Salif, "We are already doing geoengineering"
My view (and perhaps this is incorrect) is that almost all of the population would take the opposite view to this statement and agree we are NOT doing geoengineering (here restricted to SRM) now. In fact, despite of knowing one or two here and there - I was talking to Alan Gadian a week or two ago who I know supports this view publicly - it appears widely accepted by the academic community that the opposite is true and we are not geoengineering today. Geoengineering, traditionally, includes the notion of intent. Could you tell me what you mean by geoengineering? Could you tell me your view as to whether intent actually matters in any situations? If it does not, this seems to fly in the face of quite a lot of ethics and everyday interpretation of events. Do you ignore these events, or if not are you suggesting (somehow ... for some reason) that there is already an intentional SRM geoengineering programme and this is why you say we are already geoengineering? A good discussion on definitions is found here, for example: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8802617 Thank you for your clarification. "works undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the optimal particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching the earth" My guess (and it is merely a guess) from this is that Al Gore could possibly be MORE opposed to these. Given that there could be chemical surprises with other particles, one could argue if Al Gore is opposed to something we have a better handle on (and at least have observed a good few times), then he would probably be against these, but it's hard to say. Simon ________________________________________________ Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll ________________________________________ From: Salif KONE [[email protected]] Sent: 25 August 2013 13:15 To: [email protected] Cc: Simon Driscoll Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Simon, I do understand that he assumes the SRM technique to be awful under the consideration of injecting sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere, but works undertaking under the umbrella of SRM include researches about the optimal particles that can be injected to reduce solar Radiation reaching the earth. We are already doing geoengineering but in the wrong way, without taking into account the impact of what we are already injecting in the atmosphere through commercial aircrafts. **************************************************** Salif KONE, M.Sc.Université Joseph Fourier/OSUG Grenoble/ UniversitéMontpellier II, 2007. Enseignant à l’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs Abderrhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT) Adresse: 410 Av. Van Vollenhoven BP.: 242, Bamako-Mali. PhD Student(Oct. 2011- present), ISFRA-Bamako. Tel.:+223 76 39 60 09 / +223 64 59 67 99 BP.:7048, Bamako-Mali. Email:[email protected] De : Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> À : Gene Gordon <[email protected]> Cc : Simon Driscoll <[email protected]>; Salif KONE <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Samedi 24 août 2013 16h46 Objet : Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Al Gore is not opposing geoengineering research because he wants to profit off of climate change, as suggested by Eugene. Asserting this is as nutty as asserting that people commonly support geoengineering research because they hope to profit off of the technologies developed. Let's try to be more generous in our attribution of motives. _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Somewhat confusing and very tough! It is generally believed that the monetary investment return (my choice based on your use of the terms portfolio and type) of research if there is a return is at least 20 years. I suspect that for global warming research the financial investment return delay would be much longer. In contrast the return on development is much earlier and more certain but it is too early for development. I suspect that few here will make a personal financial investment. The personal investment is related to career and how large is also personal. Governments seldom make financial investments unless politics is part of the equation. From: "Simon Driscoll" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Salif KONE" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:09:59 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering "If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research." Agreed. ________________________________________________ Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 24 August 2013 17:09 To: Simon Driscoll Cc: Salif KONE; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering There is a pleasing simplicity to answering a question as if it were a binary, but I suppose if you got these people in a room and spoke with them quietly, the question could not be answered with a yes or no, but rather with an expression of what kind and how much. If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research. I suspect that even Al Gore and Ray Pierrehumbert would favor some climate modeling, strategic analyses, etc. 'Small and limited' is not as catchy 'they're just crazy' as a rhetorical device. Sometimes the will to entertain supercedes the need to make a nuanced point. On Saturday, August 24, 2013, Simon Driscoll wrote: Salif, my belief is that he suggests other avenues are far more sensible and that this avenue isn't one to seek a solution from, hence his: "We shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy." Admittedly, it's quite full on, albeit similar sentiments have been echoed before by some of the world's most prominent scientists/policy researchers etc., e.g.: "In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the annual American Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said the idea of putting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere was “barking mad.” Pierrehumbert also rejects the value of doing field experiments. “The whole idea of geoengineering is so crazy and would lead to such bad consequences, it really is pretty pointless. We already know enough about sulfate albedo engineering to know it would put the world in a really precarious state. Field experiments are really a dangerous step on the way to deployment, and I have a lot of doubts what would actually be learned.”" It seems that Tim Palmer holds the belief that impressions will change a lot when models become better (although he doesn't use a comparable tone): "the nations of the world should come together to fund the sort of supercomputers that would allow us to simulate the climate of the coming century with much greater reliability than is currently possible. The impact that this will have for mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering policies is likely to be enormous.", and so on. Al Gore does discuss other things he think may bring about solutions though - just not involving SRM in any way. And anyway, it seems quite obvious that there exists no necessary condition for a statement involving the pointing out of what an individual considers to be a major obvious issue/flaw to be coupled with a solution, no? Simon ________________________________________________ Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: Salif KONE [[email protected]] Sent: 24 August 2013 15:19 To: Simon Driscoll; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering I do disagree with this Al Gore' statement " ...We shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy.". He exposes the problems without proposing a solution; Geo-engineering is trying to find a solutin through techniques as SRM... **************************************************** Salif KONE, M.Sc.Université Joseph Fourier/OSUG Grenoble/ UniversitéMontpellier II, 2007. Enseignant à l’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs Abderrhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT) Adresse: 410 Av. Van Vollenhoven BP.: 242, Bamako-Mali. PhD Student(Oct. 2011- present), ISFRA-Bamako. Tel.:+223 76 39 60 09 / +223 64 59 67 99 BP.:7048, Bamako-Mali. Email:[email protected] De : Simon Driscoll <[email protected]> À : "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Vendredi 23 août 2013 21h20 Objet : [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Al Gore: "Let me deal with the geoengineering part of your question first. That’s complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere , though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips — these are simply nuts. We shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy. To the broader part of your question, innovation is already playing a major role in bringing about new potential solutions to the climate crisis. The tech world had a bitter experience after the burst of enthusiasm in 2005 and 2006 because of a perfect storm made up of four elements: First, the great recession, which had a huge, destructive impact on business generally. Number two, the Chinese juggernaut, which subsidized the production of several prominent renewable energy technologies to the point where their sales price fell below the price of production in the West. Third, the shale gas boom dropped the retail price of electricity to levels below what many renewable energy plans needed to be viable. And fourth there was the policy failure I mentioned earlier in the U.S. Senate and Copenhagen. And all the while there was this massively funded climate denier campaign by the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobile and others that hired tobacco industry veterans to work with them on consumer advertising and lobbying activities. But that setback was only temporary because reality has a way of reasserting itself. There has been a 100-fold increase in the number of extreme, high-temperature events around the world in the distribution curve. And people have noticed for themselves — the rain storms are bigger, the droughts are deeper and the fires are more destructive. All of these things have not escaped notice and people are connecting the dots. The cumulative amount of energy trapped by manmade global warming pollution each day in the earth’s atmosphere is now equal to the energy that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima bombs going off every 24 hours. It’s a big planet, but that’s a lot of energy. The consequences are now hard to escape. Every night on the news, it’s like a nature hike through the book of revelations. Eleven states today are fighting 35 major fires! People are noticing this. And simultaneously they’re noticing the sharp drop in the cost of carbon-free, greenhouse gas-free energy, and the combination is pushing us over this political tipping point and the trend is unstoppable." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/al-gore-explains-why-hes-optimistic-about-stopping-global-warming/ -- 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. -- _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
