Hi Greg -
Thanks for your reply. Since I don't know you I checked out your
Facebook page, and very much appreciate your range of interests and
sense of humor, both of which are helpful in an arena like
geoengineering - which probably captures more anthropogenic heat
than atmosphere and oceans combined!
In response:
First of all, I'm in complete agreement that we would do well to
create "a framework for evaluating the risk/benefit of any and all
methods of addressing AGW given the capacity and timeframe
required." I'm all for knowledge, risk assessment, and appropriate
governance. However, I also do my best to be a realist.
Unfortunately, with respect to climate (and many other things) our
collective track record to date is not so good, including with
respect to building frameworks. The issues lie as much with
politics and culture as they do with science, but that seems to be
the reality, like it or not. Furthermore, we are all bound by
nature's timeline, whether we like that or not, whether we
acknowledge it or not. Right now nature's warming timeline is
racing ahead of almost all recent expectation, and we've been caught
short by feedbacks, non-linear events, etc. Which is why some of us
are desperate enough even to consider geoengineering schemes, while
climate advocates at large oddly seem to think that reducing
emissions (if possible) is enough to save us from climate chaos.
My point is that we're going to have to proceed with something,
even before we have ample reassurance in place. We all know this,
so the pressing question is what that something is. I'm not quite
sure what you're referring to by "[my] beloved biological
methods." Your description of massive restructuring of land/ocean
is not my description. While it's true that nature does geochemical
CDR in the long term, nature also does CDR biologically on an annual
basis, with a massive impact on biogeochemical systems. You know
this, so I don't quite understand your omission. What I'm
suggesting is not in the least unnatural with respect to what Mother
Nature does for CDR in the relatively short term (annual to decadal
or longer). If anything, what would be unnatural about it is the
rapid restoration of several billion desertified acres worldwide
that would be necessary for a significant impact on atmospheric
carbon burdens. What I'm suggesting is to use nature's approaches
to soil carbon capture and long-term sequestration, invoking the
extraordinary "technology" of photosynthesis (which gave us an
oxygen atmosphere in the first place) and soil biology, which have
so many benefits in restoring biodiversity and ecosystems that we
should do it no matter what.
Would albedo be affected? Quite probably. Would that be a
negative? Maybe, but we really don't know. So many things happen
when life returns to moribund places, the equations are full of
unknowns, we are dealing with complex systems where isolation of
variables leads us to many false conclusions and occasionally
headlong off precipitous cliffs. Plants affect water cycles, wind
patterns, carbon cycles, temperature, biodiversity - does the fact
that they're darker than bare, lifeless soils make a difference that
makes a difference? I would question that.
I am more than happy to subject all of this to reasonable risk
assessment and precautionary review, to scientific debate and public
scrutiny (both of which are already under way, if not yet in the
spotlight). With respect to relative risk I think approaches that
nature has worked out over millions of years hold great promise
(granting that the natural world also harbors serious perils,
terrestrial and extra-terrestrial). While we know relatively little
about how nature works, we do have some understanding of and
successful experiences with the pieces that need to be in place for
nature to proceed to repair what we have wrought.
Along these lines, we have organized a conference at Tufts
University in November, "Restoring
Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming" (I know, how dare we
utter the "R" word), which will have leading scientists as well as
land managers and activists presenting and debating the case. All
of this in the context of a mainstream climate conversation that
rather naively designates biology as belonging somewhere else, and
imagines that climate is a small carbon molecule problem (it is . .
. and it isn't). I invite you and others on this list join us
outside of the box to explore prevailing assumptions and perhaps
find some new ones that could be most helpful in addressing this
horrific threat to our lives on Eaarth.
Best regards,
Adam
On 8/23/2014 12:48 PM, Greg Rau wrote:
Adam,
Thanks for articulating your
stance. My response:
While we all fear AGW, we should
also be extremely cautious of any solutions offered to solve
this including your beloved biological methods. If we are
going to ask biology to solve this then we are going to
undertake a massive restructuring of land (and ocean?)
use/management involving changes in albedo, water use,
nutrient use, crop displacement, biomass transportation,
etc.; an approach that is highly unnatural relative to how
Mother Nature does do CDR in the long term - geochemistry
(real "geotherapy"). However, being a big advocate for
enhancing geochemical CDR, I am also aware of potential
negatives of this approach as well. Then there are valid
concerns about SRM.
My point is rather than singling
out SRM to throw stones at (Ken's "exceptionalism"), how
about creating a framework for evaluating the risk/benefit
of any and all methods of addressing AGW given the capacity
and timeframe required? Since the risks as well as the
benefits of many of these approaches are not be well
understood, why not actively foster research, with
appropriate governance, to more accurately determine the
risk/benefit of each? Then we can come to the table to more
rationally decide which if any approaches to actually
deploy. Otherwise, our decisions will be based on hope
("biology can save the day") or fear (e.g., your
"technophobia") rather than knowledge, a truly risky and
scary proposition indeed considering what is at stake and
the likelihood that we may not get a second chance if we
fail.
Greg
Hi Ken -
Clearly you're raising important points. As
one who likely falls into your category of " somebody
who believes that a certain class of
experiments requires exceptional treatment by
virtue of being a 'climate engineering
experiment' or 'geoengineering experiment,'"
I'll try to respond. By way of introduction,
I have a biological science background and
have followed climate science as a relatively
educated layperson - my primary involvement in
climate has been as an activist for 15 years.
I am currently Executive Director of Biodiversity
for a Livable Climate, a non-profit that
promotes sequestration of atmospheric carbon
in soils using nature's primary tool for CDR,
photosynthesis. We would call it geotherapy
as opposed to geoengineering, since it is
no-tech (well, an occasional iron tool or
electric fence).
