Hi Folks, Ben, I would be honored.
Dr. Benford, I can see how that statement could be viewed as a strawman. However, under the current policy environment, deployment of GE will be limited to an emergency situation only (may change..may not). the most probable emergency is an Arctic Methane Tipping Point. As such, we will not be primarily looking at reducing the overall planetary temperature by a few degrees, we will be looking at dropping the polar temperatures by many degrees (turning it back). And, that will also need to be done within a matter of 2-3 years....at most. And, you are correct, no one *is even proposing* a means to do just that. Andrew is correct in that the engineering must be put forward. Take the Spice program. This is a well thought out effort by world class people. Yet, the system, at full deployment, will be going 2-3 times higher than any previous tether. It is important that such a system have ample fully operational flight time before it is considered "reliable" enough to bank the human race upon. As the environmental situation continues to deteriorate, we (as a global society) need to have fully worker up emergency response (to tipping point) plans and gear. It may never be actually used (and lets hope so). Yet, we know we are at risk of a tipping point and we have a good idea of what it will look like. Ignoring a situation which is highly probable and which is highly likely to end our global society and can do so in a short period of time..... is not rational. I have to ask the hard question of: Have we simply been aiming at the wrong objective? There is little support of "prophylactic" GE, only emergency GE. Yet, no work has been done on an emergancy responce to a tipping point. Will somebody please bring the King a robe. Michael On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>wrote: > Ben, > > With respect to your original question, I think Alan's right that it's > important to distinguish geoengineering research from geoengineering > deployment. I also think it's inaccurate to speak of an "economic/ > scientific community"--in my experience these are two distinct > knowledge communities with different assumptions and worldviews. My > impression is that there is still limited familiarity with > geoengineering among scientists as a whole, and even less among > economists. But to the extent there is awareness, Ken's > characterization seems fair--growing support for research, little > support for deployment. > > In addition, rather than speaking of an emerging consensus, it might > be better to say that discussions of geoengineering have attained > greater legitimacy over time. > > Josh Horton > > > > On Mar 3, 5:08 am, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com> wrote: > > I strongly believe you should publish this as a formal paper. There are > > social policy journals which represent perhaps a more appropriate route > > than climate science journals. > > > > It would seem that a statistical test for significance, plus a formal > > statement of hypotheses, would be appropriate. > > > > I'd personally be happy to work on this. > > > > NB The fact that you survey the perceived causes of climate change is of > > great general media interest. We should ensure the general public are > > regularly reminded of the scientific opinion on AGW. If scientists don't > > tell the truth, they'll only hear the Fox News version. > > > > A > > On Mar 3, 2012 6:45 AM, "David Mitchell" <david.mitch...@dri.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Ken et al., > > > > > In July of 2010 the American Meteorol. Soc. had its Cloud Physics > > > Conference and Atmospheric Radiation Conference combined into a single > > > conference in Portland Oregon, and on Thursday evening of that > conference > > > week an informal discussion was held on climate engineering with 94 > > > scientists in attendence. The convenors of this meeting, Greg > McFarquhar > > > and myself, provided each participant with a questionaire on climate > > > engineering that was deposited into the "ballot box" at the end of the > > > event. We thought the results of this survey would be of interest to > the > > > editors of the AMS Bulletin (BAMS), who seemed initially interested but > > > then became non-responsive; it has been well over a year since we have > > > heard from them. So since BAMS does not want this, Greg and I felt > that it > > > would be appropriate to share this survey/questionaire with this > > > geo-group. Attached is the proposal we sent to BAMS that includes the > > > questionaire on attitudes towards climate engineering. I think you > will > > > find some of your impressions reflected in this survey. > > > > > The group discussion addressed all types of climate engineering but was > > > more focused on marine stratus cloud brightening and cirrus removal > since > > > these were mostly cloud physicists. > > > Enjoy! > > > David Mitchell > > > Associate Research Professor > > > Desert Research Institute > > > Division of Atmospheric Sciences > > > 2215 Raggio Parkway > > > Reno, Nevada, USA > > > Phone: 775-674-7039 > > > E-mail: david.mitch...@dri.edu > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > > > Date: Friday, March 2, 2012 17:49 > > > Subject: Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering > > > To: voglerl...@gmail.com > > > Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, theseglyphsaredu...@gmail.com, > geoengineering < > > > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I > > > find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing > relevant > > > research. > > > > > > A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah > > > subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the > topic. > > > There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks, > but I > > > sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to > contribute > > > to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding > sunshade > > > geoengineering. > > > > > > That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of > > > deployment at this time. > > > > > > My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited > > > research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little > support > > > for active development of a deployment capability. > > > > > > This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection > of > > > myself in the people that I speak with. > > > > > > _______________ > > > > Ken Caldeira > > > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > > > >http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab< > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> > > > @kencaldeira > > > > > *> YouTube:* > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo>> Climate change and the > > > transition from coal to low-carbon electricity< > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo> > > > > Crop yields in a geoengineered climate< > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > >> > Hello Ben et al., > > > > >> > I'm simply an interested citizen scientist and so I do not speak > > >> for anyone. However, the interested citizen's view also needs to be > > >> understood. Within democratic states, it will be the "public opinion" > which > > >> will most likely swing this issue > > > > >> > Ben's question of; *"Is the economic/ > > > > >> > scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering > is > > >> > becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable?"