In his earlier email, Ron wrote that "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?"
I had a different take on this aspect of the article. As I read it, the argument is that some regional impacts, for example, changes in monsoons over the subcontinent, would likely be more pronounced over the short term than the long term, since they are a function of the temperature differential between land and ocean. Land warms more quickly than ocean, so this differential would be highest at the beginning of an intervention, but over time the differential would shrink as the ocean caught up, and this type of impact would moderate. >From the perspective of an SRM proponent, therefore, the news would be good insofar as some initial costs of deployment would appear to decrease over time. Josh Horton [email protected] On Oct 22, 11:30 am, "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: > My comment is not an argument against doing SRM research. It is an > argument against trying to persuade people that SRM research is no > different than tests of any other new technical systems. I doubt that > is what Ken intended but I want to point out the importance of careful > articulation of the rationales for SRM research and, more importantly, > the need to acknowledge that SRM research will require extraordinary > efforts to minimize risks that could emerge in course of such research > at levels designed to produce significant forcing. > > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:16 AM > To: Hawkins, Dave; Ken Caldeira > Cc: Doug MacMynowski; [email protected]; Geoengineering; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos > > True-but we also don't 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 there's no advantage to CDR folk to use the word > geoengineering. And personally, I see no disadvantage to SRM to use the > word geoengineering, if that's what people already think it means. Of > course, that's my guess, not formal research. > > Re testing, a few comments (note of course, that we didn't 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 "can we test it" is really even a very > well-posed question. Of course there are things we can learn. Of > course there are things we can't learn. That's true for every test of > anything; the real question is what we can or can't 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 didn't 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 "climate emergency", but > only if the emergency is sufficiently severe that we are willing to > accept the risks of SRM. > > 6. I don't 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 don't 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 point... There were a couple of comments > last year to the effect of geoengineering not being testable without > full-scale implementation. If "full-scale" means 4W/m2, then I think > its clear we can learn useful information from a test that is smaller > than that. If "full-scale" 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.'s 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 ... > > read more » -- 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.
