bunzl > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira > *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 9:00 AM > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? > > > > Folks, > > Robock et al and Fleming have both asserted that "geoengineering cannot be > tested". > > Robock et al (Science, 2010): *"We argue that geoengineering cannot be > tested without full-scale implementation."* > Fleming (Slate): "*Global climate engineering is untested and > untestable...*" > > These statements seem either trivially true or patently false, depending on > interpretation. > > *Trivially true:* *If the only thing that you are willing to consider a > test is the thing itself, then trivially there is no test other than the > thing itself.* > > *Patently false:* *There are many tests that can be done that can help us > understand possible consequences of a geoengineering deployment.* > > One could imagine someone saying in the United States in the 1950's, "There > is no way you can test the proposed interstate highway system, because you > will not understand all its effects until it has been deployed." This is > true, in the sense that you could not predict in advance detailed effects > that the interstate highway system would have on the spread of suburbia, > traffic jams, the rise of the SUV, and so on. > > But, in the 1950's they could have tested the concrete, built a small > stretch of road and learned about its construction and use etc. Would we say > "*The interstate highway system cannot be tested without full-scale > implementation?*" Would we say "T*he interstate highway system is untested > and untestable?*" I think we would say, "There are plenty of tests we can > do, but of course we will not understand the full consequences of our > implementation until the implementation is complete." > > We perform tests to improve our understanding. We never have full > understanding of consequences of our actions before we act. We hopefully act > in ways that will have the greatest rational expectation of positive > outcomes. We do research to avoid having rational expectations that do not > accord with facts on the ground. > > Many people have regarded Mt Pinatubo as performing a natural experiment of > geoengineering -- a test of the idea of solar radiation management. Like all > tests, Mt Pinatubo was not a perfect test (e.g., the aersols were not > maintained in the stratosphere, etc). Nevertheless, Mt Pinatubo has > functioned as a natural test of some of the concepts underlying solar > radiation management. > > In 2003, Alan Robock wrote a paper called "Introduction: Mt. Pinatubo as a > test of climate feedback mechanisms". ( > http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf). How is > it logically possible that Mt Pinatubo could function as a test of climate > feedback mechanisms, but not of geoengineering (ie SRM), when those climate > feedback mechanisms are central to the climate system response to any > geoengineering effort? > > Furthermore, hasn't Alan claimed to have tested geoengineering concepts in > his climate models and found them wanting? How can you have it both ways: > testing geoengineering concepts and claiming the concepts are untestable? > > The list of possible useful geoengineering tests could be a long one, and > includes tests of small scale physics, climate model simulations, > observations of climate variability, ecosystem experiments, observations of > behavior of natural or introduced particles on stratospheric transport and > chemistry, small scale or short-term deployments, etc. (I am not advocating > all of these, just listing them.) > > It seems odd, when there are a number of people eager to perform a wide > range of tests on geoengineering concepts, to have a small minority claiming > that these concepts simply can't be tested (especially when members of that > minority have themselves been involved in testing geoengineering concepts). > > So, do the people who say that "geoengineering can't be tested" mean > something that is both true and substantive (i.e., couldn't also have been > said of, for example, the development of the US interstate highway system)? > If so, it would be interesting to hear what this non-trivial interpretation > might be. > Best, > > Ken > > > ___________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- > 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.
