It is almost 20 years since I was a professor of ophthalmology in the ophthalmology department at UMDNJ. Many different research topics came under ‘ophthalmology’. My research was on rabbit corneas. Others worked on retinas. The point is that many disparate sorts of activities were linked under ophthalmology. Ophthalmology was not a closely linked program and no one argued that it was. But there were all kinds of programs in the same department without a problem. I think there is a natural relationship between people trying to understand natural and manmade factors in climate and those trying to do something about it. However, there is some natural cleavage with respect to climate science and geoengineering; so what is the best way to organize depends on the people.* My instinct is to go it alone.
* I don’t think we should generalize how we should organize on related topics. When I was a graduate student in physics at MIT we worked closely with the EE department and one of the EE professors was a reader on my thesis. Different departments for related topics worked too. However, there is a physics society and an Institute of electrical and electronic engineering. From: kcalde...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 6:24 PM To: euggor...@comcast.net Cc: gorm...@waitrose.com; natcurr...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program Responding mostly to Nathan Currier's comments: 1. I do not think it is helpful to research programs to link together very disparate sorts of activities and try to give the appearance that they represent a closely integrated program. So, regardless perception, I do not think "a geoengineering research program" makes much sense. 2. While there is a blurring of boundaries, we can divide research and development activities into "research" and "development". It is healthy for research to be distributed across the research establishment (universities, national labs, etc) for a number of reasons, including: (a) much of the research is of a disciplinary nature, and best done by disciplinary experts, (b) bureaucracies, once created, have their own survival and expansion as their overriding imperative, thus there will be political pressure to obtain positive results that can justify larger budgets, (c) part of the goal of research is to poke holes in ideas and think up new ideas and these goals are aided by a bit of anarchy. For out-of-the-box thinking and for evaluative functions, however, there is much to be said for a distributed approach. 3. In recommending a distributed approach to research, I am not recommending an "under the radar" approach, in that all of these funding decisions will require congressional action if they are going to be of meaningful scale. While the research needs some inter-agency coordination, I don't think the research requires significant new bureaucracy or new institutions. 4. There is a political strategy here as well. By emphasizing the distributed nature of the research, and the use of existing research institutions, I would like as many research institutions as possible to see researching the more promising options as an opportunity rather than a threat. 5. Development efforts do require close coordination, and if society has come to the decision that we would like to develop a deployment capability for some technology, then it makes sense to have a development program centered on that technology (or approach). For example, may make sense to have a "reforestation program" or a "stratospheric aerosol dispersal program" but it is hard for to me to imagine why anyone would want a single program spanning these two activities. So, I am for development programs if and when a decision is made to develop a deployable system. 6. If there is to be an overarching coordination of relevant research activities, it could be under the rubric "climate change risk management" or something like that, and could encompass emissions reduction, SRM, CDR, and adaptation. I could also imagine a sensible program organized around addressing specific risks (methane degassing, multiple simultaneous crop failures, rapid sea level rise, etc), which would then take into consideration the full spectrum of approaches to diminishing risks associated with these "failure modes". Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Eugene Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote: I agree that little is known and disagree that widespread public acceptance is needed. Public acceptance is not the issue. The public in general does not have the intellect or attention span to understand the issue of global warming except what they see in scare movies. Geoengineering is even more over their heads and one finds little lay discussion of geoengineering other than in specialty blogs. I count 2 lay articles in the NY Times during the last 10 years. I have seen several TV programs on geoengineering on specialty channels. The entire issue is political, economic, business opportunity, and scientific. For example my wife now understands solar cells because we see them all over the landscape here in NJ, but otherwise could care less. -gene -----Original Message----- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Gorman Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:45 AM To: natcurr...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program I strongly agree with everything in this-and in Mike McCrackens post and attachment of 04.18 on 5th Aug One thing that you academics in the field may not be aware of. At least 99% of well educated professional people have never heard the word geoengineering. I cant think of a single case in the last year or two, where I have mentioned my interest to some social group, where anyone had previously heard of geonegineering or such possibilities. Wide public knowledge doesnt exist and as Nathan said "In the end, geoengineering could/should never get deployed unless there is widespread acceptance." john gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Currier" <natcurr...@gmail.com> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:39 AM Subject: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program Hi Ken, It seems your inspiration in this is largely a defensive one. In essence you’re suggesting that organized objection to geoengineering will be too great an impediment, and that if there’s this pejorative connotation that’s grown around “geoengineering,” then let’s get the needed research done under the radar and get around geoengineering adversaries through different add-ons to established research programs, etc. Perhaps that should be one track, sure, but not the only one. In the end, geoengineering could/should never get deployed unless there is widespread acceptance. If the very word has become so stigmatized that one is afraid to deal with it publicly, how can one proceed? Clearly, there needs to be broad change in its image. Another response to the current situation could be to try to push back against the geoengineer-demonizers and attempt, say, to start a media campaign to help the image of geoengineering, and to get broader comprehension of the facts. Sure, image campaigns can take huge sums of money, but without having any money to speak of at all, the anti-geoengineering folks are getting quite far with their message – because they are really the only ones putting out a message meant for the general public. There need to be some pro-geoengineering advocay groups out there. Right now, if you google geoengineering, you get “geoengineeringwatch.com” right near the top, just after Wikipedia. It’s absurd. Perhaps the new website Michael’s been talking about should be “Geoengineering.com” and be a simple first step in this direction, a site devoted to debunking the demonizers’ hyperbolic nonsense, to helping public understanding of climate engineering, and to putting forth a well-balanced description of it, its real risks, etc. It could be one very inexpensive way of starting to correct that situation..... In some cases, when need be, it also might be better to simply accept having both enemies and supporters, then to avoid having enemies by existing only in the shadows. And I also think in your title, the biggest open question is the “need” part. The real question is how fast one needs to develop things now. Let me give an example: a few months ago I was having an exchange with Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley. I felt he wasn’t taking good account of aerosol negative forcings in something he said, and he shot back, “This is what you do about aerosols,” and sent me a proposal that they have drawn up at Langley for what wouldl be the largest and most advanced chamber for cloud/aerosol studies (maybe I should post it here?.....). Anyhow, my first thought was – wow, that’s just what’s needed for those who want to develop aerosol SRM. But then, my second thought: wait, there is no thought at all of getting such a thing operational in less than a decade, minimum. And it’s hard to imagine anyone pushing for expediting it, unless perhaps you could convince the right people of the need of the geoengineering implications of it. So, what if things progress very rapidly in the arctic, and there's nothing ready to deal with it? Lastly, if there were no organized objections to have to fight against, I bet that you would agree that a program devoted to geoengineering research could possibly expedite greatly getting the minimal answers you’ll need to just those problems you’ll face in getting a functional program up and running soon (indeed, many things discussed on this list, like approaches to combining Latham's idea w/ aerosol SRM, go quite against what you're saying here, and demand a unified approach to research, it seems to me). I didn’t enjoy the exchanges about the Manhattan project, and this is August 6th, so I won’t go there, but to take a different example - the lunar missions - it’s a little like Buckminster Fuller’s talking about a “critical path.” That critical path demanded lots of feeding back on itself. It’s fine to have separate bits of research done on aerosol size issues, various aerosol/aerosol interactions or whatever, but as Stuart Kaufmann has said, “Idea space is infinite,” so you can get lots of valid and even relevant information without getting the needed job done, which really only comes about when you are constantly getting your hands dirty, revising the very questions that you ask yourself, and keeping looking back at the big picture, always geared towards your goal....... cheers, Nathan -- 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 <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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 <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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 <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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.
