Some quick responses to Jim/in general: *Oceans* – a few people have emailed me to register a concern that the op-ed didn’t say that SRM deployment would result in ocean acidification. This is something that comes up regularly in SRM discussions and needs to be better understood, or at least unpacked, I think. As far as I understand it, SRM would not do anything about ocean acidification either way (bar a small effect Phil Williamson wrote a paper about a few years ago, where cooler oceans might soak up slightly more atmospheric CO2). As such SRM causes ocean acidification about as much as adaptation does.
Of course I suspect that people are concerned that SRM deployment would produce a very high moral hazard response that would result in reduced action on mitigation. If so this needs to be stated, as it’s highly uncertain at this point and not an automatic effect of SAI use. Finally it strikes me that the ‘SRM --> ocean acidification’ charge is an example of a common and unhelpful argument over SRM. One group says ‘SRM might reduce overall climate risk’ and the other group says ‘SRM can’t solve our CO2 problems’. Both of these positions are reasonable interpretations of the current evidence, but the message a person chooses to emphasise depends on their beliefs, values and target audience. Of course both messages fit nicely together and should come as a pair. *ENMOD* – our piece stated that getting a consensus agreement between nearly 200 countries on an exact global temperature was implausible, not that getting any UN agreement was implausible. And lawyers can and should wade in here, but my understanding is that ENMOD is not appropriate for the regulation of geoengineering because it addresses only weather/climate modification with hostile intent. *Complexity* – not sure what you’re agreeing with here, Jim. But it reminds me of something I wanted to ask you about previously: your quote from von Neumann in the main thread on the Post op-ed implied to me that you think SRM will be exploited as a weapon. *"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. Is this what you think? And if so, are you saying that you think we will one day understand the climate system enough, and be able to control it with sufficient accuracy, to be able to use it for military purposes over specific territories without unacceptable side effects? How does this square with your concerns about complexity? I might be limited by understanding and imagination but I cannot see that weaponisation is a realistic possibility for SAI. On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 12:26:11 AM UTC+1, James Fleming wrote: > > Agreed on ENMOD, complexity, and oceans. See for example *Fixing the Sky* > (2010), 183ff. > > > > James R. Fleming > Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College > Research Scholar, Columbia University > Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology, > bit.ly/THQMcd > Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Alan Robock <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/earths-chill-pill/ >> 2015/02/03/41f7e0f2-ab02-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html >> >> -- >> Alan Robock >> >> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >> <javascript:> >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock >> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 >> >> -- >> 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.
