Hi, On re-reading Ken's original email, it does appear that I perhaps missed the gist of what he was saying. However, I largely stand by my viewpoint. You wouldn't cross a busy road blindfold, but that is exactly what we're doing with climate change. There is a significant possibility that we are about to unleash a warming event which at the very least will cause overwhelming disruption to civilisation, with changes similar to the PETM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event, and possibly to the PT Extinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event , both of which appear to have been caused by the excursion of large amounts of carbon from reservoirs, with a significant fraction resulting from the destabilization of methane deposits. This is pretty much exactly the situation we have now, with fossil fuels triggering methane release from permafrost.
We are making decisions in an information vacuum at present - akin to crossing the road blindfold. Estimates of methane sources and reservoirs are poorly constrained at present. We have limited capacity to model carbon excursions from reservoirs, with submarine reservoirs being particularly poorly understood. Crucially, we are not able to establish the fraction of any excursion which will be in the form of methane. We are therefore unable to satisfactorily model a process which poses a significant risk of a runaway warming event. The paper reported here shows a 100GT flux from permafrost, a significant fraction of which may be methane, in contrast to the study's conservative assumptions. Submarine clathrates are also vulnerable: http://hal-sde.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00297882/ in which Archer states that the excursions from clathrate stores are comparable to those from fossil fuel reserves - but they are of course far more damaging as methane. We are facing a warming far faster and far larger than society is prepared for, because the methane risk has been played down in a cascade of conservative assumptions. My take on conservative assumptions are ones that help stop me dying, not those that exacerbate the risk! If the climate science community does not shout this risk from the rooftops, who will? A PS NB moved to geo as per Ken's decision. On 15 March 2011 18:16, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew-- > > What leads you to think that Ken is blase about the risks? Having > listened to him closely over the last five years, I give him credit > for being out in front of nearly everyone in his understanding and > communication of risk. If I recall correctly, risk reduction is his > primary justification for research into GE. Though I acknowledge > these aren't the same risks you're describing, I think the argument is > much more powerful stated this way. > > What I read above is his very human understanding of where people are > at and the realities of communicating with them. I assume you > listened to Tony Leiserowitz's talk at Asilomar-- the most important > attention we can focus is on where people are at, category by > category, and what it will take to shift them. Different arguments > work for different people. We all need to think more carefully about > just who it is we're talking to. Who are the real stakeholders and > influencers that can unlock the policy and budget obstacles to put a > powerful research program into place, and how does one communicate to > them, both publicly and privately, in order to make that happen? > > Having Ken run around advocating the coming of the next apocalypse is > not going to move the needle. It will marginalize the GE community as > a whole and make it easier to dismiss. Having said that, perhaps its > useful to have a few people lie closer to that fringe, so that the > rest of the voices sound more rational by comparison. > > By the way, the litmus you require for falsifiability will never be > met--future conditions like that rarely are. You might take a closer > look at your statement. After all, mass extinctions have happened > before, and will almost certainly happen in the future, regardless of > human impacts. When the next one happens, will that have made you > right? > > Dan > > > On Mar 15, 10:46 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ken, > > > > I think you are blase about the risks. I think we could be about to > repeat > > the 'great dying' and come close to wiping out all or almost all > advanced > > life on earth. > > > > Until someone can prove this is not going to happen, I won't rest. > > > > We need to properly model the methane feedback to constrain the risk. > > > > A > > On 15 Mar 2011 17:38, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I care a lot about relatively undisturbed natural environments and am > > averse > > > to long-term and largely irreversible risks. > > > > > On the other hand, even if the United States could somehow magically > cease > > > all CO2 emissions today, there is a good chance this would have no > > > detectable influence on climate in my lifetime. > > > > > At the same time, millions of Americans are out of work or > underemployed. > > We > > > are engaged in bloody wars without clear objectives and no end in > sight. > > > National debt is ballooning out of control. Crime and drugs are endemic > > > problems in the inner cities. People are insecure about health care and > > how > > > they will finance their retirement. > > > > > It is quite understandable that people would want to see near term > returns > > > on their investments and would not worry very much about problems that > are > > > unlikely to affect them personally in any clearly discernible way. > > > > > --- > > > > > I am OK with people arguing against investing significant resources to > > > address issues of climate change on the basis that their values differ > > from > > > mine (i.e., different levels of risk aversiveness, different effective > > > discount rates, etc). > > > > > What I am not OK with is arguments against investing these resources > that > > > depend on trying to undermine well-established scientific facts. If we > do > > > not share facts, political discourse becomes corrupted (which has of > > course > > > happened in this country). > > > > > People opposed to doing something about climate change have decided > that > > it > > > is good tactics to get people to question well-established scientific > > facts. > > > While this tactic might help them win this particular battle, as a > society > > > it could cause us collectively to lose the war. > > > > > --- > > > > > I would like to see us try to develop a discourse in which we are > generous > > > and assume (until shown otherwise) that we share the goal of improving > > human > > > well-being while protecting the environment, but that we differ about > how > > > best to achieve these objectives. (Next, I'll start singing John Lennon > > > songs: "You may say I'm a dreamer .."). > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Lane, Lee O. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> Roger, > > > > >> Your point about the issue not hinging on more expert supplied > > >> facts seems exactly right. > > > > >> What matters most is not what people *think* about the science; it is > > what > > >> they *feel* about the problem. The latter constrains political > behavior. > > >> Some of the world political economy research shows that epistemic > > knowledge > > >> has remarkably little impact on the way that international regimes > > function > > >> and behave. I would be very surprised if the same were not also true > of > > >> domestic politics. > > > > >> Year after year, the series of Gallup polls keep telling us that US > > voters, > > >> compared to the way they feel about other issues, simply do not much > care > > >> about climate change. Office seekers must heed the priorities of the > > >> selectorate, and the selectorate, in this case, cares a lot more about > > other > > >> things than they do about climate change, and that generalization is > even > > >> more true in economic hard times. The public's relative indifference > has > > >> withstood several scare movies and ever so many 'expert' claims that > this > > or > > >> that disaster *proved* that the end is nigh. I wouldn't bet on this > > aspect > > >> of things changing any time soon. > > > > >> Best, > > > > >> Lee > > > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> *From:* Roger Pielke, Jr. [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> *Sent:* Tue 3/15/2011 10:29 AM > > >> *To:* [email protected] > > >> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira; Lane, Lee O.; > [email protected] > > >> *Subject:* Re: [clim] Re: From ClimateWire -- PUBLIC OPINION: > Americans' > > >> concern about global warming still cooling -- poll > > > > >> Hi Ken- > > > > >> It is easy for experts to look down their noses at a general public > who > > >> does not share their particular expertise. However, on subjects > outside > > >> their own narrow specialized expertise, experts are generally as dumb > as > > the > > >> general public (except that they often have more confidence in their > > >> incorrect beliefs;-). > > > > >> The fact is that the public will never be expert in every topic for > which > > >> society must make decisions, it is a logical impossibility. So as EE > > >> Schattsschneider, the political scientist, well-articulated a half > > century > > >> ago, the political challenge is one of making good use of experts in a > > >> society where hundreds of millions of people get to participate in the > > >> democratic process. > > > > >> One way this is done is that experts bring policy options to the > public > > for > > >> debate and decision. Bringing evermore facts to the debate is not > > helpful. > > >> The lack of debate over viable options is what is holding back the US, > > not > > >> an ignorant public. > > > > >> Society routinely makes decisions on complex topics characterized by > > mixed > > >> public opinion and low public understanding. Compared to other such > > >> situations (see my discussion in The Climate Fix) the state of public > > >> opinion on climate is not at all an obstacle to effective