Alvia, [and David S.,]
I think you are completely wrong.
I think this National Academy meeting was a historic meeting in that it was
the first time that I know of that a National Academy ran an open public
meeting on intentional alteration of climate. I think it may be a key step
towards a national research program.
Some people in this email group see the world in black and white.I am not
one of them.
I suggest that those who are prepared to intentionally alter Earth's climate
without some sense of fear and trepidation fail to appreciate the complex
set of issues we are facing. I believe ambivalence is an appropriate
attitude when faced with an unpleasant set of choices.
The comment that David Schnare made in criticism of my remarks ('Here's your
choice - we all die, or we don't all die. Pick one and enough of this
"conflicted" sillyness.') illustrates the kind of hyperbolic, simplistic,
and binary thinking we should be working to avoid.
Regarding my earlier remarks about DARPA: I continue to believe that if
DARPA took the lead it would fuel international suspicions about US
motivations for wanting to develop effective climate intervention
approaches, and ultimately make it more difficult to develop these
technologies.
Regarding Alan Robock: I often disagree with Alan's tone and framing and
have argued with him publicly, but he also happens to be correct on most
matters of fact -- and where we disagree on matters of fact, these are
differences that can be maintained by well-informed people, where more
research is needed to resolve uncertainty. Alan is a good hard working
scientist who is doing his best to develop a sound scientific basis for
making sound policy decisions. He annoys me sometimes as I am sure I annoy
him. But that is no reason to question his value as a scientist.
I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded
research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried
for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith.
Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we become
true believers.
I have no desire to be a true believer.
Best,
Ken
PS. I sent an email to this group on May 29 with acopy of the proposed
agenda for the workshop, the email specifying the location to submit written
input to, and a link to a web site that at the time had instructions on how
to request to attend the meeting. I was suprised my email received so
little attention, but it is becoming obvious that my perspectives are
becoming irrelevant to this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/1c6c05c85f7fad13
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Margaret Leinen <
mlei...@climateresponsefund.org> wrote:
> While many meetings indeed do little to advance thinking about
> geoengineering, I think that the mere fact that the NAS convened this
> meeting did a lot. The study by the Royal Society, the workshop and the
> inclusion of its results by the NAS in their 'climate choices' study both
> show substantial acceptance of the importance of geoengineering research by
> mainstream academies. This is enormous progress in a very short timeframe.
> And the studies are important stepping stones to federal funding in the US.
>
> The opportunity to attend the NAS workshop was on the web, but it wasn't
> advertised, so I do understand the frustration about attendance.
> --
> Margaret Leinen, PhD.
> Climate Response Fund
> 119 S. Columbus Street
> Alexandria, VA 22314
> 202-415-6545
>
>
>
> > From: Alvia Gaskill <agask...@nc.rr.com>
> > Reply-To: <agask...@nc.rr.com>
> > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:52:10 -0400
> > To: <kcalde...@stanford.edu>, geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering
> workshop
> >
> > These meetings accomplish little or nothing as it is the same people
> saying
> > the same things over and over again. Just filling up that resume. If
> you
> > are truly so conflicted about the subject, (doubt it) why don't you get
> out of
> > the business or better yet, stop interfering with others who are in it
> (The
> > I'm going to the DARPA meeting to stop it stunt you pulled a while back).
> > Better yet, next time you guys schedule one of these get togethers, you
> can
> > announce you are going to hold it so you can stop it. At least announce
> it
> > far enough in advance so we can all plan not to go. BTW, I've come up
> with a
> > new job description for people like Alan Robock and Dale Jameison:
> > Professional Critic. Since they are both employed by universities, let's
> ad
> > an un to that. Yeah, that sounds right: Unprofessional Critic. More
> > candidates as I get time.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original
> > Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix
> > by Richard Harris
> >
> > All Things Considered, June 16, 2009 ยท Engineering our climate to stop
> > global warming may seem like science fiction, but at a recent National
> Academy
> > of Sciences meeting, scientists discussed some potential geoengineering
> > experiments in earnest.
