Indeed. For some context: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/
*Gernot Wagner, Harvard University* gwagner.com *Climate Shock* *, a Top 15 FT McKinsey Business Book of the Year 2015, now also Austria’s Natural Science Book of the Year 2017*climateshock.org <http://www.climateshock.org/> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Douglas MacMartin < [email protected]> wrote: > Embark on what? > > > > The Guardian article is somewhat confused in general. Basically, there’s > only two real observations. Harvard has some research money. And some > quite small fraction of that research money will go into very small scale > outdoor field experiments. > > > > I personally think it is quite advisable to pursue research, which is all > that is going on; individual opinions on whether outdoor experiments are > advisable even at process-scale may differ, but no-one should form their > opinions of those based solely on the Guardian article. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tuck > *Sent:* Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:49 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] US scientists launch world's biggest solar > geoengineering study > > > > The idea that we know enough by way of predictability to embark on this, > when models predict macro weather rather than climate, is inadvisable, to > put it mildly. > > > > On 25 Mar 2017, at 05:10, Shinichiro ASAYAMA <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > In association with this new Harvard solar geoengineering research > program, I would like to take an opportunity to selfishly advertise our > paper on Japanese lay public views on outdoor experiments of stratospheric > aerosol injection, recently published in Geoforum. > > Ambivalent climate of opinions: Tensions and dilemmas in understanding > geoengineering experimentation > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718517300209 > > > > In our paper, we explicitly delved into how lay publics conceptualized the > idea of small-scale outdoor experiment of SAI and what this experimentation > is for and about. Our paper is also the first critical social science > research to empirically inquiry public understanding of geoengineering in > Asian context. > > > > Your feedback is more than welcome! > > > > Best wishes, > > Shinichiro > > > > > > > > 2017-03-25 6:49 GMT+09:00 Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>: > > US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us- > scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering- > study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail > > > US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study > > Research programme will send aerosol injections into the earth’s upper > atmosphere to study the risks and benefits of a future solar tech-fix for > climate change > > [image: Image removed by sender. The sun from space] > > Scientists say the planet could be covered with a solar shield for as > little as $10bn a year. Photograph: ISS/Nasa > > [image: Image removed by sender.]*Arthur Neslen* > > Published:12:39 GMT+00:00 Fri 24 March 2017 > > Follow Arthur Neslen > > US scientists are set to send aerosol injections 20km up into the earth’s > stratosphere in the world’s biggest solar geoengineering programme to date, > to study the potential of a future tech-fix for global warming. > > > > The $20m (£16m) Harvard University project will launch within weeks and > aims to establish whether the technology can safely simulate the > atmospheric cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, if a last ditch bid to > halt climate change is one day needed. > > AdvertisementHide > > Scientists hope to complete two small-scale dispersals of first water and > then calcium carbonate particles by 2022. Future tests could involve > seeding the sky with aluminium oxide – or even diamonds. > > Is geoengineering a bad idea? | Karl Mathiesen > > “This is not the first or the only university study,” said Gernot Wagner, > the project’s co-founder, “but it is most certainly the largest, and the > most comprehensive.” > > Janos Pasztor, Ban Ki-moon’s assistant climate chief at the UN who now > leads a <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/news/announcements/411>geoengineering > governance initiative > <https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/news/announcements/411>, said that the > Harvard scientists would only disperse minimal amounts of compounds in > their tests, under strict university controls. > > “The real issue here is something much more challenging,” he said “What > does moving experimentation from the lab into the atmosphere mean for the > overall path towards eventual deployment?” > > Geoengineering advocates stress that any attempt at a solar tech fix is > years away and should be viewed as a compliment to – not a substitute for – > aggressive emissions reductions action. > > But the Harvard team, in a promotional video > <http://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/> for the project, suggest > a redirection of one percent of current climate mitigation funds to > geoengineering research, and argue that the planet could be covered with a > solar shield for as little as $10bn a year. > > Geoengineering is fast and cheap but not key to halting climate change > > Some senior UN climate scientists view such developments with alarm, > fearing a cash drain from proven mitigation technologies such as wind and > solar energy, to ones carrying the potential for unintended disasters. > > Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the UN’s intergovernmental panel on > climate change, said that despair at sluggish climate action, and the rise > of Donald Trump were feeding the current tech trend. > > “But solar geoengineering is not the answer,” he said. “Cutting incoming > solar radiation affects the weather and hydrological cycle. It promotes > drought. It destabilizes things and could cause wars. The side effects are > many and our models are just not good enough to predict the outcomes” > > Natural alterations to the earth’s radiation balance can be short-lasting, > but terrifying. A 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures > by 0.5C, while the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 triggered Europe’s ‘year > without a summer’, bringing crop failure, famine and disease. > > A Met Office study in 2013 said that the dispersal of fine particles in > the stratosphere could precipitate a calamitous drought > <http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/04/02/geoengineering-could-cause-drought-in-sahel/>across > North Africa. > > Frank Keutsch, the Harvard atmospheric sciences professor leading the > experiment, said that the deployment of a solar geoengineering system was > “a terrifying prospect” that he hoped would never have to be considered. > “At the same time, we should never choose ignorance over knowledge in a > situation like this,” he said. > > “If you put heat into the stratosphere, it may change how much water gets > transported from the troposphere to the stratosphere, and the question is > how much are you [creating] a domino effect with all kinds of consequences? > What we can do to quantify this is to start with lab studies and try to > understand the relevant properties of these aerosols.” > > Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiments > <https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2015/01/geoengineering-going-outdoors.html> > (SCoPEX) > are seen as “critical” to this process and the first is planned to spray > water molecules into the stratosphere to create a 1km long and 100m wide > icy plume, which can be studied by a manoeuvrable flight balloon. > > If lab tests are positive, the experiment would then be replicated with a > limestone compound which the researchers believe will neither absorb solar > or terrestrial radiation, nor deplete the ozone layer. > > Bill Gates and other foundations are substantially funding the project, > and aerospace companies are thought to be taking a business interest in the > technology’s potential. > > The programmme’s launch will follow a major conference involving more than > 100 scientists, which begins in Washington DC today. > > Solar geoengineering’s journey from the fringes of climate science to its > mainstream will be sealed at a prestigious Gordon research conference > <https://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=17348> in July, featuring senior > figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and > Oxford University. > > Pasztor says that most scientific observers now see the window to a 1.5C > warmed world as “practically gone” and notes that atmospheric carbon > dioxide concentrations will continue rising for many decades after the > planet has reached a ‘net zero emissions’ point planned for mid-late > century. > > But critics of solar radiation management approach this as a call to > redouble mitigation efforts and guard against the elevation of a > questionable Plan B. > > “It is appropriate that we spend money on solar geoengineering research,” > said Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate > Change Research. “But we also have to aim for 2C with climate mitigation > and act as though geoengineering doesn’t work, because it probably won’t.” > > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > \\\\\\\\\\\ > > Shinichiro ASAYAMA, PhD > > Postdoctoral Research Fellow, National Institute for Environmental Studies > (NIES), Japan > > e-mail: [email protected] > > (ORCID) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6817-3862 > > (researchmap) http://researchmap.jp/shinichiro.asayama/ > > /////////// > > > > -- > 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