action. > > > > >> On the other hand, complaining about the ignorant masses may be > > cathartic. > > > > >> All best, > > > > >> Roger > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Ken Caldeira < > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> Here is a Gallup Poll saying that 40% of American's "believe" in > > >>> biological evolution. > > > > >>> > http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx > > > > >>> So, perhaps we can say that in the American mind, the fact that > humans > > >>> cause climate change is more certain than biological evolution. > > > > >>> Of course, all of this points to shocking scientific illiteracy on > the > > >>> part of the American populace. We are a modern nation mired in > medieval > > >>> beliefs. > > > > >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> *This ClimateWire story was sent to you by: *[email protected] > > > > >>>> *Personal message:* I don't know if the article will transmit this > way, > > >>>> but it seems to me to have the right focus. First, concern is way > down. > > >>>> Second, the partisan split continues to be very deep. Third, the > > >>>> electorate's beliefs about causation (nuclear power plants, spray > cans) > > >>>> shows that they remain incorrigibly ignorant. If you follow the poll > > results > > >>>> through time, you will know that the plunge in concern has happened > in > > the > > >>>> past when the economy turned down. The numbers NEVER, though, > approach > > those > > >>>> for issues that people really care about like employment, health > care, > > and > > >>>> national security. > > >>>> [image: ClimateWire] <http://www.climatewire.net/> > > >>>> An E&E Publishing Service > > >>>> PUBLIC OPINION: Americans' concern about global warming still > cooling > > >>>> -- poll (Tuesday, March 15, 2011) Christa Marshall, E&E reporter > > > > >>>> The percentage of Americans who say they are concerned about global > > >>>> warming and think it's a man-made problem remains at much lower > levels > > than > > >>>> a few years ago, Gallup reported yesterday. > > > > >>>> In its annual survey of environmental attitudes, the polling > > organization > > >>>> found that 51 percent of adults say they worry "a great deal" or a > > "fair > > >>>> amount" about the phenomenon, compared to 66 percent three years > ago. > > > > >>>> Similarly, the percentage of Americans who say that the seriousness > of > > >>>> global warming is exaggerated, 43 percent, is 8 points higher than > in > > 2008. > > >>>> Less than half of those surveyed say that global warming has > "already > > begun > > >>>> to happen," compared to 61 percent three years ago. > > > > >>>> Meanwhile, the percentage believing that increases in the Earth's > > >>>> temperature result from human pollution dropped almost 6 points over > > the > > >>>> same time frame, from 58 percent to 52 percent. > > > > >>>> "Americans are clearly less concerned about global warming and its > > >>>> effects than they were a few years ago," Gallup said in a statement. > > "While > > >>>> concerns across various measures did not continue to trend downward > > this > > >>>> year, they generally held stable near historical lows." > > > > >>>> The level of worry about global warming hovered above 60 percent > > between > > >>>> 2006 and 2009, with a steep decline occurring last year. > > > > >>>> There are various explanations for the drop in concern, Gallup said, > > >>>> including the economic downturn and the inclination of Americans to > > worry > > >>>> less about environmental problems under Democratic presidents. The > > >>>> organization also hinted that "controversies about the integrity of > the > > data > > >>>> and analysis offered by global warming proponents" could be at play > in > > >>>> public attitudes. > > >>>> Awareness grows even as concern drops > > > > >>>> The so-called "Climategate" scandal, in which leaked e-mails in > > November > > >>>> 2009 showed bickering among climate scientists, coincided with some > of > > the > > >>>> drop in worry about the issue. > > > > >>>> Echoing many previous surveys, there remains a sharp partisan split > in > > >>>> public opinion, with 72 percent of Democrats saying they worry a > great > > deal > > >>>> or fair amount about warming temperatures, compared to 31 percent of > > >>>> Republicans. Independents are in the middle, at 51 percent. > > > > >>>> The poll also found that Americans' claims of understanding and > > awareness > > >>>> about the issue have increased over time, even as concern about it > has > > >>>> dropped. Eighty percent of adults now say they understand the issue > > "very > > >>>> well" or fairly well, a jump of 11 percentage points from a decade > ago. > > > > >>>> Even so, other research shows that Americans may not be as aware as > > they > > >>>> think. > > > > >>>> An analysis from the Yale Project on Climate Change released last > > month, > > >>>> for example, *reported*< > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > 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]. > 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.
