Ken:
It was not meant to be denigrating just meant to indicate that it is early times. Indeed in science there is a scientific method that in mature stages ends with a Theory. The Theory is a follow-on to a robust hypothesis that has withstood all challenges in the sense that the hypothesis is consistent with and explains all related observation and the Theory allows accurate prediction. I know you know this so I am a bit surprised at your question. Climate science in fact has a long way to go, it is not robust and it cannot predict future change accurately. That is not to say much good work has not been done; but much remains to be done. Maybe immature would have been a better choice. I doubt if I would give ground on 'immature'. It is why I keep insisting that geoengineering must be viewed as a critical contingency and why it must be allowed to build the pieces even if not put in place until clearly needed. -gene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 1:02 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Can SRM save our Bacon? 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] <mailto:geoengineering%[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] <mailto:geoengineering%[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.
