Mike
In case your spam filter is over active I will attach the coded
modulation note to my next email. It includes some results from the
first attempt at measuring an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer
function. If what you are saying is correct the scatter from run to
run with different sequences would be too wide to be useful but figure 5
shows that it not. Figure 3b shows that spray off Namibia has a drying
effect in the Amazon in agreement with Jones Hayward and Boucher but
also where you would have to spray to restore the missing precipitation.
If replication in another climate model shows any resemblance to these
results we may get a very powerful insight into the climate system or
perhaps into ways to make climate models better.
Stephen
The results shown in
On 22/02/2013 16:59, 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" Hi Stephen---First, I don't
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
don't 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 don't 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
<http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>>
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.
Let's 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 let's 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.
Let's 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 &
Stephen's 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 "could" most of the time
rather than "would"
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 don't 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.
--
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
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 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.
