Hi -- I agree with this skeptical assessment of certainty, especially with regard to impacts on regional and subregional climates and biomes critical to human life & society, but as many on this list argue, the issue i choosing between
a) BAU emissions with high confidence of major impacts 3-5C warming over the course of a century, vs. b) intervention scenarios that have moderately high confidence in reducing warming & rate of warming to, say, 2-4C warming, coupled with low certainty about regional and subregional impacts c) unlikely/optimistic/costly scenarios of rapid emissions stabilization/reduction/withdrawal In other words, maybe there is a "law of conservation of uncertainty"-- you can remove some of it from some parts of the system, but (with current understanding) never anywhere near all. ᐧ On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote > : " > Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth > system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious > argument that ignores global realities". This statement is more religious > than Clive's. There is NOBODY in this earth who knows how best the climate > system functions for him or her to get hold of it. Our climate predictions > have long betrayed us that is why we invented the concept of "climate > change". A complex system like the climate is difficult to master if not > impossible, especially at the global scale. If you cool temperatures in the > arctic, you are likely to disturb the known an unknown sub-climatic systems > in the southern hemisphere and the equatorial region. Our models are > simplistic and elusive sometimes so that we cannot claim to have mastered > the climate system. Do not be naive to believe that we can do better now > because we know it. How can you correlate atmospheric circulation in > Arizona with precipitations in somaliland? or wind pressure in Butan with > vegetation change in Brazil? At what confidence level? Here the probability > is small if not nil. If we cannot do that, whatever climate intervention > that will be put in place in a region will improve one aspect of the > climate in that specific region and worsen other variables therein and > elsewhere in the globe, depending on the spectra of its impacts. > > Regards, > > Dr Cush N. Luwesi, PhD > Lecturer > Department of Geography > Kenyatta University > Nairobi, Kenya > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of the politics of >> geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technology advocates he >> usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive >> Republican and military and big oil interest in carbon dioxide removal, as >> that is the only thing with prospect of delivering results on climate >> security and energy security. >> >> Multinational companies have to invest in CDR to protect their stock >> prices, their reputations and their sources of supply. CDR can deliver a >> win-win for the climate and the economy. Clive’s scientific dreams falsely >> assume that the science on warming means the science is also in on workable >> responses (ie emission reduction). >> >> Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilise the climate >> even if it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory. We need >> commercial negative emission technology on a scale bigger than total >> emissions. Economic growth powered by coal is a freight train that no one >> will stop. Emission reduction is as likely as suggesting the French could >> have stopped Hitler by reforming their tax system. UN emission targets, >> even if any are agreed, are nothing but a mirage that will recede as their >> dates approach. >> >> The entire emission reduction strategy is based on false assumptions >> about science, economics and politics. The power of the fossil energy >> industry will easily brush aside carbon taxes and global regulations. So >> rather than demonise Newt Gingrich as Hamilton suggests, a better strategy >> is to reach out to the right wing, to get money, political will and >> ingenuity to identify and deliver mutual goals on global scale. The >> political reality is that anyone perceived as hostile to the oil and coal >> and gas industry cannot gain the trust of the people who make globally >> crucial decisions. >> >> As Bjorn Lomborg argues, the priority should be R&D to make CDR >> commercially profitable. My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas >> and then mine the produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea, >> delivering profitable commodities to fund scale up. >> >> Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth >> system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious >> argument that ignores global realities. Nine billion people means a choice >> between climate regulation and a runaway greenhouse. Humans have planetary >> dominion whether we like it or not. A Gaia Apollo project can deliver >> negative emission technology in the next decade to remove more carbon from >> the air than we add. The best target for the Paris climate conference is to >> harness private enterprise to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon from >> the air each year within a decade. >> >> Robert Tulip >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >> *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, 13 February 2015, 10:39 >> *Subject:* [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton >> >> >> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html?referrer= >> By CLIVE HAMILTON >> FEBRUARY 12, 2015 >> THE Republican Party has long resisted action on climate change, but now >> that much of the electorate wants something done, it needs to find a way >> out of the hole it has dug for itself. A committee appointed by the >> National Research Council may just have handed the party