I ran this by my pal Pete Jones who is an expert on system design among other things (redesignresearch.com) and here is what he had to say:
> > Seems to me like a provocation to consider a large-scale engineering > design approach to analysis, identification of points to induce effects, > and to manage interventions. As a “design problem” the issue is > underconceptualized (at first read) in that the “strategy” being > recommended is conventional linear normal science. Not that a design > approach couldn’t be used, it’s just they probably got this paper published > because their reviewers don’t understand the advanced design literature. It > seems like a radical design solution, but it is a conventional strategy > that would not accommodate discovery, emergent complexity, and accounting > for unpredictable and unobservable effects. > > A non-parametric discovery approach ought to be considered for problems of > this scale. My former student John Cassel has investigated approaches such > as this (he just presented at RSD4 on agro-ecology). Last year’s paper on > NDEAM was an outline for non-parametric design for such complex engineering > problems., which he published in our special issue. > > The Methodological Unboundedness of Limited Discovery Processes > > https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/755 > > PJ On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/1635/2015/esdd-6-1635-2015.html > > Geoengineering as a design problem > > 08 Sep 2015 > Abstract. Understanding the climate impacts of solar geoengineering is > essential for evaluating its benefits and risks. Most previous simulations > have prescribed a particular strategy and evaluated its modeled effects. > Here we turn this approach around by first choosing example climate > objectives and then designing a strategy to meet those objectives in > climate models. > > There are four essential criteria for designing a strategy: (i) an > explicit specification of the objectives, (ii) defining what climate > forcing agents to modify so the objectives are met, (iii) a method for > managing uncertainties, and (iv) independent verification of the strategy > in an evaluation model. > > We demonstrate this design perspective through two multi-objective > examples. First, changes in Arctic temperature and the position of tropical > precipitation due to CO2 increases are offset by adjusting high latitude > insolation in each hemisphere independently. Second, three different > latitude-dependent patterns of insolation are modified to offset > CO2-induced changes in global mean temperature, interhemispheric > temperature asymmetry, and the equator-to-pole temperature gradient. In > both examples, the "design" and "evaluation" models are state-of-the-art > fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. > > Citation: Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Wang, H., and Rasch, P. J.: > Geoengineering as a design problem, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6, > 1635-1710, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-1635-2015, 2015. > > -- > 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.
