Fere's a response posted as a comment on the piece at Nature Paul Bertsch•2014-12-03 05:45 PMOn behalf of the organizers and participants of the World Climate Summit on Climate Engineering, I would point out inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the article “Climate thinkers thrash out a plan“. The article incorrectly characterizes the individuals involved in the meeting, the intended outcome of the meeting, and the suggestion that the outcome or recommendations of the meeting would feed into the recently completed study by the National Academy of Sciences, which is currently under review. The meeting was sponsored by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, which is comprised of scientific and science education society leaders whose members number close to 1.4 M, but not a meeting of all of those leaders. The intended outcome was to establish a dialogue and initiate a scientific society driven process to identify interdisciplinary research directions and explore potential governance structures. The intention was never to generate information that would feed into the study by the National Academy of Sciences, as this study is currently under peer review. Paul M Bertsch Past-chair, Council of Scientific Society Presidents
On Tuesday, 2 December 2014 18:58:48 UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: > > http://www.nature.com/news/climate-tinkerers-thrash-out-a-plan-1.16470 > > NATURE | NEWS > > Climate tinkerers thrash out a plan > > Geoengineers meet to work out what research is acceptable. > Quirin Schiermeier > > 02 December 2014 > > On 1 December, the United Nations kicked off a summit in Lima that aims to > forge a global deal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Now, > representatives of dozens of scientific societies are gathering in > Washington DC to thrash out a set of principles for researching highly > controversial technologies known as geoengineering. The methods offer ways > to cool the planet should political approaches fail. > > “There are a number of risks and unknowns,” says Paul Bertsch, deputy > director of the Land and Water Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and > Industrial Research Organisation in Brisbane, Australia, and past chair of > the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, which is convening the > geoengineering meeting. “So we urgently need to develop and implement a > coordinated research plan that begins to address these in a deliberate > way.”Some ideas, such as injecting carbon dioxide into rocks or the depths > of the ocean, are already being tested. Others are more futuristic: > spraying sea water into the air to brighten clouds and reflect more > sunlight back into space; adding sulphate particles to the upper atmosphere > to mimic the natural cooling effect of volcanic ash; and even placing giant > mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight before it reaches Earth. > > Not one, however, has garnered much enthusiasm in environmental or > political spheres. The idea of tinkering with the planet smacks of > scientific hubris, and many are worried about unintended consequences. > Climate scientists are concerned, for example, that adding sulphate to the > stratosphere might reduce rainfall in some regions and worsen ozone > depletion. > > On 2–3 December, leaders of societies representing some 1.4 million > scientists, engineers and educators will work out what research is and is > not acceptable given the possible social, ecological and economic effects > of climate engineering. A conference held in 2010 in Asilomar, California, > failed to produce clear guidelines (see Nature 464,656; 2010).Most > scientists say that it is too early to consider large-scale trials, > especially for solar-radiation management, because the techniques have not > yet been adequately tested in controlled settings. However, many maintain > that geoengineering should not be ruled out as a last resort to prevent the > worst effects of global warming. > > “The question is when, if at all, should we start doing outdoor > experiments?” says Matthew Watson, a volcanologist at the University of > Bristol, UK, who is overseeing a project to determine how the deliberate > spreading of sun-blocking particles might alter atmospheric chemistry (see > ‘UK experiments’). “I don’t particularly ‘like’ geoengineering, but I’m > afraid we do need to think about controlled field trials.” > > Matthew Watson, a volcanologist at the University of Bristol, presented > the results of the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering > (SPICE) project. SPICE investigated whether spraying particles into the > atmosphere could reflect sunlight and cool the planet, offsetting global > warming. A planned test of some of the technology was abandoned in 2012 > when conflict-of-interest issues emerged over a patent application for the > system. But Watson says that SPICE produced useful insights, such as how a > large-scale project might alter the Sahel region in Africa. > > Piers Forster at the University of Leeds, who led the Integrated > Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals project, said that his team’s > computer modelling showed that several techniques to manage the Sun’s > radiation would produce damaging changes in rainfall that could affect > 25–65% of the world’s population.Watson, Forster and the University of > Oxford’s Steve Rayner, who is leader of a third effort called the Climate > Geoengineering Governance project, agreed that their work created many > questions. > > A method that has already been tested — ocean fertilization — provides a > particularly thorny case study. The idea was to boost ocean uptake of > carbon dioxide by pouring iron into the sea to stimulate the growth of > algal blooms. When the algae die, the captured carbon sinks to the ocean > floor, where it may remain locked away for centuries. > > But the approach came under fire when eco-entrepreneurs smelled business > opportunities. Plans by companies in the United States and Australia to > fertilize large swathes of ocean to generate carbon credits that could be > sold on greenhouse-gas-emissions markets were headed off by a 2008 > amendment to the London Convention, an international treaty that governs > ocean pollution. > > Together with a resolution made under the United Nations Convention on > Biological Diversity a few months earlier, the amendment made it difficult > to conduct trials of ocean fertilization. In 2009, for example, an > international research cruise was stopped en route to the Southern Ocean > over fears that an iron-stimulated algal bloom the team had planned to > encourage there might violate international law. > > Meanwhile, another attempt, by an amateur scientist in 2012 off the coast > of British Columbia, led to an international storm of protest and prompted > heated discussions in the Canadian government over the legality of the > experiment. > > Such unresolved governance issues mean that little funding is available > for further studies. “We’re caught up in politics,” says Ken Buesseler, an > ocean scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. > “You’d absolutely like to avoid rogue experiments that don’t generate > proper science. But there is every reason to pursue real science in the > field in an open and responsible way.”Meeting discussions are aimed at > creating comprehensive guidelines for the safe conduct of field > experiments, and will feed into a report that the US National Academies > intends to release early next year on the technical feasibility of selected > climate-engineering mechanisms. > > Neither ocean fertilization nor any other single activity will solve the > global warming problem, cautions Anya Waite of the Alfred Wegener Institute > in Bremerhaven, Germany, who represents the fields of oceanography and > limnology at this week’s meeting. “But limited ocean-fertilization > experiments are telling us a lot about how biological processes in the > ocean control climate. In terms of new regulations, they should be the > first cab off the ranks.” > > Nature 516, 20–21 > (04 December 2014) > doi:10.1038/516020a > -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.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.