a ladder.In a >> two-volume report, the council is recommending that the federal government >> fund a research program into geoengineering as a response to a warming >> globe. The study could be a watershed moment because reports from the >> council, an arm of the National Academies that provides advice on science >> and technology, are often an impetus for new scientific research programs. >> Sometimes known as “Plan B,” geoengineering covers a variety of >> technologies aimed at deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate >> system to counter global warming. >> Despairing at global foot-dragging, some climate scientists now believe >> that a turn to Plan B is inevitable. They see it as inscribed in the logic >> of the situation. The council’s study begins with the assertion that the >> “likelihood of eventually considering last-ditch efforts” to address >> climate destabilization grows every year. >> The report is balanced in its assessment of the science. Yet by bringing >> geoengineering from the fringes of the climate debate into the mainstream, >> it legitimizes a dangerous approach.Beneath the identifiable risks is not >> only a gut reaction to the hubris of it all — the idea that humans could >> set out to regulate the Earth system, perhaps in perpetuity — but also to >> what it says about where we are today. As the committee’s chairwoman, >> Marcia McNutt, told The Associated Press: The public should read this >> report “and say, ‘This is downright scary.’ And they should say, ‘If this >> is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.’ ” >> Even scarier is the fact that, while most geoengineering boosters see >> these technologies as a means of buying time for the world to get its act >> together, others promote them as a substitute for cutting emissions. In >> 2008, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, later Republican >> presidential candidate and an early backer of geoengineering, said: >> “Instead of penalizing ordinary Americans, we would have an option to >> address global warming by rewarding scientific invention,” adding: “Bring >> on the American ingenuity.” >> The report, considerably more cautious, describes geoengineering as one >> element of a “portfolio of responses” to climate change and examines the >> prospects of two approaches — removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, >> and enveloping the planet in a layer of sulfate particles to reduce the >> amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. >> At the same time, the council makes clear that there is “no substitute >> for dramatic reductions in the emissions” of greenhouse gases to slow >> global warming and acidifying oceans.The lowest-risk strategies for >> removing carbon dioxide are “currently limited by cost and at present >> cannot achieve the desired result of removing climatically important >> amounts,” the report said. On the second approach, the council said that at >> present it was “opposed to climate-altering deployment” of technologies to >> reflect radiation back into space. >> Still, the council called for research programs to fill the gaps in our >> knowledge on both approaches, evoking a belief that we can understand >> enough about how the Earth system operates in order to take control of it. >> Expressing interest in geoengineering has been taboo for politicians >> worried about climate change for fear they would be accused of shirking >> their responsibility to cut carbon emissions. Yet in some congressional >> offices, interest in geoengineering is strong. And Congress isn’t the only >> place where there is interest. Russia in 2013 unsuccessfully sought to >> insert a pro-geoengineering statement into the latest report of the >> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. >> Early work on geoengineering has given rise to one of the strangest >> paradoxes in American politics: enthusiasm for geoengineering from some who >> have attacked the idea of human-caused global warming. The Heartland >> Institute, infamous for its billboard comparing those who support climate >> science to the Unabomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, featured an article in one >> of its newsletters from 2007 describing geoengineering as a “practical, >> cost-effective global warming strategy.” >> Some scholars associated with conservative think tanks like the Hoover >> Institution and the Hudson Institute have written optimistically about >> geoengineering. >> Oil companies, too, have dipped their toes into the geoengineering waters >> with Shell, for instance, having funded research into a scheme to put lime >> into seawater so it absorbs more carbon dioxide. >> With half of Republican voters favoring government action to tackle >> global warming, any Republican administration would be tempted by the >> technofix to beat all technofixes. >> For some, instead of global warming’s being proof of human failure, >> engineering the climate would represent the triumph of human ingenuity. >> While climate change threatens to destabilize the system, geoengineering >> promises to protect it. If there is such a thing as a right-wing >> technology, geoengineering is it.President Obama has been working >> assiduously to persuade the world that the United States is at last serious >> about Plan A — winding back its greenhouse gas emissions. The suspicions of >> much of the world would be reignited if the United States were the first >> major power to invest heavily in Plan B. >> Clive Hamilton is a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt >> University in Australia and the author, most recently, of “Earthmasters: >> The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering.” >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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.
