True‹but we also don¹t know nearly everything about what ongoing GHG emissions will bring, so what we need to work toward, in my view, is a relative risk analysis. Not at all easy to do, but the question is not really SRM or not, but GHG without or with SRM.
Mike On 10/22/11 8:49 AM, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken, > You argue that we won't know everything about SRM deployment ahead of time but > "this is no different than any test that is done of anything". I don't think > this is helpful as a response to concerns about the challenges of designing > protocols for an SRM research program. > There are real differences in the risk profile for SRM tests that are intended > to produce detectable forcing. This needs to be acknowledged and a research > program needs to examine whether effective approaches to manage these risks > can be developed. > David > > Sent from my iPad > > On Oct 22, 2011, at 6:39 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As Doug states below and I pointed out in our YouTube discussion, the >> question "Can geoengineering be tested?" is either trivially true or >> trivially false depending on what you mean by "tested". >> >> If by "Can geoengineering be tested?" we mean "Is it in principle possible to >> perform tests that would give us more information about the likely >> consequences of an SRM deployment?", the answer is of course 'yes'. >> >> If by this question we mean "Is it in principle possible to know everything >> one would like to know about the consequences of an SRM deployment prior to >> the deployment?", the answer is of course 'no'. >> >> Fundamentally, this is no different than any test that is ever done of >> anything. Every test is designed to give us useful information; some tests >> are more useful than others; no test gives you the same information as a full >> deployment. >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >> <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 2:06 PM, Doug MacMynowski <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >>> Hi Ron, >>> >>> My thanks for your comments too. Re your specific concern about CDR, I >>> think that to the extent that those outside this list have an opinion >>> associated with the word geoengineering, it is most likely associated with >>> SRM, at least if they have negative connotations with the word. So I would >>> agree that there¹s no advantage to CDR folk to use the word geoengineering. >>> And personally, I see no disadvantage to SRM to use the word geoengineering, >>> if that¹s what people already think it means. Of course, that¹s my guess, >>> not formal research. >>> >>> Re testing, a few comments (note of course, that we didn¹t script any of our >>> discussions in the video, so some of those comments there may have lacked >>> full caveats). >>> 1. In response to Nadine, we certainly are not proposing testing, we >>> simply believe that we need to understand what tests could tell us, since >>> they could be a part of a strategy to manage risk (if we knew we could never >>> test, that might alter our perspective) >>> >>> 2. I do not think that ³can we test it² is really even a very >>> well-posed question. Of course there are things we can learn. Of course >>> there are things we can¹t learn. That¹s true for every test of anything; >>> the real question is what we can or can¹t learn and what it would take. >>> >>> 3. I do not think that anyone would ever conduct a test just because >>> we wanted to know what SRM might do, so that we would then have it available >>> as an option in case we needed it. That was what I intended to mean in >>> saying that I didn¹t think it would ever be tested. >>> >>> 4. However, if there is ever a point at which the risks of not doing >>> SRM are clear and substantial to a sufficiently broad swath of population >>> that it seems quite plausible that they outweigh the risks of doing SRM, >>> then I do think that rather than simply turning things on at say 4 W/m2, it >>> is reasonable to start smaller, and design the initial subscale deployment >>> in a way that gives as much information as we can get as soon as possible. >>> In that sense, I do believe that testing still has the potential to be >>> useful as part of risk-reduction. >>> >>> 5. SRM can still be a quick response to a ³climate emergency², but >>> only if the emergency is sufficiently severe that we are willing to accept >>> the risks of SRM. >>> >>> 6. I don¹t think that anyone knows today whether the consequences of >>> SRM will be negative for any region (relative to not doing SRM, that is.) I >>> think that most studies suggest that that is actually not likely to be the >>> case, but the reality is simply that we don¹t know (and I strongly disagree >>> with the folks who imply that they do know). More research would help. >>> >>> 7. And finally, I am neither an SRM proponent nor an opponent, and >>> this paper was not intended to either be in favour or against it. I am >>> simply in favour of sufficient research to understand it more. I do not >>> personally think that anyone has sufficient information today to know >>> whether implementing some form of SRM will be better or will not be better >>> than not implementing it. (For pretty much any useful sense of the word >>> better, which I acknowledge is ill-defined.) I know there are people on >>> this list who disagree with me. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8. And maybe one more pointŠ There were a couple of comments last year >>> to the effect of geoengineering not being testable without full-scale >>> implementation. If ³full-scale² means 4W/m2, then I think its clear we can >>> learn useful information from a test that is smaller than that. If >>> ³full-scale² means using enough radiative forcing so that the test itself >>> could have unforeseen negative consequences, then I agree that any useful >>> test would satisfy that criterion. In that very narrow sense, I agree with >>> both Jim Fleming and Alan et al.¹s statements last year but I think its >>> important to clear the record rather than leave impressions from >>> over-simplified statements, since not everyone who read those statements >>> would interpret them the same way. >>> >>> >>> doug >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> [mailto:[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira >>> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 7:26 PM >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; >>> geoengineering; [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>> <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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <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 >>> >>> From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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. ³Can we >>> test geoengineering?² 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 >>> <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 >>> <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 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>> <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.