* hinges > > >> upon the question of: > > > > >> > Is the Precautionary Principle the overriding guiding principle? > > >> Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration states: *"In order to protect the > > >> environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by > States > > >> according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or > > >> irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be > used as > > >> a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent > environmental > > >> degradation."* > > > > >> > Will the standard of "(the)...*lack of full scientific certainty > shall > > >> not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures" > *become > > >> the rallying flag for the GE community or will a far more cautious > standard > > >> be sought. > > > > >> > More to the point, Ben's question is looking at GE being "...seen as > > >> plausible, desirable, and even inevitable". At this time, I believe > the > > >> answer is NO to all three. > > > > >> > 1) *Plausible*...With the debatable exception of Cloud Brightening, > > >> there are no fully vetted methods which can, in a short period of > time, > > >> reverse a climate/planetary emergency. There is no wide spread > support for > > >> non-emergency deployment. Also, most, if not all, existing concepts > have > > >> been largely championed by individual efforts with relatively minor > > >> financial backing. > > > > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, if given a $10-20-100B fully > > >> funded budget and and 24 months to vet and deploy a planet saving GE > > >> method, *which could turn back a "tipping point*", it would not be > > >> "plausible" at this time. > > > > >> > 2) *Desirable*...Any method which does gain widespread scientific > > >> acceptance will surely have a degree of adverse effects for some > percentage > > >> of the global population. This obviously will effect geopolitical > dynamics > > >> and thus the short and long term desirability. > > > > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, even with the most *benign* GE > > >> method, no universal level of "desirability" will be found. > > > > >> > 3) *Inevitable*...At this time, we have little more than broad > stroke > > >> concepts which have little possibility to be put into fully effective > > >> operation within the near (2-3yr) future. And, two to three years may > > >> possibly be too late. > > > > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, given the need for years worth > of > > >> development and evaluation, we *may not be able* to "inevitably" fall > > >> back upon GE in the face of a near term emergency. > > > > >> > Most importantly, Ben* *points out that *"(GE*)...is gaining ever > more > > >> public exposure in the media.". Yes, and the overwhelming exposure is > > >> negative. Few policy makers will support the needed > science/engineering > > >> efforts while this negative slant is applied by the media. > > > > >> > To conclude, the overall issue of GE is approaching a critical point > > >> at a number of different levels. Simply put, > > > > >> > 1) Gaining even basic support for GE research is difficult under the > > >> pressure of negative media. > > > > >> > 2) No one knows, with a high degree of certainty, if a tipping point > > >> is 10-100 years off; *or even if one is currently underway*. > > > > >> > 3) There is no ability to stop an active tipping point and no one > can > > >> rule out that we are *not* in the beginning stages of one. > > > > >> > 4) The only "inevitable" aspect about GE is that it will be > > >> contentious, to a high degree, regardless of the weight of scientific > > >> consensus. > > > > >> > Ben, I look forward to reading your article...as usual. > > > > >> > Michael > > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Eugene Gordon < > euggor...@comcast.net>wrote: > > > > >>> > I speak only for myself. Geoengineering represents THE contingency > if > > >>> global > > >>> > warming continues for whatever reason. Any decent organization > > >>> engaged in a > > >>> > project with uncertainty develops contingency plans. Why not > > >>> countries? I > > >>> > recall my post doc work at MIT in 1957 on Project Sherwood, the > first > > >>> > contingency work to develop thermonuclear fusion for producing > > >>> energy. Can > > >>> > you guess how many tens of billions of dollars have been spent on > that > > >>> > contingency? Can you guess how much the US has spent to develop a > > >>> means to > > >>> > end cancer over 50 years; $400 billion still with no solution in > > >>> sight? > > > > >>> > Geoengineering seems not to be reaching a critical mass. However it > > >>> is long > > >>> > overdue. How much is being spent on it? > > > > >>> > -----Original Message----- > > >>> > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > >>> > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Martin > > >>> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 6:12 AM > > >>> > To: geoengineering > > >>> > Subject: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering > > > > >>> > Dear All, > > > > >>> > I'm currently putting together an article for the Ecologist on > > >>> attitudes > > >>> > towards geo-engineering in the scientific and economic communities > > >>> and was > > >>> > wondering if anyone here could help. > > > > >>> > I noticed this week that a couple of environmental economists > > >>> (Professors > > >>> > Alistair Ulph and Robert Hahn) from Manchester's Sustainable > > >>> Consumption > > >>> > Institute have published a new book, which basically argues that > > >>> governments > > >>> > have done so little to reduce carbon emissions that it's now > > >>> essential to > > >>> > invest in geo-engineering R&D. > > > > >>> > The > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > 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. > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- 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.
