@ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish "large-scale" and "global", and note that global effects of clearance on climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily noticeable
@ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document here, and the scientific method is not obvious. The fact that he was speaking to and trying to speak for a scientific elite matters, I think. Remember a key part of Bolin's plan for IPCC was to get global buy in to elite scientific view. Also note that I do not see elite in this context as pejorative, merely descriptive @ David -- Not quite sure why the existing political order is irrelevant, but in general i agree with Phil's informal definition -- except that I don't think limate is the only thing that can be geoengineered/ "Change to teh way the earth system works made deliberately not carelessly" would suit me fine. And I don't think introduction of agriculture was intended deliberately to change the earth system, while nitrogen was, to a significant extent. Green revolution is, after all, an expression of global geopolitics, named is specific opposition to the "red revolution" On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 17:38:45 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote: > > I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought of > the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite. Why should > it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on the > street? And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than the > proposed geoengineering scheme can be implemented easily by the existing > political order or not seems irrelevant. > > Phil Rausch recently gave a talk entitled Geoengineering at the AGU > Chapman conference on Communicating Climate Science (available > *here*<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coa3VFcMCIA>) > where he referred to geoengineering as "the introduction of climate change > deliberately rather than carelessly", which seems to be at the heart of > what the word means to actively researching contemporary climatologists. > > Bringing the nitrogen cycle up while discussing geoengineering seems > useful as a way to talk about the fact that humans have had an impact on > the planet for some time, but the question is, does it advance the debate > to include it as geoengineering now? > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:43:49 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote: >> >> David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as >> expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree. >> >> The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle >> did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it >> deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a >> geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and >> indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed >> purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday >> life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change >> today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no >> easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to >> develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate >> arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some >> of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such. >> >> -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
