Maybe good science, but surely not a "test". D W Schnare
On Sep 28, 2010, at 4:24 AM, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > I totally disagree. The ten or more major eruptions that have occurred in the > last 250 years provide masses of information on the worldwide effects of > stratospheric aerosols. They can tell us what happens when we put far too > much up there -Tamboro 1815, or put it too low in the atmosphere Laki 1783 > and when we put just about the right amount well up into the stratosphere > Pinatubo 1991. The fact that we didn't set up these experiments doesn't stop > them from providing useful, detailed scientific data. Alan Robock, Kevin > Trenbreth and those studying the ozone layer have spent years analysing the > effects. > > Among other things, this data can then be used to test and improve the > computer models that we need to plan large scale experiments and ultimately, > implementation. They also lead to David Keiths work on aerosols other than > SO2 (and to my SiO2 suggestion) and to Kens work on latitudinal variation to > reduce regional effects. Hopefully the models can be improved to incorporate > the necessarily local input of cloud brightening. This seems likely to be a > vital tuning input to control regional effects. > > All good solid science -even if we didn't trigger the volcano. > > john gorman > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Schnare > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] ; geoengineering > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:06 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? > > Although I generally agree with Ken in this discussion, I can't agree that > Mt. Pinatubo provided even an imperfect empircal test. It wasn't a test at > all. It was merely an imperfectly observed event. A test, imperfect or > otherwise, presumes a panoply of scientific steps no one took, an perhaps > could not take in that case. In contrast, the Icelandic eruptions are > frequent enough that a competent scientist could develop a test protocol for > the "next big eruption" that actually pushes sulfates high enough into the > atmosphere, and that, while imperfect (failure to control test conditions) > might rise to an imperfect empirical test. > > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Even if you want to say "geoengineering cannot be [empirically] tested > without full-scale implementation" , it is false because there are many > aspects that can be empirically tested short of full-scale implementation. > Didn't Mt Pinatubo provide an imperfect empirical test? Wouldn't a test of a > nozzle be an empirical test? > > 2. I chose the interstate highway system because it is not encapsulated. The > interstate highway system had all kinds of difficult to predict consequences > for the development of suburbia, location of businesses, types of automobiles > sold, spread of McDonalds, etc. Nevertheless, there are many relevant tests > which could be performed (both modeling and observational) prior to full > scale implementation that might have given some insight into these issues. > > It seems to me your claim still comes down to: "The only test of a thing is > the thing itself", which just seems wrong. This concept of "testing" is not > consistent with how science and technology develops. > > We could not fully predict the consequences of building a system of > electricity generation and distribution, yet there were certainly many tests > prior to and during deployment of our electricity system. Certainly, the > deployment of this system had far-reaching and unpredicted consequences (who > would have predicted that that system would one day enable me to send this > email to you). But to say, "An electricity generation and distribution system > cannot be [empirically] tested without full-scale implementation" is just > nonsense. > > If you want to say "X cannot be fully empirically tested without full-scale > implementation," then I might agree to that regardless of whatever X might > be, but then this is a statement about what it means to be "fully empirically > tested" and not a statement about geoengineering. > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Martin Bunzl <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. A model is not an empirical test. The claim in Science is about the > latter not the former. > > 2. The analogy is the interstate system is not apt – these are examples > of modular or encapsulated phenomena that can be tested in relative > isolation, just in the way a medication can be tested on a human subject in > isolation from other humans. For more on this distinction and its > implications see my article in the edition of ERL (which you co-edited): > http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045104 . > > MB > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken > Caldeira > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:11 AM > > > To: [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? > > > Robock et al (Science, 2010) made a categorical statement which is false: > "geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation." > > This statement has no more validity than "the interstate highway system > cannot be tested without full-scale implementation". > > Full-scale implementation provides the most complete test, but it is not the > only test. Your comments below seem to recognize not only the ability to test > in models, but the potential of improving the reliability of these tests. > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Martin Bunzl <[email protected]> wrote: > > As you well know, the reliability of our current climate models at the local > level needs improvement. As such any such claims should be approached with > healthy skepticism. Point 2 below is consistent with adopting such a > skeptical attitude. The only way to short cut the timetable on low density > insertion would be to massively invest in improvements in the power and > accuracy of our climate models at the local level. > > > > From: Ken Caldeira [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? > > > > 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 no -- 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.
