I¹ll agree to that. Mike
On 10/22/11 11:30 AM, "David Hawkins" <[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 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.
