To be honest, I don't think there are any policy-making consequences here since public attitudes to geoengineering cannot possibly get worse than they already are. That being said, the use of "sticky terms" in the broader debate is very interesting. I think it was ETC Group that tried to popularize "geopiracy" a while back (although that didn't stick quite well), some NGOs speak of "climate hacking" and some scholars appear to be moving away from the term "solar radiation management" to "albedo modification" instead.
Getting back to an earlier point: I do not have a background in the natural sciences so I cannot comment on the technical feasibility of parsing out the relative effects of different CE techniques that are being deployed simultaneously. However, this potentially adds a layer of complexity to international governance by enhancing scientific uncertainties and thus expanding the scope for governments to declare as authoritative whatever explanation aligns with their respective interests. If a CCT / SRM cocktail leads to larger-than-expected global precipitation, some governments will argue it's due to the strong effect of CCT and others will say it's due to the weak effect of SRM (still others might say it's due to factors unrelated to either). More uncertainty means more potential for political disagreement. Best, Florian On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:08:01 PM UTC+3, Adam Dorr wrote: > > In the case of black holes there are no policymaking or governance > consequences to using flippant terms, but in the case of "fracking", for > example, which was the subject of my PhD dissertation, the term exerted a > disproportionately large influence on the discourse. As it happens, > "fracking" was an industry term of art and not a pejorative created by > opponents of the practice. Some readers here may recall the complications > that arose during "Climategate" when Phil Jones wrote, "I've just completed > Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last > 20 years", and the opposition seized upon the word "trick" to very > successfully discredit climate scientists and delegitimize climate science > in the eyes of the public and policymakers. > > Words matter a very great deal. We need to use them with care, or there > will be consequences we will regret. > > Best, > > Adam > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Adam >> >> Do you refer to "black holes" as "gravitationally completely collapsed >> objects"? >> >> Snappy terms stick. >> >> A >> >> On 31 July 2017 at 18:37, Adam Dorr <adam...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >>> I would strongly discourage researchers from using flippant terms such >>> as "cocktail" rather than more formal descriptors (e.g. "combined" or >>> "integrated" or "multiple", in this case). Careless terminology is likely >>> to invite problematic framings in the discourse, which will then present as >>> obstacles for effective public understand, policymaking, and governance. I >>> am hoping to have have a paper out later this year or next year that >>> addresses some of the challenges around CE terminology and framing. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> -- >>> Adam Dorr >>> University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs >>> adam...@ucla.edu <javascript:> >>> adam...@gmail.com <javascript:> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Voelker <christop...@awi.de >>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> this engineering approach of separately switching cocktail components >>>> on and off is probably not so simple: attribution and detection of climate >>>> change are notoriously difficult (which has been exploited a lot by >>>> climate >>>> change deniers), with the main problem that both require knowledge of the >>>> internal climate variability on the time scales considered. A good >>>> introduction to the subject is the chapter 9.1.2 in the 2007 IPCC report: >>>> >>>> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-2.html >>>> >>>> Cheers, Christoph >>>> >>>> On 31.07.17 16:23, Stephen Salter wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> Florian is worried about separating the effects of different components >>>> of a mixture of cocktails. It should be possible to do this for >>>> techniques >>>> with a high frequency response by turning them on and off with different >>>> random sequences and correlating the results at different observing >>>> stations. >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> On 31/07/2017 12:58, Andrew Lockley wrote: >>>> >>>> As long as the effects were largely exclusive, cocktail geoengineering >>>> could greatly reduce impacts from side effects, as they may have >>>> non-linear >>>> impacts. >>>> >>>> For example, techniques A&B have two different side effects, each with >>>> damages proportional to the square of the dose. Both are equally damaging. >>>> A combination of the two therefore leads to lower side effects that each >>>> alone. >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> On 31 Jul 2017 12:53, "Florian Rabitz" <florian...@ktu.lt <javascript:>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess a major problem with a cocktail approach would be the >>>>> amplification of uncertainties. How would we be able to attribute >>>>> the outcomes to either technique? An increase in global precipitation >>>>> might result either from the effect of CCT being larger-than-expected >>>>> or from the effect of aerosols being smaller-than-expected (vice versa >>>>> for decreasing global precipitation). Seems like this would require >>>>> a lot of fine-tuning. Also, in my view, the governance implications >>>>> don't look pretty. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Florian >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:26:58 AM UTC+3, Andrew Lockley wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/science-technology/researchers-propose-cocktail-geo-engineering-to-save-climate/443998.html >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>>>> <javascript:>. >>>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>>> <javascript:>. >>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>>> <javascript:>. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christoph Voelker >>>> Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research >>>> Am Handelshafen 12 >>>> 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany >>>> e: christop...@awi.de <javascript:> >>>> t: +49 471 4831 1848 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>>> <javascript:>. >>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>> <javascript:>. >>> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
