Hi, I also disagreed with the premise of this op ed, but for quite different reasons: I have not been able to understand how someone like David Keith has been able to get fixated on such a notion as this bit about "Who will control the thermostat?" of geoengineering, which he has discussed for years now......
It should be obvious that even if geoengineering works effectively to counter warming, the very concept that it can therefore act as a functional "thermostat" is an entirely different question, and dubious in every respect, it seems to me. The silliness is in the complete lack of assumed agency from the biosphere, and the obviously complex responses of abiological aspects of the Earth System as well. It's hardly just struggling humans who will "have their own ideas" about changes to solar input - every species, and every physical system, has its responses to all changes in the thermodynamic state of the planet, and the sum of all these responses gives you a net temperature. So it's one thing to temporarily be able to "push" the climate in a given direction - a kind of global aspirin, if you will - but quite another to imagine that you can through such means set the "global thermostat" at 58 or 59 or whatever, as though through aspirin Keith could set his internal temperature to 97.5 if he wished. I think that's just pure nonsense. You might be able to do such a thing, at least in the sense of a little "more" or "less" for a little while, but you'd have to use entirely different means altogether than just the atmosphere or solar input to have some kind of planetary thermostat. Consider the Azolla event after the PETM, in which a major driver for the planet first getting its modern ice caps likely came from a single species without any underlying solar signal at. To maintain a global thermostat, you'd effectively have to police every "rogue species" on the planet, not just the "rogue states." Oh, and you'd have to run the tectonic plates, too....... Cheers, Nathan On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:24:09 AM UTC-5, Motoko M. wrote: > > Great reference. I want to add the following sentence of von Neumann: > "All experience shows that even smaller technological changes than those > now in the cards profoundly transform political and social relationships." > > Von Neumann could be right in assuming that climate control will change a > lot. It will change also the relationship of science and policy. > > > Am 30.01.2015 um 22:37 schrieb Jim Fleming: > > As argued in 1955: > > "Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others > even more > > awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our > present > > involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves: > > once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited." > > -- John von Neumann, “Can We Survive Technology?” Fortune, June 1955, > 106–108. > > James R. Fleming > Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College > Research Associate, Columbia University > Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, > bit.ly/THQMcd > Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to >> be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain >> unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been >> overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential). >> >> Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about >> international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions >> or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes >> breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. >> Presumably >> everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a >> consensus process... >> >> So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding >> SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic >> situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate >> internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would >> still need to happen as fast as possible. >> >> If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't >> put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in >> another one. >> >> Best regards >> Olaf Corry >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article. >>> >>> A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an >>> incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to >>> stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will >>> instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed >>> loser for all. >>> >>> Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy >>> elsewhere dealing with a major incident. >>> >>> A >>> On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, "Andy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy >>>> politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me: >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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.
