Hi Pete et. al., Philosopher of climate science here, for what it's worth.
I'd echo what the others have said here with respect to your first question. It's very important that we get a better understanding of the magnitude and distribution of regional variation in both SRM effectiveness (that is, reduction of radiative forcing and/or associated average temperature drops) and in associated side-effects (especially on the hydrological cycle). Whether or not SRM via aerosol injection is the sort of thing that would be worth trying--and in what circumstances it would be worth trying--depends very strongly on the nature of our best estimates of those two things, as well as our confidence in those estimates. While some uncertainty is obviously unavoidable, the wide disparity in model estimates of these factors right now is incredibly worrying. Your second question seems more complicated (if that's possible). My first instinct is to suggest that even this way of framing the question highlights something that's a cause for concern: namely, that there is (or ought to be) a sharp delineation between those who are working purely on the physical consequences of SRM, and those who are working on SRM as a piece of a broader social, political, and humanistic problem. Climate science in general--and the physical basis of geoengineering in particular--represents a multidisciplinary problem that's virtually unprecedented in the history of science. Attempting to divorce the physical investigation from more "messy" real-world concerns of implementation and governance strikes me as very dangerous, and likely to lead to serious problems down the road. Keeping one eye on the fact that this is a deeply multifaceted issue with significant implications for political scientists, economists, philosophers, and many other is absolutely essential if you're going to produce models that have relevance for making collective decisions with respect to the implementation of this stuff. The burgeoning integrative assessment approach to looking at SRM (as well as climate science more generally) is really heartening to see, and I think it's important that even those who are steeped in the day-to-day arcana of developing and improving specialized physical models maintain close ties to that community--and that the community be enlarged as much as is necessary to include even more perspectives. Asking questions like those you're asking here is, in other words, absolutely essential. If ever there was a time when the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities need to work closely with one another in pursuit of a common understanding, it is surely now. It's vital that we all see ourselves as engaged in a single project, and that we maintain the kind of dialog this thread has opened up. Those of us who aren't directly engaged in the modeling project have a responsibility to understand the output of our best contemporary science to the best of our abilities, and those of you who aren't directly engaged in the social or humanistic evaluation of the policies suggested by those models have a responsibility to understand how your work fits into the larger context. I think that, by and large, both "sides" of this project have been doing admirably well so far, but that both sides can also probably continue to improve going forward. I'll add in more relevant thoughts if/when I have them. Thanks for opening up this topic. Naturally, Jon Lawhead, PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of Southern California Philosophy and Earth Sciences 3651 Trousdale Parkway Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 http://www.realityapologist.com On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:05 AM, p.j.irvine <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > As you might know, I work primarily on the climate response to SRM and I'd > like to know how we can better understand the implications of SRM and how > those implications will depend on what we discover about its likely > consequences. So if you have the time, I'd like all you social scientists, > humanities researchers and philosophers of SRM to answer these 2 questions: > > 1) With regards to its consequences, what one thing would help you to > better understand the implications of SRM for your area of interest? > 2) What one thing do you wish that those of us working on the physical > consequences of SRM would bear in mind? > > These don't have to be easily achievable and feel free to be controversial > but I'd like to get a taste for what people feel we'll need to do to > understand this issue better. > > Cheers, > > Pete > > -- > 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.