We well know
that the natural world is extraordinarily
complex and that our human capacity for
understanding it and predicting its responses
to our activities is limited at best.
Granted, we've learned a great deal, and
should continue to do so - it is one of our
virtues as a species - but very very
carefully. As anthropogenic global warming
(AGW) demonstrates, our portfolio of
unintended consequences runneth over.
And that's the point. The issue with potential
geoengineering experiments isn't "political
correctness," it's fear. It's not irrational
fear, either, any more than fear of a charging
lion is irrational. I think we all consider AGW
something to be feared - otherwise why have this
list or even climate geoengineering as a formal
pursuit in the first place?
All species behavior has "unintended
consequences," evolution is nothing if not
unintended consequences (although the
attribution of "intention" to the various
kingdoms of life, 99.9% of which species have
gone extinct over the past 4 billion years or
so, may be a bit of a stretch). The unintended
consequences of keystone species behavior can be
vast, and often it's wonderful, from bacteria to
beavers (how wonderful depends on one's point of
view).
Humans, of course, are a keystone species to
beat the band, and since we generally consider
ourselves primarily at issue here let's look at
this from our point of view. To wit, we want our
life-support systems to remain intact (we don't
care much about life-support systems of
dinosaurs or plague bacteria, etc.). And the
unintended consequences of technology since the
last ice age, but especially the last 300 years,
have resulted in severely decimating our
life-support systems. At some level most of us
know this, therefore our technophobia has deep
roots, no matter how much we love our
technological adventures. I hope that this
begins to address the political correctness
question.
With respect to "an operational definition that
would allow a potential regulator to
unambiguously determine whether a proposed
experiment aimed at understanding climate
consequences of aerosols does or does not
constitute a 'climate
engineering experiment' or 'geoengineering
experiment,'" I understand and
sympathize with your frustration, but I'm sure
you realize that developing such an
operational definition is not a trivial
exercise. Nor are unambiguous determinations.
One would have to develop
non-destructive/non-interfering atmospheric
experiments to assuage these concerns -
obviously also not a trivial exercise.
I have great
respect for your work and that of climate
scientists and related fields, and I
wholeheartedly support better understanding of
as many elements of the climate equation as
possible, certainly including aerosol effects.
But the geophysical world, like the
biological world (an artificial boundary, at
best), seems exquisitely sensitive to factors
that may seem to us to be minimal (who would
notice a 1°C change in ambient temperature,
for example?). Hence the hesitation among
many of us to apply geoengineering of any kind
to a climate system already in disarray as a
result of human technology. I would add that
I think there's good evidence that the
potential of soil sequestration renders most
of geoengineering moot, at least in theory,
but I'm sure that would turn into a protracted
discussion - for another time.
Best wishes,
Adam
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:27:54 AM UTC-4,
kcaldeira wrote:
Isn't all of
this excessive political
correctness over potential
geoengineering experiments likely
to make it more difficult to do
experiments aimed at better
understand aerosol forcing?
Can
somebody who believes that a
certain class of experiments
requires exceptional treatment by
virtue of being a 'climate
engineering experiment' or
'geoengineering experiment' please
provide me with an operational
definition that would allow a
potential regulator to
unambiguously determine whether a
proposed experiment aimed at
understanding climate consequences
of aerosols does or does not
constitute a 'climate engineering
experiment' or 'geoengineering
experiment' ?
On
Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Andrew
Lockley <[email protected]>
wrote:
Poster's note : those
pesky clouds are still proving a
source of much debate. Dealing with
changes in forcings as aerosols are
cleaned out in coming decades will
be a major challenge. This could be
the tipping point for SRM adoption.
Keywords:
aerosol;satellite-based
estimate;direct forcing;indirect
forcing
Large uncertainties
exist in estimations of aerosol
direct radiative forcing (DRF) and
indirect radiative forcing (IRF),
and the values derived from global
modeling differ substantially with
satellite-based calculations.
Following the approach of Quaas et
al. (2008; hereafter named
Quaas2008), we reassess
satellite-based clear- and
cloudy-sky radiative forcings and
their seasonal variations by
employing updated satellite products
from 2004 to 2011 in combination
with the anthropogenic aerosol
optical depth (AOD) fraction
obtained from model simulations
using the GEOS-Chem-APM. Our derived
annual mean aerosol clear-sky
forcing (-0.59 Wm-2) is lower while
the cloudy-sky forcing (-0.34 Wm-2)
higher than the corresponding
results (-0.9 Wm-2 and -0.2 Wm-2,
respectively) reported in Quaas2008.
Our study indicates that the derived
forcings are sensitive to the
anthropogenic AOD fraction and its
spatial distribution but insensitive
to the temporal resolution used to
obtain the regression coefficients,
i.e. monthly or seasonal-based. The
forcing efficiency (i.e. the
magnitude per anthropogenic AOD) for
the clear-sky forcing based on this
study is 19.9 Wm-2, which is about
5% smaller than Quaas2008's value of
21.1 Wm-2. In contrast, the
efficiency for the cloudy-sky
forcing of this study (11 Wm-2) is
more than a factor of two larger
than Quaas2008's value of 4.7 Wm-2.
Uncertainties tests indicate that
anthropogenic fraction of AOD
strongly affect the computed
forcings while using aerosol index
(AI) instead of AOD from satellite
data as aerosol proxy does not
appear to cause any significant
differences in regression slopes and
derived forcings.
--
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 geoengineerin...@
googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.
com.
--
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/d/optout.
|
