Below is another report on this panel. By the way, info on the panel is available here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49540 Its membership is listed here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49540
A link to National Academy's report generation process that is followed by this and every other NRC panel is available here: http://www.nas.edu/studyprocess/index.html . http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1059984622 Scientists take a second look at concerns and potential for geoengineering Umair Irfan, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, July 18, 2013Scientists are taking a hard look at tweaking the planet's thermostat with geoengineering methods, which were once a taboo avenue for research, as a way to stave off some of the worst-case scenarios for the warming Earth. Earlier this week, the National Research Council convened a committee to review approaches that could cool the world, with the goal of creating a scientific foundation that could help resolve political, ethical and legal issues surrounding these controversial techniques. Geoengineering refers to techniques that deliberately change the climate at scale, like dispersing aerosols and sucking greenhouse gases straight out of the air. The researchers, gathered at the National Academies on a sweltering afternoon in Washington, D.C., laid out the immensity of the task before them. With the huge scale and threat of global climate change, many are now willing to consider ideas that once gathered dust on the fringes of acceptable science. "We have no findings yet; we have no conclusions yet," said Marcia McNutt, a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, who leads the committee. She emphasized that the discussion was an exploration and would not reflect on what makes it into the committee's final report. "Geoengineering is not an easy subject to come to grips with," said Richard Rosen, a climate researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of sponsors for the study. "Some are advocating for field experiments now, while others have called the idea of putting sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere 'barking mad.'" Madness or a needed backstop? The idea of meddling with the global climate through seeding clouds or absorbing carbon dioxide with giant machines is risky, but with two centuries of industrial emissions, humanity has engineered the climate already, albeit with looming disastrous consequences. In addition, while interest in geoengineering is growing, geoengineering data are lacking, creating a frustrating self-fulfilling cycle from risk-averse funding agencies that won't finance geoengineering projects without better information and more accountability. Researchers are also concerned about how geoengineering could fit in within the broader climate change response framework, whether it should be integrated into existing emissions mitigation and adaptation initiatives or if should remain locked away behind an "In Case of Emergency" glass pane. Some are worried that making geoengineering viable would create complacency in mitigating climate change on other fronts, like cutting emissions or displacing fossil fuels. "I believe NOAA can play a leadership role in geoengineering research, but we hesitated in large part because of what one of you has labeled the 'deadlock of governance' in geoengineering research," Rosen said, addressing the committee. NASA, another sponsor for the study, is particularly interested in developing the science behind geoengineering and filling in its knowledge gaps, more so than in the techniques to implement it, according to David Considine, a researcher at the agency. "I think that NASA would be interested in knowing the answer to the question 'What don't we know?'" he said. Robert Socolow, a professor at Princeton University and co-director of the school's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, concurred. "The scrimmage line is not deployment; it's research," he said. He explained that geoengineering strategies tend to center on either solar radiation management or carbon dioxide removal. Radiation management encompasses reflecting the sun's energy into space with clouds and aerosols, while carbon removal includes industrial-scale capture devices, as well as planting trees and cultivating algae. What should we know? Carbon removal tends to be slower and more expensive but less risky than radiation management approaches. Consequently, Socolow suggested the committee should spend the bulk of its time investigating techniques that modulate the sun's light and heat. "It would be wise for the [National] Academies to focus exclusively on solar radiation," said David Keith, a professor at Harvard University who holds appointments in the school's public policy and physics departments. "In particular, I believe there should be a U.S. government research program on solar radiation, how to manage it and eventually how to commercialize it." Earlier this year, Keith called for federal guidelines on geoengineering research to rein in rogue experiments and to build up a body of potentially useful knowledge (*ClimateWire*<http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1059977994/>, March 18). However, many scientists are reluctant to step into this realm. "I spend a lot of time trying to convince a lot of people to start research," said Jane Long, co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Task Force on Geoengineering. "There is definitely more interest, but people are still uncomfortable for a whole lot of reasons." Though concerns about how the world will respond to a deliberately driven climate are valid, Long noted that these approaches are still very far off and investigating them would yield information that benefits geophysical research. "It makes climate science more robust," she said. "We should not decide *a priori* we won't develop an idea." As for the committee, Long said its report should call for further geoengineering studies. "I think the best thing they can do is highlight the fact that there could be more utility in these methods and that we don't know enough about them and we should do more research," she said. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > It's exactly the same PR perception as the ill fated spice project managed > the to create. The men in grey suits and white coats are conspiring to do > things to us we wouldn't approve of. > > A > On Jul 18, 2013 9:26 AM, "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The information appears to indicate that the study is being undertaken >> by the Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research >> Council/National Academy of Sciences. So, this is a public study and >> members of panel have been announced, etc. and will all be as transparent >> as Academy studies are. See >> http://dels.nas.edu/Study-In-Progress/Geoengineering-Technical-Evaluation-Selected-Approaches/DELS-BASC-12-04?bname=basc >> >> So, no reason to think anything nefarious is going on. