Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff]

The Hamilton reference points to Haroon Kheshgi at Exxon-Mobil as an
enthusiast of ocean liming as far back as 1995 and has having put out a
report on stratospheric aerosol SRM.

Dan

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone…  I do find this sentence interesting:
>
>
>
> The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry
> is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton
> 2013).
>
>
>
> The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry and GE
> is that Lee Lane showed up at a geoengineering meeting in 2006.  Has anyone
> actually had their research funded by the fossil fuel industry?  Is there
> any support for that assertion?
>
>
>
> I’m also not sure what a “GE supporter” looks like, or whether I’ve ever
> met one (or indeed, whether such people exist in the scientific
> community).  I really do wish people would distinguish between “supports
> doing research so we can understand it” and “supports deploying it”.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:11 AM
> *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
> gunde...@miamioh.edu; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.edu
> *Subject:* [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
> capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
> 35 Dove St.
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
> Albany, NY 12210
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=35+Dove+St.+Albany,+NY+12210518=gmail=g>
>
> 518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *Gunderson, Ryan* <gunde...@miamioh.edu>
> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff <dkirkdavid...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart <diana.stu...@nau.edu>, Brian Craig Petersen <
> brian.peter...@nau.edu>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
>
>
> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
> think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
> myself from research too much.
>
>
>
> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
> pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-
> opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
> narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
> industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
> (Hamilton 2013).
>
>
>
> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
> scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
> between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
> unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
> unlikely case that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were
> convinced that GE is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and
> detrimental to mitigation (though from your review of the listserv's
> reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will
> fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may be a fringe
> science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of fossil
> fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated
> if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the
> intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I
> teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass
> on facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the
> world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these
> intentions, is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are
> punished if they don’t show up on time 

[geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff]

Hi all,

I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and
capitalism.   With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.

Best,
Dan

--
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
35 Dove St.

Albany, NY 12210

518-434-0873 <(518)%20434-0873>

-- Forwarded message --
From: Gunderson, Ryan 
Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen <
brian.peter...@nau.edu>


Hi Dan,

You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I
think this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st
century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract
myself from research too much.

Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m
surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the
fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a
common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly
consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that
there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re
pushing catches on: GE-is-a tool-for-climate-justice-and-o
pposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. Biotech pushes the same
narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel
industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters
(Hamilton 2013).

One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE
scientists are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction
between subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and
unintended outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the
unlikely case that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were
convinced that GE is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and
detrimental to mitigation (though from your review of the listserv's
reception, this seems very unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will
fill their roles for reasons argued in the paper. It may be a fringe
science now but it will only grow along with GDP and the burning of fossil
fuels. At the risk of sounding deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated
if capitalism lumbers on, regardless of, or even in spite of, the
intentions of GE scientists. To give a seemingly unrelated example. When I
teach a class my intention is to foster critical thinking skills, to pass
on facts about society and the environment, to get kids to look at the
world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m actually doing, despite these
intentions, is creating the next generation of worker-consumers that are
punished if they don’t show up on time and follow directions.

Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the
paper was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear
as possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of
nearly all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence
and appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form
since Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and
committed to the goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap
so I’m going to read further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have
read philosophy closely. If Einstein could regularly quote Spinoza and
Schopenhauer, I think GE scientists can take some time to think through new
concepts and arguments (technology embodies values, these values are
restricted by social structure, etc.). All GE advocates have an implicit
theory of technology even if they never justify it and it is taken to be
commonsense. Feenberg’s Questioning Technology is highly recommended for
engaging in the very long conversation about what technology is, exactly.

I admit it is a polemical paper and am saddened if it was not read closely
due to the tone. However, I don’t mind if this just means it ruffled
feathers. I would be delighted if political economy became a central
concern of the GE debate.

Regarding aid to the poor: Although this is an aside, it’s worth noting
that aid given to poor countries, and the reasons capital interacts with
poor countries at all, may be different than official narratives or our
commonsense.  If interested, check out world-systems research and
dependency theory. This is also a good example of why we should distinguish
between subjective intention and structure, and what is possible and what
is.

Unless Diana and Brian object, you're more than welcome to forward our
conversation to that GE listserv you mentioned.  It may help clarify things
and, hopefully, encourage GE advocates to give 

Re: [geo] new ECS modeling: Climate change upper limit no so bad?

[Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff]

The gist of the the Nature article is that they regressed climate
sensitivity against interannual global temperature variability and found
that models with a realistic interannual variability also had a narrower
range of climate sensitivities than the full set of climate models.  Since
a lot of the interannual variability of global average temperature is
related to El Nino, essentially the article is saying that the models with
very high climate sensitivity tend to have unrealistically large El Nino
variability, so we should weight them less heavily in our calculation of
the probability distribution of climate sensitivity.

I think that's a not-unreasonable conclusion, but it's probably worth
noting that it may be possible to construct a model that has both large
climate sensitivity and realistic El Nino variability- it just doesn't
exist among the present generation of climate models.  I would read the
paper as providing a modest bayesian nudge to reduce my estimate of the
likelihood (already low) that equilibrium climate sensitivity is above 3.5
C.

Cheers,
Dan Kirk-Davidoff



On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:14 PM, E Durbrow  wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps tangental to climate engineering but could the climate modelers
> comment on this Wired story:
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-
> climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/
>
> The gist: New study in Nature claims that a newly computed equilibrium
> climate sensitivity metric puts the range of climate change as 2.2 to 3.4 C
> range.
>
> The article makes it out that this is cautiously optimistic. I realize 3.4
> C is still in the “catastrophic range” but apparently the range has
> traditionally been 1.4 to 4.5 C.
>
> Is it?
>
> Abstract
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
---
Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
Adjunct Associate Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd

-- 
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.