hi all,
although I comment infrequently on this list, I am very interested in
the discussions and really benefit from your expertise, so thank you for
that.
I'd like to offer three views on this discussion:
1) we are ALREADY geo-engineering the climate as well as many other
aspects of our Earth and environments. Very often, and with the climate,
we are doing this in full knowledge of the disastrous consequences it
will create. We are not even altering the climate currently with the
hope that it is for the good. At least with geo-engineering to reduce
climate change (active mitigation) it is being designed and regulated
specifically for positive, stabilising, impacts.
2) During my Environmental Impact Assessment MSc I came to one
conclusion - we can NEVER successfully guarantee that we can accurately
predict all possible negative impacts or mitigate them - we don't even
try. EIA consultants do their best, the developers get on with whatever
development is in hand and sometimes monitor impacts and rarely clean up
afterwards.
3) I do share concerns about some of the LANGUAGE used in parts of the
geo-engineering debate, as I have raised before. It is so easy to
alienate audiences and colleagues with panicy phrases and claiming
certainty where there is likelihood, possibility or probability to
varying degrees. These are the two biggest errors I see repeated on this
topic. Not only do they alienate our audience and cause divisions, but
they are so unnecessary. The situation as we understand it is serious
enough without trying to scare people into action.
As an aside, I think the term geo-engineering itself is unhelpful.
Engineering responses and clean ups are absolutely normal practice in
environmental rehabilitation, and I think phrases such as
rehabilitation, restoration, active mitigation or intervention may be
more commonly acceptable as well as a better description of some of the
tools at our disposal.
An an EIA driven person and conservationist and humanitarian, as I am
sure we all our, yes every possible measure should be taken to
understand, predict, avoid, reduce, offset and otherwise mitigate any
possible negative impact from climate restoration, sea ice restoration
and other environmental resoration. But please, keep designing solutions
to the mess we are in, and please others, accept there are risks of
action just as there are risks of in action. Currently, we know we face
MASSIVE risks from the climate change we have engineered to date. That
is given. All efforts to reduce the pollution are good, but probably too
late to be effective alone now - the Arctic sea ice is collapsing under
our noses - the time for action to restabilise it is long past - we are
now playing catch up.
Best wishes,
Emily.
On 24/03/2012 08:44, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Note that the papre says:
The cooling is generally
stronger over land than over ocean in both models,
but HadGEM2 also shows cooling over the Arctic which
is much stronger than that in ModelE. However, a problem
has since been identified with the sea-ice scheme in the
ModelE simulations of Robock et al. (2008) analysed here,
which resulted in sea-ice being less responsive to temperature
changes than it should be.
HadGEM2 is probably getting more downward surface shortwave because it
has more sea ice and thus a higher surface albedo. Some of the upward
directed shortwave hits clouds etc and is re-re-radiated downward.
With less sea ice Robock's ocean absorbs the downward shortwave,
hence there is less downward shortwave at the surface.
This is just a speculation, but if I were analyzing these model
results, that is where I would start looking.
If I had to wager, I'd wager that the primary diffference in these
figures is due to the sea-ice bug in Robock's simulations.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ken Caldeira
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If under stand it these represent means of a single decade in
single model simulations.
Unless we know the decadal variability in these models from the
control runs, it is difficult to assess the significant of these
results. The Arctic is often one of the most variable regions in a
climate model.
I would be cautious of reading too much into regional results from
single realizations for periods of single decades. (Isn't this
exactly what climate science deniers tend to do?)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Mick West <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'd just mapped those two images onto Google Earth
specifically for that reason:
Inline image 2
Inline image 3
Antarctic is also interesting:
Inline image 4
Inline image 5
The HadGem2 model seems much more sensitive to land/sea mass
Mick.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Alan Robock
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
It's a tiny area - looks larger on a lat-lon plot, and
there is a lot of natural variability. I don't thing
these details should be of concern. Also, notice in Fig.
1 that the stratospheric forcing is different. I cannot
say which model is better.
Alan
[On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact
me
is by email,[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, or at732-881-1610 <tel:732-881-1610>
(cell).]
