Eugene, I think your use of the word "infantile" to refer to the state of climate science skirts close to the *ad hominem*.
Would you also refer to the "infantile state of the science of turbulence"? Is this vocabulary being used because use think that climate science has tremendous potential for growth and development, or is this word being used with a denigrating tone? If you are intending the former, I suggest you use a word like "nascent", which is less open to mis-interpretation. If you are suggesting that climate scientists lack the maturity and sophistication that characterize scientists working in other fields, I think your characterization is without foundation. I would appreciate it if you would choose your words carefully. 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 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]>wrote: > Andrew: > > > > There are many unknowns due to the infantile state of the climate science. > Whether it is 5-10 years or 25 before warming begins to introduce additional > dangers, some not yet anticipated, there is no doubt it will. No doubt you > heard of Reilly’s addendum to Murphy’s Law. Reilly was a graduate student of > Prof. Murphy. His robust hypothesis was that Murphy was an optimist. > > > > I would bet on upper atmosphere SO2 additions for cooling, since for sure > it works and is relatively easy to implement, and pray there are no > unmanageable consequences. > > > > -gene > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:54 AM > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] Can SRM save our Bacon? > > > > Hi > > I wonder if anyone can shed light on the potential of geoengineering in a > high GHG atmosphere ? > > If we have massive methane excursions from the arctic, will we be able to > create a safe climate? The paleoclimatic record shows dramatic cooling > through volcanism, but that wasn't in a high GHG world . > > If there's a whole load of methane around, there will be a massive polar > amplification. This reduces the ocean over turning circulation , and > potentially lead to an anoxic event, and possibly further methanogenesis. > > I am not sure that, even with a maximal SRM effort, we can avoid the > climate transitioning into a state in which society is unsustainable due > to an anoxic event. > > If this is the case, we potentially have a very brief window in which to > geoengineer, perhaps only five or ten years > > I'd value comments on this. > > Thanks > > A > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