> >
> > Climate researcher Ken Caldeira was skeptical when he first heard about
> the
> > idea of shading the Earth a decade ago in a talk by nuclear weapons
> scientist
> > Lowell Wood.
> >
> > "He basically said, 'We don't have to bother with emissions reduction.
> We
> > can just throw aerosols - little dust particles - into the stratosphere,
> and
> > that'll cool the earth.' And I thought, 'Oh, that'll never work,' "
> Caldeira
> > said.
> >
> > But when Caldeira sat down to study this, he was surprised to discover
> that,
> > yes, it would work, and for the very same reasons that big volcanoes cool
> the
> > Earth when they erupt. Fine particles in the stratosphere reflect
> sunlight
> > back into space. And doing it would be cheap, to boot.
> >
> > Caldeira conducts research on climate and carbon cycles at the Carnegie
> > Institution at Stanford University. During the past decade, he said, talk
> > about this idea has moved from cocktail parties to very sober meetings,
> like
> > the workshop this week put on by the National Academy of Sciences.
> >
> > "Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about all this," he said during a
> break in
> > the meeting. "I've been pushing very hard for a research program, but
> it's a
> > little scary to me as it becomes more of a reality that we might be able
> to
> > toy with our environment, or our whole climate system at a planetary
> scale."
> >
> > Attempting to geoengineer a climate fix raises many questions, like
> when you
> > would even consider trying it. Caldeira argued that we should have the
> > technology at the ready if there's a climate crisis, such as collapsing
> ice
> > sheets or drought-induced famine. At the academy's meeting, Harvard
> > University's Dan Schrag agreed with that - up to a point.
> >
> > "I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency
> > response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already
> > experiencing a climate crisis - whether we've already crossed that
> threshold,"
> > Schrag said.
> >
> > In reality, carbon-dioxide emissions globally are on a runaway pace,
> despite
> > rhetoric promising to control them. University of Calgary's David Keith
> > suggested that we should consider moving toward experiments that would
> test
> > ideas on a global scale - and do it sooner rather than later.
> >
> > "It's not clear that during some supposed climate emergency would be
> the
> > right time to try this new and unexplored technique," Keith said.
> >
> > And experiments could create disasters. Alan Robock of Rutgers
> University
> > cataloged a long list of risks. Particles in the stratosphere that block
> > sunlight could also damage the ozone layer, which protects us from harsh
> > ultraviolet light. Or altering the stratosphere could reduce
> precipitation in
> > Asia, where it waters the crops that feed 2 billion people.
> >
> > Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the
> > planet, Robock said. On the plus side, it's also possible that diffusing
> > sunlight could end up boosting agriculture, he said.
> >
> > "We need to evaluate all these different, contrasting impacts to see
> whether
> > it really would have an effect on food or not," he said. "Maybe it's a
> small
> > effect. We really don't know that yet. We need more research on that."
> >
> > Thought experiments to date have focused primarily on the risks of
> putting
> > sulfur dust in the stratosphere. There are many other geoengineering
> ideas -
> > like making clouds brighter by spraying seawater particles into the air.
> But
> > none of them is simple.
> >
> > "I don't think there is a quick and easy answer to employing even one
> of
> > those quick and cheap and easy solutions," said social scientist Susanne
> > Moser.
> >
> > There's no mechanism in place to reach a global consensus about doing
> this -
> > and a consensus seems unlikely in any event. Who gets to decide where to
> set
> > the global thermostat? And will this simply become an excuse not to
> control
> > our emissions to begin with? These were all questions without answers at
> the
> > academy's meeting.
> >
> > Message -----
> > From: Ken Caldeira
> > To: geoengineering
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:17 PM
> > Subject: [geo] NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering
> workshop
> >
> >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105483423
> >
> > ___________________________________________________
> > Ken Caldeira
> >
> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> >
> > kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