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone:+1-732-932-9800 x6222
<tel:%2B1-732-932-9800%20x6222>
Rutgers University Fax:+1-732-932-8644
<tel:%2B1-732-932-8644>
14 College Farm Road E-mail:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock>
On 3/23/2012 5:05 PM, Oliver Wingenter wrote:
Dear Alan,
Quit a difference between the two models in ACP paper
Fig. 2. Does the HadGEM2 treat the opital properties of
the particles more realistically than ModelE, i.e. the
extra light that will be scattered towards the poles and
the lower effectiveness of sulfate aerosols near the
poles because of the incident sun angle.
Oliver Wingenter
On 3/23/2012 11:07 AM, Stephen Salter wrote:
Dear Alan
That is exactly the paper I mean. Are you not alarmed
at the possible effect of 10 watts per square metre of
warming in the Arctic on the rate of methane release?
Stephen
On 23/03/2012 16:29, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear Steve,
I don't think the point is subtle at all. I am
concerned about global warming and its impacts. *BUT
THIS DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO A NEED FOR
GEOENGINEERING*. I hope that is not subtle. There are
several other possible responses to global warming,
including rapid mitigation, which we could do today
with solar and wind, efficiency and conservation, and
including adaptation. If the dangers of geoengineering
outweigh the dangers of global warming, then we should
not do it, and we just don't know yet. That's why we
need more research.
I have no idea what you mean about Fig. 2b of my my ACP
paper. Are you asking about this paper?
Jones, Andy, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Ben Kravitz,
and Alan Robock, 2010: Geoengineering by stratospheric
SO_2 injection: Results from the Met Office HadGEM2
climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies ModelE. /Atmos. Chem. Phys./, *10*,
5999-6006, doi:10.5194/acp-10-5999-2010.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/5999/2010/acp-10-5999-2010.pdf
It is my only ACP paper on geoengineering. Here is Fig. 2:
First of all it is the change in surface shortwave from
two different models. It is not temperature change.
What concerns me is how different the two models are,
by a factor of two, and with different patterns, which
tells me that we really don't understand this well at
all yet. Is that what concerns you? This is why we
are doing GeoMIP, to look at many more models doing the
same experiments, so we can better understand the
forcing and response.
And what does figure 2b have to with methane release????
Alan
[On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact
me
is by email,[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, or at732-881-1610 <tel:732-881-1610>
(cell).]
Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone:+1-732-932-9800 x6222
<tel:%2B1-732-932-9800%20x6222>
Rutgers University Fax:+1-732-932-8644
<tel:%2B1-732-932-8644>
14 College Farm Road E-mail:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock>
On 3/23/2012 9:09 AM, Stephen Salter wrote:
Dear Alan
The difference between my Commons statement and your
position is too subtle for me. Do you mean that you
are not alarmed about the possibility of the need for
geoengineering becoming apparent?
I could not possibly ask everybody because I do not
have a complete list. However in future I could if
you wish say ' nearly everybody except people like
Alan Robock . . .' Perhaps in return you could in
future distinguish the tropospheric salt and
stratospheric sulphur SRM techniques from one another.
By the way I do value your opposition. If we ever
have to do geoengineering the process will be safer
because of you. All I want is to have reliable
equipment ready if it is needed in a hurry and all its
effects well understood. I am a bit surprised that
you are not making more of a fuss about figure 2b of
your own paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
and its effect on methane release. Where do your
stand on PIOMAS Arctic volume predictions?
Stephen
On 22/03/2012 21:14, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear Steve,
In the article about your parliamentary hearing, it
says:
"Everybody working in geo-engineering hopes it won't
be needed - but we fear it will be," said Prof Salter.
This is incorrect, and I would like to request that
you issue a statement to that effect. You are not
speaking for me. And you need to ask everyone else
working in this field, before you claim to speak for
them. I personally fear that geoengineering will be
used before all the potential effects are studied.
This is quite different from fearing that it will be
needed, because that implies that we know that it
will be the only response society can take. Thanks.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[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.
--
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.
