Hi Andrew---It is important to recognize that there are differences between the perspectives of scientists and engineers on dealing with climate change, and problems with how both have been addressing climate change. You point to the problems of scientists, that is, relying too much on theoretical understanding as incorporated in their models without recognizing possible shortcomings of their models (and the one I am wondering about relating to the Arctic is if the forcing that has been applied for the Arctic might be in error, neglecting the effects on radiation of cleaning up Arctic haze, something that would be leading to more solar radiation reaching the surface of the snow/sea ice in spring). I do not think you should expect the entire scientific community to be leading the charge in the way you suggest‹sure, some will do this, but the scientific community as a whole is naturally cautious‹that is what makes all that they are saying so really serious. What is so surprising is that the loudest objectors to scientific results are complaining scientists are saying too much rather than too little, which, as you suggest, is likely where the real uncertainties are.
At the same time, engineers come at issues a bit differently, as you suggest. In the area of adaptation, however, a number of engineers have unfortunately tended to base their designs on past climatic conditions, and it has generally taken some time to get them to include climate change in the conditions that are used in their designs (so, at least in the US, sewage plants have been built at sea level, and a lot of housing right on the coast, etc.). There is a lot for all to improve in how they are reacting to and dealing with climate change. What we need is more experts who are bridging the two disciplines, focused on applied science/engineering physics, etc. This was just what I was lucky enough to be able to have as a background‹undergrad in engineering, master¹s with a lot of physics, and PhD combining both. Best, Mike On 9/22/12 2:57 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > Without wishing to get sidetracked by a debate on the fundamental science of > AGW, I'd like to add my tuppence on the arctic sea ice discussion. > > To me, this is a fulfilment of warnings I've been giving out for years on the > flawed approach of science to the AGW issue. The 'mainstream ' science on the > Arctic has been woefully, shamefully wrong - bordering on denial. Scientists > have been shy of the sea ice data, and instead referred back to wholly > inadequate models. This is the *exact opposite* of the scientific method. I > suspect the same folly is repeated throughout climate science. > > Scientists studying AGW have been too timid to compound mechanisms to give > realistic conclusions. They have been reluctant to shout about our reliance > on models which are too piecemeal to model the earth system properly. They > have shied away from controversy by playing down their warnings and by using > conservative assumptions, where prudence dictates the opposite. This is > repeated in other sub fields, notably emissions predictions. > > A social parallel would be if a shepherd failed to cry "wolf", until DNA tests > confirmed it was actually a wolf savaging the sheep, and not a similar-looking > animal - "But what if it's a large dog? We need more research!" Meanwhile, the > flock on which the citizens depend is lost. > > Collectively, climate scientists face grave embarrassment, even disgrace, if > they continue on this path. > > As a young student engineer, I was taught to build factors of safety into my > work. Designing things an order of magnitude stronger than needed is routine > in society, and we do not question the cost . Bridges designed for walking can > support cars without breaking. Buildings can survive impacts and blasts far > beyond their design thresholds without collapse. Airliners can tumble miles in > freefall without breaking up. Climate scientists have a lot to learn from this > approach. They are at present risking the very survival of our society by a > collectively reckless approach to risk, which is not repeated in comparable > disciplines. > > Step up, or history will shame us. > > A > > On Sep 22, 2012 4:29 AM, "RAU greg" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Eugene, >> What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification? >> Thanks, >> Greg >> >> >> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>; Geoengineering >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. >> >> Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take >> exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human >> driven' cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven >> that global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on >> average for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a >> difference; AND there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the >> general warming trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does not >> substitute for proven science and the theory of CO2-driven global warming >> clearly remains to be proven using the accepted scientific process. Science >> is not an election and AGW remains to be proven. until it is proven it >> remains a not so robust hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it >> debatable? >> >> >> From: "Andrew Revkin" <[email protected]> >> To: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:44:18 PM >> Subject: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. >> >> >> September 20, 2012, 3:57 PM Comment >> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/arctic-ice-melt-and-the-path-to >> ward-an-open-polar-sea/#postComment> >> Pondering the Path To an Open Polar Sea >> By ANDREW C. REVKIN >> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/> >> In the mid 1800s, some scientists and explorers ‹ having not yet found a way >> through the forbidding sea ice sheathing much of the Arctic Ocean ‹ posited >> that there was an ³open polar sea >> <http://books.google.com/books?id=Xveu35zy7AkC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=matthew+fo >> ntaine+maury+%22open+polar+sea%22&source=bl&ots=bH05jVi1rB&sig=Y5JNRJFBNW7aQL >> 9qe64DDiE9P1A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sEJbULjdOrS20AGu4YCICA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage& >> q=matthew%20fontaine%20maury%20%22open%20polar%20sea%22&f=false> ² beyond >> those barricades, nourished by warm waters sweeping north past Scandinavian >> coasts. (I have the marvelous 1867 book ³The Open Polar Sea² on my book >> shelf; you can read it online here >> <http://books.google.com/books?id=ltY35Ap35moC&dq=the%20open%20polar%20sea%20 >> isaac%20hayes&source=gbs_book_other_versions> .) >> Now, it has become almost routine in summers to have broad stretches of the >> Arctic Ocean >> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/arctic-shipping-gets-boring/> >> largely free of ice. Global warming <http://j.mp/dotBasics> from the >> human-driven buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is seen by virtually >> all Arctic scientists as playing a growing role in driving the shift in >> summers toward a largely open sea at the top of the world, with plenty of >> variations along the way. >> As the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced yesterday >> <http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html> , Sept. 16 marked the >> end of the 2012 ice retreat, which far surpassed the ice melt in 2007 ‹ at >> the time considered a jaw-dropping outlier by many researchers >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html> . Here¹s one >> snippet from the center¹s helpful release >> <http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-r >> ecord-seasonal-minimum/> : >>> The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all >>> occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when >>> climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice >>> loss, this year¹s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across >>> the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most >>> notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean >>> in early August. [The NASA video above shows how the storm winds centered on >>> the ice pack. Here's my post on that storm >>> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/a-closer-look-at-ice-impacts-o >>> f-a-rare-arctic-summer-storm/> .] It is likely that the primary reason for >>> the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to >>> thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more >>> prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low >>> pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice >>> that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely. >> Justin Gillis has a news story describing the findings and some >> interpretations >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-stops-melting >> -but-new-record-low-is-set.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1348156811-AMhYRTX2Mitv >> A5wM/+bm8g> . There¹s much more coverage >> <https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=arctic+sea+ice+extent+re >> cord+2012&oq=arctic+sea+ice+extent+record+2012&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.2065 >> .10511.0.10744.37.7.4.26.30.0.59.359.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.-OEj3k9vL9o> , of >> course, and plenty of messaging from green groups >> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/arctic-sea-ice-loss-record-low_n_18 >> 97602.html> . >> The first question is why was this year so surprisingly extreme, even along a >> trend toward more open water? (Other questions will be addressed in the next >> few days.) Overall, as I¹ve said for years, it¹s the trend that matters most. >> Otherwise you can end up in endless seesaw debates about what¹s going on ‹ >> with this recent Skeptical Science graph demonstrating the importance of a >> longer view: >> Skeptical Science >> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/vanishing-arctic-sea-ice-going-up-the-down-e >> scalator.html> A graph of September Arctic sea ice extent (blue diamonds) >> with ³recovery² years highlighted in red, versus the long-term sea ice >> decline fit with a second order polynomial, also in red. >> In the next 24 hours, I¹ll be posting fresh excerpts from an extended and >> fascinating discussion of ice patterns since 2007 involving some of the >> world¹s top ice researchers ‹ both modelers and field scientists like those I >> accompanied in 2003 >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/science/earth/13EXTR.html> on their >> annual North Pole expedition undertaken to monitor the vital signs of the >> ocean beneath the drifting sea ice. >> The pace of ice loss ‹ both its extent and the amount of the older, thicker >> ice that survives from summer to summer ‹ has been faster than most models >> predicted and clearly has, as a result, unnerved some polar researchers by >> revealing how much is unknown about ice behavior in a warming climate. >> Even with this year¹s extreme loss, there¹s still a wide range of predictions >> among polar scientists of how soon the northernmost ocean will be ³ice free² >> in late summer. Peter Wadhams, a British oceanographer who¹s charted ice >> conditions for many years >> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=wadhams+submarine+ice+arctic&btnG= >> &as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=> , is an outlier in predicting 2015 or so >> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice> >> (he has joined an assortment of people calling for emergency geo-engineering >> efforts >> <http://ameg.me/index.php/24-the-case-for-emergency-geo-engineering-to-save-t >> he-arctic-from-collapse> to chill the Arctic). >> But most of the dozen or so ice scientists I¹ve consulted of late (and >> several dozen since 2000) remain closer in their views to Cecilia Bitz >> <http://vimeo.com/15622850> of the University of Washington, who recently >> agreed with my notion (as a longtime, but lay, observer) that there¹s ³a >> 50-50 chance it will take a few decades >> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/a-bad-bet-on-arctic-sea-ice/> >> .² (Keep in mind that almost all Arctic sea ice researchers add a big caveat >> when talking of an ³ice-free Arctic Ocean,² noting that a big region of thick >> floes north and west of Greenland will almost surely persist in summers >> through this century, which is one reason some scientists >> <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_the_arctic_ocean_melts_a_refuge_plan_for_the >> _polar_bear/2355/> have proposed targeting polar bear conservation efforts >> <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/pondering-a-polar-predator-in-r >> etreat/> there.) >> It¹s clear to a range of scientists that the enormous loss of old, thick ice >> carried on currents from the Arctic out past Greenland into the Atlantic >> Ocean in recent years is a major factor that has led to sharp summer melting. >> (With the ocean cloaked mainly in relatively thin floes, formed over a single >> winter, the chances rise each summer of a big melt-off under the 24-hour sun >> and influxes of warmer seawater.) The forces driving that ice exodus are >> complicated, as you¹ll hear from the scientists contributing below. >> This animated, three-dimensional graph, created by an amateur Arctic watcher, >> Andy Lee Robinson, using data from the Piomas model of scientists at the >> University of Washington, gives an incredibly interesting view of how the >> reduction in overall ice volume has proceeded: >> I asked Robinson, who is an engineer, graphics and programming expert and >> musician, to explain the steps and sources behind the graph. Click here >> for my Slideshare posting of his detailed reply >> <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/explainer-animated-3d-arctic-ice-volume-gra >> ph> . >> While you wait for the exchange with ice researchers, I encourage you to >> explore the developing string of posts by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who >> led one of several research groups >> <http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/closer-look-at-arctic-sea-ice-melt-and-e >> xtreme-weather-15013> recently reporting links between summer ice loss and >> severe winter weather in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere >> (her relevant paper is here >> <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.full.pdf> ). Her >> first post explored this question:³How should we interpret the record low >> minimum sea ice extent?² >> <http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/16/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum- >> part-i/> Her second asked: ³Whence an Œice free¹ Arctic? Does an Œice free¹ >> Arctic matter?² >> <http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/17/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum- >> part-ii/> >> Also, you can start by exploring an illustrated view of the array of factors >> from sea-bottom topography to warm water that may be in play in the >> changing Arctic Ocean provided by James Morison <http://j.mp/dotmorison> of >> the University of Washington. Morison has been studying Arctic sea ice and >> waters for decades and runs an annual expedition to the North Pole to drop >> instruments through the ice into the ocean below (the one I got to go on in >> 2003 <http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20030513_NORTH/> ). He >> stresses this is informed speculation at this point, putting him in good >> company considering the many ideas in circulation and the persistent >> uncertainties in the system. >> An Arctic Expert¹s View of the Great Ice Melt of 2012 >> <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/an-arctic-experts-view-of-the-great-ice-mel >> t-of-2012> from Andrew Revkin <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin> >> 4:37 p.m. | Postscript | The scope of what¹s unfolding, and the fascinating >> and persistent science and policy questions, make me think I need to update >> and expand my prize-winning book on the once and future Arctic, ³The North >> Pole Was Here.² >> <http://us.macmillan.com/newyorktimesthenorthpolewashere/AndrewRevkin> >> Thoughts welcome. The first chapter is online here. >> <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/learning/newssummaries/northpolech1.html> >> -- 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.