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 7/17/13 2:58 PM, "Jim Lee" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So much for transparency? >> >> Will geoengineering become "national security" and thus hidden under >> "classified" stamps? >> >> Has any member of this group been approached by the CIA or NAS, or are >> you "not at liberty to say" >> >> I have been hopeful that this community would embrace open discussion, >> and sincerely hope that whatever comes of this study remains open to the >> public. >> >> This is mentioned here as well >> >> >> - >> >> http://dels.nas.edu/Study-In-Progress/Geoengineering-Technical-Evaluation-Selected-Approaches/DELS-BASC-12-04 >> - >> - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/CpJCKKGRBJE >> - >> - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/alL4E2sWvZ8 >> - >> - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/kbciEyb1IwM >> - >> - >> >> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/cia-geoengineering-control-climate-change >> - >> - http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/17-3 >> - http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingId=6748 >> >> *Project Title: >> *Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts >> *PIN: >> *DELS-BASC-12-04 * * * * >> *Major Unit: >> *Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education >> <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dbasse> Division on Earth and Life >> Studies <http://dels.nas.edu/> >> *Sub Unit: >> *Board on Environmental Change and Society >> <http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/becs> Ocean Studies Board >> <http://dels.nas.edu/osb> Board on Atmospheric Sciences & Climate < >> http://www7.nationalacademies.org/basc> >> *RSO: >> *Dunlea, Edward >> *Subject/Focus Area: >> *Earth Sciences; Engineering and Technology >> >> *Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts >> *July 16, 2013 - July 17, 2013 >> National Academy of Sciences Building >> 2100 C St. NW >> Washington D.C. >> >> *If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open >> to the public or need more information please contact: >> *Contact Name: Shelly Freeland >> Email: [email protected] >> Phone: 202-334-2649 >> Fax: 202-334-3825 >> * >> Agenda: >> *July 16, 2013 >> National Academy of Sciences Building >> 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW >> Washington, DC 20418 >> Room 125 >> OPEN SESSION >> 1:30 pm Discussion – Focus of the Study >> Goals for discussion: >> - More clearly understand perspectives of report sponsors – what are the >> most important issues to be covered in the report? >> - Explore nuances of committee’s task – what should be included in report? >> 1:30 PM Welcome Marcia McNutt, Committee Chair >> 1:40 PM NOAA perspective Rick Rosen and Dian Seidel, NOAA >> 1:50 PM NASA perspective David Considine, NASA >> 2:00 PM Open discussion Committee and Guests >> 3:00 PM Break >> 3:15 PM Discussion – Perspectives from the Community >> Goals for discussion: >> - Hear from community – what issues are important to other communities >> (e.g., scientific community, policy community, etc.)? >> - Explore committee’s task – how can report be of use to a broader >> community? >> 3:15 PM Jane Long, Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Geoengineering >> (via telecon) >> 3:45 PM Robert Socolow, Princeton University >> 4:15 PM Thomas Karl USGCRP and Thomas Armstrong OSTP/USGCRP (via telecon) >> 4:45 PM Open discussion >> 5:30 PM Open session ends >> RSVP is required to attend this meeting. >> >> >> >> Jim Lee >> http://terraforminginc.com/ >> http://climateviewer.com/ >> >> On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:47:00 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3611166 >> >> CIA Backs $630,000 Study Into How To Control The Weather >> >> Huffington Post UK >> >> Jul 17, 2013 >> The US Central Intelligence Agency is reportedly funding a study into how >> to control the weather.That's right, being able to learn to control the >> governments and foreign operatives of the rest of the world isn't quite >> enough - the CIA also wants to manipulate their climates.Well, sort of. >> What the CIA is actually doing is funding part of a $630,000, 21-month >> study into the science of modifying the climate, known as >> geo-engineering.Langley is interested in both solar radiation management >> (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques.The former involves >> sending material into the atmosphere in an attempt to block infrared >> radiation and so halt rising temperatures - possibly permanently. The >> latter is just what it sounds like - learning to remove massive amounts of >> carbon dioxide from air, in order to limit the effects of climate >> change.Reported by Mother Jones, the study intends to learn and describe >> "what is known about the viability for implementation of the proposed >> techniques including technological and cost considerations".It goes on:"The >> study will also discuss historical examples of related technologies (e.g., >> cloud seeding and other weather modification) for lessons that might be >> learned about societal reactions, examine what international agreements >> exist which may be relevant to the experimental testing or deployment of >> geoengineering technologies, and briefly explore potential societal and >> ethical considerations related to geoengineering.This study is intended to >> provide a careful, clear scientific foundation that informs ethical, legal, >> and political discussions surrounding geoengineering."As pointed out by the >> Verge, however, this isn't quite the first time that the CIA has attempted >> to get involved in the weather. Examples from the past include trying to >> start (maybe) rain storms during the Vietnam War to turn trails into >> impassable bogs, and experiments (possibly) to control hurricanes with >> silver iodine.And they're not alone - China reportedly also tried to seed >> the clouds in advance of the 2008 Olympics to control the weather during >> the opening ceremony.Speaking to Mother Jones, a CIA spokesman did not >> confirm their investment in the study but said:"It's natural that on a >> subject like climate change the Agency would work with scientists to better >> understand the phenomenon and its implications on national security." >> >> -- >> 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. >> 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. > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
