Hi Andrew - I think there's a semantic argument in there, but I see your point. I'll keep that in mind for next time. And for anyone out there in CDR or governance (or any other area I missed), if you feel your quite important work needs better representation than I gave, I would be happy to see if the ITHP staff is interested in contacting you to answer a few questions.
Best, Ben On Oct 4, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > For clarity Ben, I wouldn't have expected citations in an interview . > However, a mention of the significant work others have done on practical CDR, > and also the extensive literature on governance/security would have perhaps > been helpful. > > The issue on emissions cuts is that is doesn't 'solve' climate change (delta > temperature still >0) . It just stops it getting worse (by delta RF=0) as > quickly as would otherwise be the case. In the short-term, it actually makes > things worse as aerosol emissions fall (delta RF >0, hence delta T>>0). Most > laymen don't understand that, which is why I feel it's important to clarity > this. > > A > > On Oct 4, 2013 3:25 PM, "Ben Kravitz" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew - > > Thanks for posting this! I only did the interview yesterday, and I'm > impressed it went up so quickly. And Fred, thanks for your very nice > comments. > > "Interesting" can sometimes mean "I would have done things differently," so > hopefully I can shed some light on why I conducted the interview the way I > did. Of course, everyone does these sorts of things differently, and there > probably isn't a single right way to conduct an interview. I'm also still > learning, so there is undoubtedly room for improvement on my end. That said, > I'm quite happy with the way the interview turned out, especially given how > short it was. > > The things I said in this interview are an accurate reflection of how I'm > thinking about geoengineering today. As I learn more, my thoughts evolve, > and I might give different answers in the future. But for now, I do think > that the only permanent solution to climate change is to quit putting CO2 in > the atmosphere. Beyond that, I was operating under the assumption that the > questions were designed with this particular venue's readers in mind, so I > tried to stick to the questions he asked. > > I'm also disinclined to talk about things I don't know. CDR and governance > issues are important and definitely worth mentioning (which is why I > mentioned them), but there are plenty of smart people out there who know more > about those things than I do. I don't know if there will be any follow-up > interviews with other people who are experts in the areas I didn't discuss. > But if he does interview those people, he'll certainly get more helpful > answers about those topics. I could have easily listed citations and > references to other people's work in such great quantity that it would have > taken up 10 pages, but this didn't strike me as that kind of interview. That > said, I really do think it takes a community of researchers to represent all > of the important issues in geoengineering. > > Best, > > Ben > > On Oct 4, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Andrew,I for one applaud Ben's refusal to be drawn on governance issues -- >> surely we don't all need to talk about governance every time we give an >> interview -- and I feel similarly positive about his willingness to use >> scientific terminology! Also, remember when evaluating interviews that the >> subjects sometimes have only a modest degree of control over the words that >> appear once the journalist is done tightening the material for publication. >> This is a short interview, I would not be surprised if there was additional >> discussion that did not make it into "print". >> >> >> --- >> Fred Zimmerman >> Geoengineering IT! >> Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology >> GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Poster's note : I found Ben's interview style interesting. For clarity, I >> think Ben is one of the finest minds in geoengineering research, and don't >> mean to criticise his professional competence or personal integrity >> whatsoever. However, a few things strike me when reading the text: >> >> 1) When considering experimentation, Ben omits consideration of the >> Russians' small scale aerosol injection experiments, or our extensive, >> practical understanding of many CDR technologies. >> 2) He does not mention that ship tracks etc. inform our understanding of >> real-world processes, without needing dedicated experiments. >> 3) He generally refuses to be drawn on governance issues, and the military >> and security aspects of geoengineering. In particular, he doesn't mention >> the body of literature developed by other researchers on those issues. >> 4) He uses scientific terminology (eg hydro cycle, sequestration, etc. ) in >> the interview. >> 5) He claims that stopping emissions is a permanent solution to climate >> change. This doesn't address the issue of historic emissions, and may >> confuse some readers. >> http://www.countercurrents.org/ithp031013.htm >> >> What Is Geoengineering And How Does It Work? >> >> By ITHP Staff >> 03 October, 2013 >> >> It shouldn't come as a surprise that planet Earth is heating up. Though many >> of us would applaud the idea of getting out our shorts and tank tops a few >> days early, we'd quickly change our minds after examining the consequences >> of global warming. Scientists looking for ways to combat increasing >> temperatures are now exploring new innovative possibilities of cooling the >> planet through modern technology.One such scientist is Ben Kravitz. Dr. >> Kravitz is part of a group of scientists researching geoengineering and >> hoping to prevent the future negative effects of global warming. ITHP got to >> interview Dr. Kravitz about his work in climate modeling and research. Enjoy. >> >> What is geoengineering and how does it work? >> >> That's actually a more difficult question than it sounds. But before I begin >> answering that, I want to be perfectly clear. The only research anyone has >> done on geoengineering has been using computer models or inside lab >> space.There are two broad categories of geoengineering research, which are >> known as Solar Reduction Methods (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). >> These two technologies are really different, and they're really only related >> in that they are ways people might intervene to reduce the effects of global >> warming. SRM tries to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the planet. >> There are several proposed ideas, such as putting reflectors in space, >> making Earth's surface brighter, or putting a layer of sulfate aerosols in >> the stratosphere. (The last one on that list is what large volcanic >> eruptions do, and we know that volcanic eruptions can cool the surface.) CDR >> attempts to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by preventing its >> emission or by extracting it from the atmosphere and sequestering it. There >> are other technologies that don't really fall neatly into either category. >> My expertise is in SRM, so that's what I'll focus on.The problem with all of >> those technologies is they're purely technical. They don't say what >> geoengineering is supposed to do or how much geoengineering would be done. >> Should geoengineering cool the planet by a certain number of degrees? Should >> it change the hydrological cycle? Should it restore sea ice? Should it >> prevent ocean acidification? All of these questions (and a lot more) need to >> be answered by society, not by scientists, before a technology or set of >> technologies is chosen, should society decide it wants to pursue >> geoengineering.Another problem that should be addressed is how >> geoengineering should be used. SRM is not a permanent "fix" for climate >> change. It's imperfect and temporary (blocking sunlight does different >> things to the climate than reducing CO2), and if SRM is suddenly stopped, >> the climate will rebound very quickly to a warmer one. The only permanent >> solution to climate change is to stop emitting CO2. Geoengineering might be >> used as a way of temporarily keeping temperatures below a dangerous level (I >> repeat might, since that hasn't been determined) while efforts to reduce >> climate change's effects are ramped up. But that too needs to be decided >> before geoengineering is used. Essentially, if society decides to start >> geoengineering, it needs to have a plan for when and how to >> stop.Geoengineering researchers such as myself are pursuing a better >> understanding of geoengineering in case society comes up with such a plan. >> >> What is your present role relating to geoengineering? >> >> I am a climate modeler, which means I take computer models of the climate >> and "ask" them what the effect of geoengineering might be if geoengineering >> is done in a certain way. I'm currently coordinating the Geoengineering >> Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), which is an organized group of >> climate modeling centers around the world who are conducting the same >> simulations of geoengineering. We've just completed a round of simulations >> in which we looked at very idealized simulations ("turning down" the sun in >> response to an increase in CO2) and a few more realistic ones involving >> stratospheric sulfate aerosols. We've just designed some new experiments >> that will look at the effects of brightening marine low clouds, like the >> kind you can see off the coast of California. >> >> What are the dangers of geoengineering? Publications such as the New York >> Times have claimed the potential consequences of geoengineering to be >> detrimental citing potential shifts in the ozone and rainfall levels being >> adversely affected? >> >> That really depends on how geoengineering is done. We're still learning a >> lot about the potential effects, and it's fair to say there is quite a lot >> we don't know. It has been shown in climate models that stratospheric >> sulfate aerosols could cause changes in ozone and precipitation patterns. >> CDR has its own risks, although I know a lot more about SRM. Even beyond the >> climatic consequences, there are many potential geopolitical consequences of >> geoengineering, on which I'm also not an expert. Geoengineering is a large, >> multi-disciplinary issue, and it's taking a lot of work from a lot of very >> smart people to figure out all of the questions that need to be answered. >> >> Since geoengineering most likely will affect the entire world who will vote >> on this? The United Nations? Are we waiting on a global governance system? >> >> I'm not an expert on the governance of geoengineering, so all I can say is >> there are a lot of very complex issues involved. Researchers can explore if >> and how geoengineering can help, but policymakers have to take the lead on >> if and how to put it into action. >> >> At present is there any form of geoengineering currently going on in the >> U.S? Most Americans by now have seen planes spraying cities with large >> contrails that can turn the entire sky white. Is this normal? As a scientist >> do you know why this spraying will happen than cease completely for weeks? >> >> There is no form of geoengineering currently going on in the U.S., and >> airplanes are not "spraying" anything. Contrails are basically just a >> specific type of cloud. You get them when you mix warm, moist air (jet >> exhaust) with cold, dry air (the atmosphere at those high altitudes). You >> can see the same effect on a cold day, when you can see your breath. >> Contrails form when conditions allow those clouds to form. If the atmosphere >> where the plane is flying isn't cold or dry enough, a contrail won't form >> and you won't see the plane's exhaust. But the air changes a lot (there are >> winds, and air moves around), which is why you might see a patchy looking >> contrail. >> >> What progress are other countries making such as China in controlling the >> weather? >> >> I really don't know enough about weather control to be able to answer this >> question. Geoengineering is designed to affect the climate, not the weather, >> and weather is not my area of expertise. >> >> In your opinion why are military strategists are taking a close interest in >> geoengineering? >> >> As I'm not affiliated with any military organization, I cannot say whether >> any military strategists are interested in geoengineering or why they would >> be interested. >> >> >> -- >> 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.
