Ken; List and 2 ccs This is to concur in toto with your several messages below in this thread. However, I think this list serves a valuable function and should continue. But, if continued, I think it would be wise to split it into separate SRM and CDR components. I personally would want to be on both lists.
I do not know what other CDR lists exist - but there must be twenty by now for Biochar- and even more Biochar websites. I don't think any of these would be interested in broadening to include the other CDR approaches. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: mmacc...@comcast.net, Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:23:51 PM Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program I think we need to be vigorously investigating every option that can plausibly reduce risk from climate change. So, I very much think we need to be investigating many things that have been called "geoengineering". I do not think that it is helpful, however, to think of this as "a geoengineering program". There are a disparate set of activities that need to be done that do not need close coordination. It makes no sense to me to have a single program covering diverse strategies such as industrialized CO2 capture from air, whitening of clouds, biochar, stratospheric aerosols, biomass cofiring of power plants with carbon capture and storage, etc, etc. These things are just too different to want to place them in something called "a geoengineering research program". Not only is "geoengineering" a vague and ambiguous term, it has also become a pejorative term in many circles. For example, many people who like a particular option, such as reforestation, search for reasons not to call it "geoengineering" -- fearing that that label will make it harder to find funding. I do not think the determination of whether something constitutes "geoengineering" should be relevant to whether research and development funds are allocated to that activity. -- Furthermore, I think that setting "geoengineering" research apart in its own overarching program is a tactical error. In a zero-sum world, people will see "a geoengineering research" program as a threat to their own budgets, and "a geoengineering research program" will become an easy target. I think it much more sensible to recognize that most of what has been called "geoengineering research" is in fact uncontroversial research that most sensible people should think we would want to undertake. And the people who would be doing this research are the same people who are now doing allied scientific and engineering research. Rather than trying to build a big new program that existing programs will see as a threat, we should be working to expand the scope and funding of existing programs so that, for example -- programs that now study transport of fate of particles in the stratosphere would be expanded and directed to consider higher concentrations and a broader range of types of particles -- programs that now study clouds in the lower atmosphere would be expanded and directed to consider effects of introduced cloud-condensation nucleii -- programs that now study the fate of organic carbon in soils would be expanded and directed to consider the fate of biochar -- programs that now study the capture of CO2 from power plant flue gases would be expanded and directed to consider CO2 extraction from much more dilute sources such as the atmosphere -- programs that now study the global and regional climate impacts of natural and inadvertently released aerosols would be expanded and directed to consider intentionally released aerosols -- etc, etc By saying "we don't need a geoengineering research program", I mean to say that research into options that are commonly labeled "geoengineering" should permeate all research programs that aim to understand or reduce risks from climate change. Rather than a separate program, research into these options should be closely integrated into the broader effort to understand and reduce climate risk. -- Greg's point about engineering development is a good one. We do need proof-of-principle engineering studies so that we can filter out the potentially feasible options from the non-starters. For some of these options, we can or should have plans for deployment. At the point that we decide that an option looks promising enough that we want to develop a deployable system, then targeted development programs will be necessary. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Gregory Benford < xbenf...@gmail.com > wrote: When developing the A-bomb, the US realized that the plausible size of plutonium bombs (Fat Man) demanded bigger planes to deliver them. This and other needs drove development of the B-29s, which in fact delivered Fat Man. No other airplane could. When time counts, carving R away from D is generally a mistake. Especially when you don't know the real timescale when you'll need the technology. Gregory Benford On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Mike MacCracken < mmacc...@comcast.net > wrote: Hi Ken—If you had said we don’t need a global geoengineering research program, which is what I think you are talking about, your position would seem perhaps plausible, although I think we do need to figure out what the potential is. However, I think we do really need to be doing research on the potential for applying various of the techniques to limit particular regional impacts, as I suggested in my abstract for the IPCC meeting (copy attached for those who have not seen it). There are already serious impacts occurring that might be addressed (the Arctic, some shifts in storm tracks, etc.), and it seems to me we should be working rapidly to see if there are real possibilities for taking action. Mike MacCracken On 8/4/11 7:10 PM, "Ken Caldeira" < kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > wrote: I believe my intentionally provocative title will not endear me to some folks on this email list, so I present it here with some trepidation. My guess is those who think of SRM as a fitting subject for research will find my comments copacetic. Those who think we should be in the phase of developing deployment systems are likely to be irritated by my remarks. A key sentence is: There appears to be little need for new overarching research structures or institutions at this time for activities for which there are no plans for deployment. Also below is another abstract on climate sensitivity with some relevance to this group. ----------- CONTROL ID: 1207083 TITLE: We Don’t Need a “Geoengineering” Research Program PRESENTATION TYPE: Assigned by Committee (Oral or Poster) CURRENT SECTION/FOCUS GROUP: Union (U) CURRENT SESSION: U20. Geoengineering Research Policy AUTHORS (FIRST NAME, LAST NAME): Ken Caldeira1 INSTITUTIONS (ALL): 1. Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA, United States. ABSTRACT BODY: Most approaches commonly labeled as ‘geoengineering’ can be divided into two categories: approaches that attempt to reduce the change in atmospheric composition caused by anthropogenic emissions (commonly labeled CDR, for Carbon Dioxide Removal), and approaches that attempt to reduce the change in climate caused by changes in atmospheric composition (commonly labeled SRM, for Sunlight Reflection Methods or Solar Radiation Management). CDR is relatively uncontroversial (apart from ocean fertilization), and the primary issues are typically cost, effectiveness, local environmental consequences, and verification. In contrast, SRM has provoked much controversy, because large-scale SRM deployments necessarily would affect everyone on this planet. Several proposals have been tabled for SRM-specific or geoengineering-specific research and governance structures, treating SRM or geoengineering research as a thing apart. We should instead view CDR and SRM research as part of a broader continuum of activities aimed at understanding Earth system dynamics and reducing risks associated with climate change. The scope of existing research efforts should be broadened so that CDR and SRM approaches are, at this stage in development, treated as an extension of what we are already doing. What is ‘geoengineering research’? A primary need at this time is for expansion of scope of and funding for existing climate-related research efforts. For examples: Scientists studying the role of aerosols in clouds or stratospheric processes can expand the domain of concern to consider effects of intentionally introduced aerosols (and not just natural aerosols and aerosols we introduce as a byproduct of civilization’s normal functioning). Scientists studying effects of land-surface change on global and regional climates can expand the domain of concern beyond inadvertent effects to consider effects of land-surface changes undertaken with the intent to affect these climates. Research programs aimed at removing carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases can be broadened to consider industrial approaches to remove carbon dioxide that has already been released to the atmosphere. There appears to be little need for new overarching research structures or institutions at this time for activities for which there are no plans for deployment. Defining the scope of reference of ‘geoengineering’ and related terms (eg, ‘geoengineering experiment’) is a linguistic distraction and a waste of time. We should focus instead on substantive issues of primary concern. If our goal is to reduce risk from scientific experiments, then let’s develop approaches aimed at governing risky experiments. Governance efforts can be aimed at eliminating unjustified risk independently of whether some people might want to apply labels like ‘geoengineering’ to those activities. We do not need ‘a geoengineering research program’. We need to expand existing research programs to consider a broader range of activities and conditions. We do not need efforts to govern ‘geoengineering experiments’ although we may need efforts to govern scientific experiments that pose unjustified risks. Let’s focus on gaining knowledge and managing risks, and not let our brains be addled by emotionally-charged language. ------------ CONTROL ID: 1209062 TITLE: Radiative Forcing and Climate Response: From Paleoclimate to Future Climate PRESENTATION TYPE: Assigned by Committee (Oral or Poster) [Invited] CURRENT SECTION/FOCUS GROUP: Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology (PP) CURRENT SESSION: PP10. Earth System Sensitivity To Radiative Forcings: Lessons From Earth History AUTHORS (FIRST NAME, LAST NAME): Ken Caldeira1, Long Cao1 INSTITUTIONS (ALL): 1. Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA, United States. Title of Team: ABSTRACT BODY: The concept of radiative forcing was introduced to allow comparison of climate effects of different greenhouse gases. In the classic view, radiative forcing is applied to the climate system and the climate responds to this forcing, approaching some equilibrium temperature change that is the product of the radiative forcing times the ‘climate sensitivity’ to radiative forcing. However, this classic view is oversimplified in several respects. Climate forcing and response often cannot be clearly separated. When carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, within days, the increased absorption of longwave radiation begins to warm the interior of the troposphere, affecting various tropospheric properties. Especially in the case of aerosols, it has been found that considering rapid tropospheric adjustment gives a better predictor of “equilibrium” climate change than does the classic definition of radiative forcing. Biogeochemistry also provides additional feedbacks on the climate system. It is generally thought that biogeochemistry helps diminish climate sensitivity to a carbon dioxide emission, since carbon dioxide tends to stimulate carbon dioxide uptake by land plants and the ocean. However, there is potential to destabilize carbon locked up in permafrost and at least some possibility to destabilize methane in continental shelf sediments. Furthermore, wetlands may provide a significant methane feedback. These and other possible biogeochemical feedbacks have the potential to greatly increase the sensitivity of the climate system to carbon dioxide emissions. As time scales extend out to millennia, the large ice sheets can begin to play an important role. In addition to affecting atmospheric flows by their sheer bulk, ice sheets tend to reflect a lot of energy to space. If carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere long enough, there is potential to melt back the large ice sheets, which would add additional warming to the climate system. It is likely that these millennial time-scale feedbacks could double climate sensitivity over that estimated by century-scale models. The inclusion of these feedbacks may be one reason why paleoclimate studies seem to indicate a much higher climate sensitivity than do the current generation of climate models that focus on the physics of century-scale climate change. What is the relevance of “equilibrium” climate change on a dynamic planet? Each gas or aerosol has a different time evolution in the atmosphere, so the time evolution of the climate response to a methane release, an aerosol release, and a carbon dioxide release would be very different, even if they had the same initial radiative forcing (or radiative forcing integrated to some time horizon, as is done in Global Warming Potential calculations). Furthermore, the climate response to emissions of these radiatively active substances will depend, to some extent, on the state of the climate system into which these substances are introduced. Changes in continental positions and altitudes can affect snow and glacier feedbacks. Changes in ocean heat transport can affect cloud properties and the distribution of sea-ice. For many applications, it may be more fruitful to focus on the time-evolution of the climate response to emissions and abandon the concept of climate sensitivity to radiative forcing. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- 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 . -- 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 . -- 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. -- 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.
