Hi Stephen‹First, I don¹t have any record of getting your coded modulation email of Feb 20. I did get a note on that from you late last year and reminder note on responding around January 20, but have not seen anything since (perhaps you just sent your latest message to active modelers).
On this issue of an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function, I just don¹t think it exists and that any relationships that there might be from some places to others would not be consistent over the seasonal cycle or with interannual variability, etc. Yes, there are some indications of relationships of, for example, how various parts of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean may alter atmospheric circulation under some conditions and thus lead to downstream effects, but the relationships are not all that consistent and persistent and can be affected by other types of conditions (e.g., the state of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). There sometimes seem to be other relationships in the system (e.g., Atlantic hurricane occurrence linked to ENSO stage; African drought to SST in some regions, etc.), but most relationships tend to be mainly regional and have modest statistical support over some parts of the year or a decade, but can be affected by what is going on elsewhere as well. So, if a really strong (in terms of energy content) perturbation like ENSO is not creating a consistent response and other relationships are perhaps even weaker, it just seems to me really implausible that there would be something like the everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function you are seeking for undertaking cloud brightening interventions that involve a good bit less energy. And even if you had such relationships (changing over the annual cycle and adjusted for other factors--say a volcanic eruption‹occurring, I don¹t see how one would really make use of them as there would likely need to be simultaneous applications in different regions, and, given how the atmospheric circulation connects the world, I would not think that the responses would add linearly or consistently, etc. Now, while an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function seems to me unlikely, this is not to say that regional cloud-brightening or other approaches to change the energy balance will not have responses elsewhere‹I just think they are likely to be meaningfully significant in some coupled regions relatively close in and not, in most cases, far downwind (my exception here would be if the energy intervention were to cause the atmospheric circulation to switch how it went around some major orographic feature like the Himalayas). Thus, I do think that there will need to be looks at what might result from regional changes in the energetics‹but it will not be nearly so simple or constant in time as an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function. Best, Mike PS‹And yes, on the island initiative‹how would one weigh a negative impact now versus potential benefits later. Would society (globallly) agree to take actions having negative consequences today for benefits later? The current COP negotiations do not give much of a sense of confidence on this, even if individual countries are seeming willing to step forward. On 2/22/13 5:40 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike > > I agree completely with what you say which is why I am trying to get an > everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function of the side-effects of cloud albedo > control and why I am disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm being shown by > the climate modelling people to try the coded modulation experiment described > in the email I sent with my email of 20 February. It is almost as if they did > not like to get ideas from electronics engineers, that they do not like being > told that they are using the wrong colours and map projections to show their > results and that it might be interesting to test spray variation according to > the phases of the monsoons and the el Nino cycle, which they have not yet > done. > > You mentioned islands in a remote area. Such places are the most likely to > be affected by rising seal levels and so we ought to think about levels of > compensation for not having geo-engineering hardware ready for use if needed > and not understanding all of its effects. I have already seen estimates of > the costs of the droughts and the probability that they are the result on > climate change. But it is not clear who is going to pay. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of > Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland [email protected] Tel +44 > (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > <http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> > > > > On 21/02/2013 17:28, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > >> Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, >> "Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar >> RadiationManagement Geoengineering" Just to take the issue one step further, >> it has come up in the area of even doing field testing. >> >> Let¹s suppose that we want to do a field test of the cloud brightening >> approach. The field test would be done at such a low level that it would not >> really generate present benefits (i.e., any significant counter-balancing of >> adverse impacts) for anyone, but let¹s suppose it might (though not clear >> how) cause some negative influence to some one‹say someone on an island out >> in the remote area where the test is being done. Let¹s also suppose that the >> field experiment would be expected to show that this approach could be used >> to counter-balance significant future climate change and in that way create a >> large net benefit (so, yes, some relatively limited negative impacts, but >> many, widespread benefits (or, at least, significant reductions in >> anticipated adverse impacts). So the question then arises, what if the >> present offended party objected to the experiment going forward because of >> negative impacts (or possible unknown consequences)? The net present effects >> of this experiment would be negative, but there would be great potential >> benefits in the future that would be foregone. >> >> In some sense, for the close-in direct consequences, this is likely not >> unlike the testing of new medicines, so there would be a need for informed >> consent and damages. While there may be precedents for the potential direct >> damages, a key question would be how to deal with the less well-defined >> unknowns and how does one consider the benefits of gaining knowledge about >> potentially achieving net benefits (so, yes, some damages) in the future. >> Pretty clearly, climate engineering will not go forward without testing, and >> testing raises the question of how to weigh/consider potential near-term >> negative consequences to gain confidence in an approach that would provide >> net benefits in the future. Basically, I would just suggest that we need to >> have social science consideration of both the issues arising around testing >> as well as for potential application. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 2/21/13 9:28 AM, "David Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Doug, >>> >>> Interesting question. I'd have to think about it more; it's probably more >>> complicated than it appears. (What isn't?) >>> >>> The basic issue is that on most ethical frameworks, one party may sometimes >>> have the right to insist that some other party refrain from harming them, >>> even when the latter party would benefit from doing so. To take a well-worn >>> but dramatic example, I have a right to insist that you refrain from >>> harvesting my organs, even if you were confident that doing so would save >>> the lives of several other people. I certainly don't need to compensate >>> people for refusing to give them my organs. The wrinkle is that this right >>> may not apply when the first party is responsible for the second party's >>> distress -- and that may be the case in your SRM scenario. Let us stipulate, >>> for the sake of this argument, that in virtue of their fossil fuel exports, >>> Russia and Canada bear some non-neglible responsibility for the climate >>> change that some future SRM-seeking states are trying to counteract. If >>> Russia and Canada oppose SRM because the warmer climate benefits them, they >>> might not be able to defend themselves by claiming that others have no right >>> to harm them. If they blocked SRM in that scenario, they might be obligated >>> to compensate those who wanted to use it. >>> >>> That's my initial response, anyway. Does that seem sensible? >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:39:12 PM UTC-6, Doug MacMartin wrote: >>> >>>> Agree that we all need to work together. Two quick comments: >>>> >>>> 1. Just want to reiterate to the non-physical-scientists that while >>>> it is quite plausible that some would be harmed by SRM (a trivial example >>>> being those who want to ship through the Arctic) it is premature to assume >>>> any specific harms from SRM, as it depends on the method, the amount, and >>>> how it is implemented (e.g. our Nature Climate Change paper indicating that >>>> some harms could be reduced by tailoring the distribution, along the lines >>>> of John & Stephen¹s observations that precip changes depend on where you do >>>> MCB.) And even if you specify everything, I would at least wait for GeoMIP >>>> analysis to understand a bit of model robustness. I only skimmed through, >>>> but I think Peter and Toby were reasonably careful to say ³could² most of >>>> the time rather than ³would² >>>> >>>> 2. This is a serious question, not a joke: is there an ethical >>>> framework to ask about compensation to those who would be harmed by >>>> blocking the use of SRM? I.e., in some hypothetical future scenario in >>>> which there was great confidence that many people could benefit from SRM, >>>> should those who don¹t want SRM compensate those who would likely be harmed >>>> by that decision? If not, why not? >>>> >>>> >>>> doug >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
