Hi Folks, This thread has many aspects which point to the need for a full fledged website dedicated to the full spectrum of GE issues. Hansen et al. is showing a willingness to stretch the norms in scientific writing to maybe express the severity of the situation in terms that the general public (media) may be willing to listen to. The need for innovative educational outreach on this issue has been largely ignored. That lack of an organized media outreach effort is profoundly counter productive.
I once AGAIN call for the creation of a website to provide the coordinated educational outreach effort, provide a more robust stage for debate and provided a unified voice for the field of Geoengineering. On the 15th of August, I will go public with a website which will provide the bare bones structure for "The Journal of Geoengineering Studies". I pledge $300 towards the start up costs and volunteer to look after the "back room IT" details. Other contributions are welcomed. An editorial board comprised of seasoned members of this forum is needed. Future board members can be voted in by the original board. Volunteers and nominations for the editorial board are need to be pulled together before the 15th. The Editor in Chief should be put in place by the original board. This proposed website has been discussed on in this forum and I have had no comments against it. Some members have volunteered to make regular contributions of related content. I will spend the needed cash to organize the basic startup effort, however what happens after that is up to this group. Michael On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com>wrote: > Let’s first go back to the origins of this posting. Emily put up > Hansen’s article and referred to its discussion of sea level. Ken said > that he didn’t like its mixing of policy prescription with scientific > observation. Clearly, Hansen has published hundreds of academic > articles over the decades which do not engage in any sort of “mixing”, > so it should be obvious that his approach is quite intentional. > > So why’s he doing it? I would guess that Hansen, who has been around > the block a time or two within climate-politics, has been changing his > style lately out of a combination of frustration, anger, outrage, > feeling of urgency, his own creativity, etc. The introductory > sentence, calling climate > > “the predominant scientific, economic, political and moral > issue of the 21st century.” (p1) > > sets the tone and justification for his idiosyncratic departure from > academic discourse. And just his general use of language should have > made it quite explicit that he was intentionally trying to access a > mixed audience, embracing academics and non-academics all at once: > > “Ice and snow increased the albedo (literally, the > 'whiteness') of that continent.” (p2) > > He is doing this in order to circumvent the ordinary chain of > communication, because of the fact that the conventional approaches > have not really worked. Ken is not dealing with the relationship > between the content of what Hansen is describing about sea level (for > example), and the non-objective tone of his discourse that he > disapproves of. Subsequent postings here have discussed the clear > divide, perhaps even antagonism, between “descriptive” science and > “prescriptive” policymaking. But what about the more subtle nature of > “proscriptive” metrics that creep into how scientists observe things, > which can then hide simple truths? > > For example: why is it that discussing ‘climate commitment’ is > commonplace and part of the conventional rhetoric of climate > discourse, but discussing ‘sea level commitment’ – a phrase that I've > perhaps coined just now, to mean what Hansen names ‘eventual sea level > rise’ or ‘equilibrium sea level’ in this paper – is almost never > mentioned before the wider public? It is very clear, if the scientists > just do their “describing”, and let themselves get led around into > boxes of what to describe, that the right things will not get said or > understood. Did everyone here read the long article on page one of the > New York Times about sea level rise earlier this year? I’m sure the > Times’ editors saw it as a big risqué exposé, but really it was the > end result of poor scientific focus and its final translation into > inappropriate public messaging. The public is duped into forgetting > that 2100 is not the end of anything, and they are made to think that > sea level might rise 1-3 meters. “Really, wow, that would be > terrible!”, most readers think. But clearly, if you told people that > current climate policy unequivocally consigns all the world’s coastal > cities to go under water sometime a few centuries from now, I suspect > that almost all readers polled on it would say that was an utterly > unacceptable policy. And yet this metric, ‘sea level commitment,’ > could probably be ascertained with far greater accuracy than 21st > century rise. So why isn’t it? You can’t blame the scientists, they’re > just “doing their jobs”, describing things, and being as accurate as > they can be! I hate to say that it reminds me of certain others, some > seven decades ago, just “doing their jobs,” and the implications of > all that. The thing with Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’ idea applied to > the climate today is this: the more utterly banal something is, the > more widespread it can become, finally creating bigger and bigger evil > consequences. Thus, it’s surely no sin to “do one’s job” in science, > but our time urgently calls out for something new to escape the > creeping problems of science communication and miscommunication. “Aux > grands maux, les grands remedes,” say the French, and I’d say I agree > with what Hansen did in this paper, and other recent ones he’s > written, in that our situation calls out for new stylistic approaches, > and the need to break down some of the boundaries imposed by academic > conventions. > > So, now let’s move to the issue of how much urgency there is (well, > the heat index was 126 in my part of Manhattan a couple of days ago!), > and thus how much need for geoengineering there is right now, which is > where this thread gradually drifted. In that area, another harmful > academic boundary – one that I feel urgently needs to get shot down, > which I try to do periodically with this group – underlies many of > the postings here, I feel. Let me attempt this yet again. Let me start > by saying that there is really no firm boundary, and rather just an > artificial construct coming from ‘group think’, between what > constitutes geoengineering and what doesn’t. Based on the NAS > definition of geoengineering, it entails – > > options that would involve large-scale engineering of our > environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in > atmospheric chemistry > > – and so we have been engaging in geoengineering for more than 30 > years now: the catalytic converter in your exhaust system is one > example, the scrubber on your nearest coal plant another. These are > not climate geoengineering, of course, and the irony is that while all > three geoengineering programs thus far enacted (cars’ CO/NOx; coal > plants’ SO2; and the invention of replacements for CFCs) have been > successful, they have each slightly exacerbated warming, since they > were not designed to address it. > > In this group, CCS is generally considered geoengineering, and > acknowledged to be one of the more likely forms to come into actual > practice, for better or for worse. Yet, what I’ve dubbed CCU – “carbon > capture and use” – is never considered geoengineering, although it is > no less so than CCS, much easier to do, doesn't cost much, and is 100% > safe. I mean the trapping of fugitive methane all over the world, some > of which can generate profit and potentially support the costs of the > rest, and has a line-up of thousands of shovel-ready projects all over > the world. The things preventing these projects from happening are > NOT the same as those impeding CO2 emissions controls. A business > model to deal with methane emissions has been developed recently by > GMI – but please study all its details. If they can leverage their > fund (which they don’t have yet) some 37 times, they can still only > achieve less than 1/2 of what is easily practical over the next > decade, which is simply not enough. So something else has to happen. > > I certainly hope that everyone here read the recent UNEP/WMO > Assessment that Mike MacCracken posted a link to a few months back. > There is simply no way that CO2 emissions sources can bring any near- > term climate relief – none before 2040s, even with quite stringent > controls. ALL near-term climate relief through emissions controls can > only come from non-CO2 sources, something I’ve been trying to > emphasize for a while. Methane is by far the largest chunk where we > can claim any certainty about the effect of our actions. SO, if you > really believe that the arctic is spiraling away, the ONLY thing that > is surely ready to help right now is rapid methane controls. This I > take to be an absolute and unequivocal fact. > > I’ve been greatly impressed with the creativity of people in this > group, as well as with their passionate intensity, and their > convictions regarding the urgency of our problem. Just as Hansen has > been trying to break down boundaries, mixing up his Ghandian NVDA and > getting arrested with giving Congressional testimony, mixing up his > policy directives in the middle of his climate papers, etc, I hope > that I can convince those of you most active in this group to mix it > all up a little bit yourselves – just because you’re in a > 'geoengineering group' doesn’t mean that it’s only acceptable to keep > “doing your job” here, in this case coming up with fresh engineering > technologies. Consider putting your creativity and your passion more > globally towards what we have practically at hand at this time to > address the critical situation that you correctly observe. > > As the UNEP paper suggests, some 2/3rds of increased arctic warming > until 2040s can be avoided through methane/BC measures, much like > those I’ve posted about here before. It would reduce arctic warming > by about 0.7˚C in 2040. That might well not be enough to keep the > arctic alive until the mid-century, and almost certainly won’t be > enough to solve the “arctic crisis” indefinitely, and thus I am quite > passionate about all geoengineering research. And of course, as Hansen > has aptly put it, if we’re not planning to get off of fossil fuels > quickly and before using the more “exotic” ones, we’re going to need > to look for another planet. > > But just as Pacala called it “barbaric” here recently to engage in > direct air capture before point-source capture for stationary sources > (i.e. CCS), it would be equally barbaric to engage in potentially > dangerous and costly geoengineering before doing the 100% safe and > free geoengineering that we already have (i.e. methane programs, if > the right financial instruments were created, could pay for themselves > almost entirely over three decades, through the profit streams > generated from the energy-productive portions of the trapped > emissions). Clearly, ‘climate business-as-usual’ will not get the job > done. The literature of the EPA M2M, GMF and now the GMI strongly > suggest that we will need creativity – political, scientific, > technological, economic, communications – to get this job done right. > If we want to reverse or at least suspend arctic destruction, we need > to bring down methane emissions by ~1/3rd, as quickly as possible. It > is doable, the practical sources have been identified, etc. But we > need YOU to help think up creative ways of getting this done! > > > Cheers, Nathan > > > Nathan Currier > 108 Ellwood Street, #43 > New York, NY 10040 > 401-954-3402 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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. > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
