Just to clarify: excess CO2 causes separate, global climate effects and ocean chemical effects. SRM only addresses the former, CDR addresses both, minus the effect of non-CO2 GHG's. This is not necessarily an argument against SRM, just a statement of its limitations wrt CO2 impacts. Greg
>________________________________ > From: Andy Parker <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2015 4:16 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] Earth's chill pill? Responses to the recent Washington Post >Op-Ed > > > > >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]> wrote: >> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ opinions/earths-chill-pill/201 >>5/02/03/41f7e0f2-ab02-11e4-887 6-460b1144cbc1_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] >>>New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~ro bock >>> 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 geoengineerin...@goo glegroups.com. >>>To post to this group, send email to [email protected] m. >>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group /geoengineering. >>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout. >>> >> -- >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]. 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.
