I was asked a question in a scientific conference and I gave the most scientifically defensible answer I could at the time. I still believe I was correct.
The talk at the conference was videotaped and in this world everything that you say lives forever. I am not going to start censoring myself at scientific meetings. I don't want to live in a world that can be characterized by Chicken McNuggets and television. I was not presenting this as a positive vision of the future. To me, a world with a sterilized ocean but Chicken McNuggets and television is exactly the kind of world we want to avoid, but it is apparently the kind of dystopic world we are heading towards unless we change our course. I cannot help it if people think a world with a sterilized ocean, Chicken McNuggets and television sounds attractive. At the time I did not imagine that anyone could see this as a positive vision of the future. I do not think the question is about whether human civilization can persist in a world where we have created a mass extinction, but rather what kind of world we want to live in. On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Emily L-B wrote: > ** > It makes my life in the conservation community very hard to defend > geo-engineering when statements like this are out. > I am not going to try to engage in this scenario but invite a discussion > with oceanographers and marine biologists if anyone is interested in > exploring this hypothesis. > However, either way, this debate will fuel the contempt for an engineering > approach to helping to mitigate-adapt to cc without full environmental, > ecological and socio-economic analysis. > Off the cuff remarks can fuel alienation as a community rather than build > bridges. > The ocean is not a bargaining chip, and it can be easily assumed that > saying ok to losing all marine life could be linked to advocating SRM and > not worrying about ocean acidification. We lend ourselves open to > assumptions with lose and flipant hypotheses. > Please be vigilant not to further alienate geo-engineering and > geo-engineers from the likes of ETC and other advocates against geo-eng. > Many thanks, > Emily > Sent from my BlackBerry > ------------------------------ > *From: * Ken Caldeira <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', '[email protected]');>> > *Sender: * [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:01:30 +0800 > *To: *Andrew Lockley<[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> > *Cc: *Emily Lewis-Brown<[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>>; geoengineering< > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>>; David > Lewis<[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > > > *Subject: *Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still > Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert > > Andrew, > > Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said. > > The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the > oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement. > > I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead > from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization. > > This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my > scientific understanding. > > Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to > investigate and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems. > > *This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs* > > http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367> > (Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds) > > Best, > > Ken > > On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > In my view, history provides the best guide to the future. > > Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and > painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption. > > The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a > greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks > through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard > about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets > into meltdown in minutes. > > The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American > middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without > disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood > to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre. > > Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat. > Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and > some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an > uninterrupted experience for the US middle class. > > A > On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B" <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** > Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can > google him). > There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond > coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of > ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may > be polluted. > Best wishes, > Emily. > Sent from my BlackBerry > ------------------------------ > *From: * Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > *Sender: * [email protected] > *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800 > *To: *[email protected]<[email protected]> > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > *Cc: *[email protected]<[email protected]> > *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have > Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert > > David, > > The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with > respect to the lithosphere is millions of years. > > There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of > removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol > per year. I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check > out the attached paper for an entree into the literature. > > In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable > literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable > oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land > and sea. If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of > anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets a > > -- _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered<http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs> -- 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.
