Ron, Thank you for your substantive comments.
You are correct that we are talking only about SRM and Marchetti spoke only about an approach to carbon storage -- something that today many (most?) people would not consider to be 'geoengineering'. My own view is that the term 'geoengineering' is not particularly useful as it refers to an odd collection of things. I think it is impossible to define a set of properties for which there would be wide agreement that all things with those properties are 'geoengineering' and no things without those properties are 'geoengineering'. Best, Ken PS. Thanks also for your stylistic comments on our videos. We are trying out this idea of making videos in an effort to improve communication. I agree that the conversational style is more engaging than having one person speak. _______________ 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 See our *YouTube:* Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate forcing: Ken Caldeira <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE> Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near Zero <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:11 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken (cc List, adding Ken's co-author, Doug and Ms Brachatzek): > > 1. This is foremost to thank you for making and supplying the short > videos. I found both helpful and they encouraged me to also look at the > paper - unusual since I am not usually looking (lack of time, not interest) > that closely at the SRM side of Geoengineering. > > 2. Of the 12 videos I found at your site, I believe only the second > below had two participants. I thought that was effective - and encourage > you to do more with that back-and-forth format. > > 3. Your last few minutes in the joint dialog I thought was the most > informative, where I believe you and Doug agreed that it was very unlikely > to ever see serious SRM testing (and your reasoning seems correct). You > both seemed to agree however that SRM could still occur - if we get to a > certain point (Doug mentioned 20 years - and this seems reasonable). But > this reasoning seems like a reason to forget SRM altogether - as a main > rationale for SRM has been that it could be accomplished quickly. And I > have, until this paper, been thinking it might be put in safely enough. The > uncertainty Doug found about (for instance) rainfall impacts in India, > strikes me as pretty strong proof that the impacts are almost certain to be > negative for some groups/countries. Did I miss something? Is there > anything in this paper that SRM proponents would find supportive? > > 4. In the last minute, Ken called attention to the Cesare Marchetti > first use of the term "Goengineeering". I don't have access to the main > 2007 paper, but in a 2006 IIASA paper with similar title, he used the term > only to describe CCS - and then only with ocean deposition. The term has > changed a lot. The Marchetti paper is at: > http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RM-76-017.pdf > > 5. But the above required me to also look closely (again, apologies for > repeating myself) for whether there could be confusion in the paper and both > short videos on the differences between "Geoengineering", SRM, and CDR. > There was a slight mention of the second in the first, but the term CDR > never was mentioned (I think). I fear that the (generally accepted to be > much less risky) term CDR will be assumed to have all the same problems as > brought out in this paper by Doug etal. This is therefore a repeat plea > that the term "Geoengineering" be slowly phased out in favor of the two > terms SRM and CDR. (Just as Marchetti's use to mean CCS has > disappeared.) It is also to ask Doug and Ken if there is anything > cautionary in this recent paper that carries over to the world of CDR ? > > 6. I believe that my interpretation of the negative conclusion about > being likely to ever do meaningful SRM testing should overcome the several > concerns of Ms. Badine Brachatzek. I took her remarks in this thread to be > one of concern for (the US) pushing testing - and that is not what I heard > in the joint video being discussed in this thread. > > Ron > > Fr*om: *"Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > *To: *"geoengineering" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:20:47 PM > *Subject: *[geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos > > > Folks, > > Please find attached: > > MacMynowski, D. G., Keith, D., Caldeira, K., and Shin, H.-J., 2011. “Can we > test geoengineering?” *Energy and Environmental Science*, DOI: > 10.1039/c1ee01256h. > > We also made a couple of YouTube videos about this paper: > > Doug MacMynowski discussing "Can We Test Geoengineering?" > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0spy0Yn_nko > > Doug MacMynowski and Ken Caldeira in discussion: Can We Test > Geoengineering? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o8wBo4R7ME > > Enjoy, > > Ken > > PS. Be aware that these videos are extemporaneous talking I believe > without any internal edits, so not everything is said as carefully as one > might have liked. > > _______________ > 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 > > See our *YouTube:* > Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate > forcing: Ken Caldeira <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE> > Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near > Zero <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0> > > -- > 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.
