I would also reiterate that the underlying change due to GHGs is the key threat, with SRM and other approaches seeking to moderate this. Expecting a perfect understanding of the intervention options seems to me a bit like doing inspection upon re-inspection of the uniforms of firemen as the house burns down. We have to make sure they will not make the overall situation worse and that is tested in test burns, etc., but expecting to hold back responding to the fire until everything is perfectly understood, rather than making the effort in an adaptive manner, learning as one goes along, seems to me a more appropriate approach.
Mike MacCracken On 9/28/10 9:03 AM, "Dan Whaley" <dan.wha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Statements that essentially say we will never be able to precisely mimic > through testing the effects of full-blown SRM without doing full-blown SRM are > obviously tautological-- as Ken has observed. > > But clearly we can get useful knowledge from models, from proxies (chasing > down new explosions), from history and the paleo record-- and yes, perhaps > also from time series experiments in the real world which are small enough to > be "safe" but large enough to still be "useful". This is what folks that have > and will in the future test OIF are doing. And yes, the ocean is a chaotic > system with innumerable externalities-- but the tests are still incredibly > useful, even if only at 10,000km. > > Hopefully we can get some benefit from these tests and from appropriate tests > of SRM before someone 5, 10 or 20 years from now (or next year) pushes for > full deployment. > > Imagine full blown wildfires here in the US 2x or 3x worse than we've seen > them before, floods 2x or 3x worse than we've seen them. Temperature records > continuing to be broken, with all the stress on electricity grids and chaos in > developed nations that this will create. Pine bark beetles that finally kill > the last tree-- instead of just (!) 75-80% of them. The science tells us > these things are likely coming, and quite soon. > > Some politician (probably here in the states) will finally stand up, sweating > profusely at some conference much like Medvedev did this summer during the > wildfires there, and say "do it." Create a Pinatubo--because we don't know > what all the ramifications will be, but a Pinatubo has got to be better than > this. > > Can we not see this very plausible scenario happening? We've all talked about > it numerous times. > > Is the alternative really better? Namely that we don't do any meaningful > tests at all, or only do them in models, where we get less useful information > (i.e. no observations) and people are less likely to believe the results? > What if we actually end up "needing" these tools, and we haven't done the > engineering work necessary to deploy them? Is this so unbelievable? > > Those who argue against appropriate, limited, regulated field trials of these > techniques seem to have already made up their mind that they cannot provide > any benefit. Because if they could, then isn't the "moral" imperative (since > we've been talking about morals recently) not to stand in the way of a full > scientific vetting of them? Isn't this just as bad (or worse actually) as > those who are accused of being "advocates" for geoengineering (research). > > Dan > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Oliver Morton <oemor...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> Further to Alan, presumably perturbing 10,000km^2 is meant top affect >> a larger area: if cloud seeding only cools the areas where the clouds >> are seeded, without advective transport cooling other places, it's >> going to be of very limited use to people who aren'#t sailors.... >> >> On Sep 28, 4:52 am, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: >>> > Dear John, >>> > >>> > If you only do it for a few days, how will you detect a signal? And how >>> do you know that perturbing 10,000 km2 will not affect a larger area? >>> > >>> > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >>> > Department of Environmental Sciences >>> > Rutgers University >>> > 14 College Farm Road >>> > New Brunswick, NJ 08901 >>> > >>> > rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduhttp://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/ >>> <http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock/> >>> > Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610 >>> > >>> > On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:44 PM, John Latham <john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>> > > Hello Alan and colleagues, >>>> > > I agree with you, Alan, that mounting a comprehensive field study of >>>> the climatological ramifications of the deployment of SRM schemes would be >>>> a mammoth, highly protracted and perhaps impossible endeavour, but I would >>>> like to make the point that field-testing of the cloud brightening >>>> geoengineering idea could be undertaken without significant climatogical >>>> repercussions. >>>> > > A limited area (say 100 x 100 km) field experiment designed to assess >>>> the quantitative viability of this SRM scheme (and at the same time to >>>> examine aerosol-cloud interactions using advertently generated seawater >>>> aerosol) could be conducted without climatically damaging effects since the >>>> lifetime of the generated aerosol in the marine boundary layer is a few >>>> days. Such a study would be very similar to and no more complex than the >>>> highly successful international VOCALS field study of marine stratocumulus >>>> clouds conducted in 2008 off Chile & Peru, and directed by Rob Wood of the >>>> University of Washington. >>>> > > All Best, John. >>> > >>>> > > Quoting Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>: >>> > >>>>> > > > Dear Ken, >>> > >>>>> > > > I think you are being rather picky with words. In any case, I never >>>>> > > > said it cannot be tested. I said it cannot be fully tested in a >>>>> > > > real-world in situ experiment without full-scale implementation, >>>>> > > > because the climate signal will be drowned out by chaotic climate >>>>> > > > variations and because injecting into a pristine stratosphere cannot >>>>> > > > test injecting into an existing cloud. Of course computers can be >>>>> > > > used for testing. That is what I do, and I advocate much more of it. >>>>> > > > The statement below refers to in situ experimentation. >>> > >>>>> > > > Alan >>> > >>>>> > > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) >>>>> > > > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >>>>> > > > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >>>>> > > > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >>>>> > > > Rutgers University Fax: >>>>> +1-732-932-8644 >>>>> > > > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: >>>>> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu >>>>> > > > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA >>>>> http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock <http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> >>> > >>>>> > > > On 9/27/2010 12:00 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: >>>>>> > > >> 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 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu >>>>>> > > >> <mailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> >>>>>> > > >>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeirala...@kencaldeira >>>>>> > > >> -- >>>>>> > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> > > >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>>>> > > >> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>> geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> > > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>>>>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . >>>>>> > > >> 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 >>>>> geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> > > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>>>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . >>>>> > > > For more options, visit this group at >>>>> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > John Latham >>> > >>>> > > lat...@ucar.edu & john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk >>> > >>>> > > Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) & 303-497-8182 (W) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . >> 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 geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
