There appears to be a veiled reluctance to allow geoengineering-related experimentation by those who oppose the technology, simply on the grounds that it will further knowledge and then ultimately lead to deployment.
I sense particularly in the arguments from ETC group a determination to persist in ignorance of the possibilities of the technology. This is sometimes dressed up as a legitimate fear of damage from experimentation. However, there have been no credible arguments brought to my attention that the peturbations needed for experimentation on scales sufficient to deal with our current paucity of knowledge will have any meaningful effect on climate. I fully accept the need for caution, in that you wouldn't want to disrupt a critical animal migration, nor rain out the superbowl, but I don't see that such outcomes are likely from the small interventions needed at this stage. It seems to me that opponents of geoengineering are simply trying to maintain ignorance in the belief that this will encourage mitigation. There are two main problems with this argument. Firstly, the lack of a geoengineering option to date hasn't prevented humankind taking suicidal risks with the climate. Secondly, should we later have to deploy geoengineering to avert an otherwise inevitable planetary catastrophe, then we are far more likely to mess it up really badly if we try and develop, model and deploy the technology in a massive rush - likely at the same time as dealing with whatever horseman of the apocalypse has precipitated the crisis. I just don't see how the neo-luddite arguments of those who oppose experimentation to preserve our blissful ignorance of scary geoengineering can stand up to logical scrutiny. Even if we were cutting emissions rapidly (which we're not), then we would still likely need geoengineering available for precautionary reasons at the very least. But that's a 'best case' scenario. What's the worst case? Looking back, we've not done a great job of either controlling emissions, predicting their trajectory, nor have be successfully modelled or even estimated the climate's sensitivity. Historically, things turned out far worse than the scientific community has been willing to predict openly. In my view, there's still a very significant risk that, even with emissions cuts, we could still end up wiping out most or all life on earth with a re-run of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. The fact that in the real world (rather than the fantasy world of rapid emissions cuts) we're aggressively racing towards such a scenario suggests very clearly that we need the 'Manhattan project' John Nissen speaks of so fondly. There is, in my view, no defensible argument against experimentation. A On 7 November 2010 13:41, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > Prof. Robock: > For gosh sakes; is a carefully designed experiment that puts an amount of > SO2 into the atmosphere that is far less than typical from a volcanic > eruption a deliberate pollution? Unfortunately one does not know in advance > where to position sensors for studying the solar flux reduction and > pollution from a volcanic eruption. Volcanoes don't signal in advance, > hence > a carefully designed minimally or non polluting experiment not involving a > volcano would be appropriate. Aircraft produce pollution; should we stop > flying or designing and building new aircraft. Should we stop designing and > building new vehicle engines because they necessarily produce pollution. > Wind turbines do kill birds but so do high rise building. Lunar (tide) > turbines kill fish, so do fishermen. No doubt solar cells have a down side > because building them is polluting. Should we stop building? You know the > answers as well as the rest of us. I think your arguments are off the wall > and reveal a deep-seated bias against doing the necessary precursor > scientific work for climate control that could provide a later basis for > decision making. Look inward; recognize your bias and stop writing such > silly stuff. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Robock > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 8:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Climate Intervention > Subject: Re: [clim] In what ways did stratospheric aerosols from Mt > Pinatubo > affect biodiversity? > > Dear Tom, > > I don't get the parallel. Any renewable energy, including solar > (ruining the desert ecosystem), wind (birds), and nuclear, has its > negative aspects. In every case, those aspects have to be considered. > But they are different from deliberate pollution to do a field test or > implementation of SRM. > > > 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: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > > On 11/6/2010 7:28 PM, Tom Wigley wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Hmmmm. How about this example. Suppose we move to a nuclear > > future (or follow any mitigation pathway). This will change the > > climate, and the changes are just as uncertain as for any > > "traditional" geoengineering case -- perhaps more uncertain in > > absolute terms. And not all currently anticipated climate changes > > are "good". > > > > These would be deliberate changes, just like geoengineering (more > > directly like CDR than SRM of course). And the motive (reducing > > future climate change) is the same in both cases. > > > > It seems to me that this situation (mitigation in general) is no > > different from geoengineering. > > > > So should we not apply the same "experiment" rules to mitigation > > as for geoengineering? > > > > I mentioned nuclear specifically because there are still people > > who think that this pathway has some serious detrimental side > > effects -- broadening the parallel with geoengineering. However, > > most mitigation options also have detrimental side effects -- it > > is just that they are not as well publicized as those claimed for > > nuclear. One of the better books on these side effect issues is > > Jeff Eerkens' "The Nuclear Imperative". > > > > Tom. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Alan Robock wrote: > >> Dear Ken, > >> > >> But if the field experiment has environmental consequences, we are > >> still left with the ethical and governance questions of what scale is > >> allowable and how we determine this. What temporal, spatial, and > >> amount of injection scales are just nozzle tests? How do we draw > >> those lines? Who decides, especially in the open ocean or in the > >> stratosphere, where there are no current rules? > >> > >> 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: > [email protected] > >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA > http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > >> > >> > >> On 11/6/2010 11:11 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > >>> Roger Pielke Jr and Eugene Gordon to raise an interesting and > >>> potentially important point. > >>> > >>> If, in the popular mind and also in the writing of Alan Robock and > >>> others, "geoengineering experiment" is taken to mean an experiment > >>> with significant and detectable large-scale climate consequences, > >>> then process studies aimed at generating relevant understanding are > >>> not "geoengineering experiments" and should perhaps have some other > >>> moniker. > >>> > >>> Thus a test of a seawater spray nozzle would be simply a nozzle > >>> test, not a "geoengineering experiment". If the experiment itself > >>> does not rise to the level of being geoengineering itself, ie, does > >>> not rise to the level of producing significant and detectable > >>> climate consequences, then it may be relevant to geoengineering, but > >>> would not be referred to using the term "geoengineering experiment" > >>> which would be reserved for experiments whose effects would be > >>> considered "geoengineering". > >>> > >>> ___________________________________________________ > >>> Ken Caldeira > >>> > >>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > >>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > >>> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Eugene I. Gordon > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> As a physicist I am stunned by this discussion. Maybe this is > >>> semantic but > >>> perhaps looking at these experiments in a different way would be > >>> useful. > >>> > >>> These experiments are not climate engineering experiments but > >>> should be > >>> characterized as basic and very limited area physical experiments > >>> designed > >>> to have no harm on climate or biodiversity or anything else; and > >>> which could > >>> shed some light (a pun) on potential (future maybe) climate > >>> engineering > >>> techniques. > >>> > >>> The goal of these experiments should be to measure the reduction > >>> in solar > >>> optical flux in a wavelength band that does most of the direct > >>> heating of > >>> the Earth's surface. It would be done in a limited area where > >>> solar flux > >>> detectors to measure incident radiation are set up on ships or > >>> on the > >>> ground. The insertion would disperse and the solar flux reduction > >>> would get > >>> smaller and that also would be useful information. So out of the > >>> experiments > >>> we get amount of reduction versus initial concentration of the > >>> inserted > >>> material versus time constant of dispersal. There might be other > >>> data that > >>> could be mined and I leave that to those with more skills and > >>> information > >>> than me. > >>> > >>> Definitely not a climate engineering experiment. It is a basic, > >>> safe, > >>> physics/chemistry experiment that could be useful in future climate > >>> engineering discussions. Or is discussion unsafe? > >>> > >>> -gene > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> [mailto:[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Roger > >>> Pielke, Jr. > >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:58 PM > >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Climate Intervention > >>> Subject: Re: [clim] In what ways did stratospheric aerosols from > >>> Mt Pinatubo > >>> affect biodiversity? > >>> > >>> Ken- > >>> > >>> I am confused. What is the point of doing climate engineering > >>> experiments if they have no discernible or even very small impacts? > >>> > >>> Perhaps I am unclear as to what is considered such an > >>> experiment. But > >>> if it involves some intervention in the physical world, it will > >>> certainly have discernible impacts. As such it would probably > >>> be best > >>> to argue that the impacts are acceptable given the benefits, > >>> akin to a > >>> typical EIA. We do all sorts of interventions in the earth system > >>> with profound impacts on ecosystems, many of them negative. > >>> That in > >>> itself is not a barrier to intervention. > >>> > >>> To argue that the impacts of climate engineering will be small > >>> absent > >>> actual evidence for that being the case would seem to play right > >>> into > >>> the hands of folks with agendas like ETC (remember GM maize). > >>> What is > >>> needed is a protocol for conducting a geoengineering experiment > >>> EIA. > >>> I am unaware of any such protocol, but I'd guess someone is > >>> thinking > >>> along these lines. > >>> > >>> All best, > >>> > >>> Roger > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Ken Caldeira > >>> <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > For the folks who are concerned about the possible implications > >>> of climate > >>> > engineering experiments for biodiversity, it would be useful to > >>> document > >>> > harm to biodiversity that resulted from Mt Pinatubo's particles > >>> in the > >>> > stratosphere. > >>> > > >>> > Mt Pinatubo is not a good analog for intentional climate > >>> engineering but > >>> it > >>> > is the closest thing we have in many respects. Most real near-term > >>> > experiments would be expected to be orders of magnitude smaller > >>> than Mt > >>> > Pinatubo's aerosol insertion, so one might guess the impacts on > >>> biodiversity > >>> > would also be orders of magnitude smaller. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ___________________________________________________ > >>> > Ken Caldeira > >>> > > >>> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > >>> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > >>> > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >>> Google Groups > >>> > "Climate Intervention" group. > >>> > To post to this group, send email to > >>> [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. > >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> > [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:climateintervention%[email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > >. > >>> > For more options, visit this group at > >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en. > >>> > > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups > >>> "Climate Intervention" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to > >>> [email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> > >>> [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > >>> <mailto:climateintervention%[email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > >. > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >>> Groups "Climate Intervention" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to > >>> [email protected]. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > . > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>> http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en. > >> > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups "Climate Intervention" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Climate Intervention" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Climate Intervention" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<climateintervention%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?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.
