I strongly believe you should publish this as a formal paper. There are social policy journals which represent perhaps a more appropriate route than climate science journals.
It would seem that a statistical test for significance, plus a formal statement of hypotheses, would be appropriate. I'd personally be happy to work on this. NB The fact that you survey the perceived causes of climate change is of great general media interest. We should ensure the general public are regularly reminded of the scientific opinion on AGW. If scientists don't tell the truth, they'll only hear the Fox News version. A On Mar 3, 2012 6:45 AM, "David Mitchell" <david.mitch...@dri.edu> wrote: > Dear Ken et al., > > In July of 2010 the American Meteorol. Soc. had its Cloud Physics > Conference and Atmospheric Radiation Conference combined into a single > conference in Portland Oregon, and on Thursday evening of that conference > week an informal discussion was held on climate engineering with 94 > scientists in attendence. The convenors of this meeting, Greg McFarquhar > and myself, provided each participant with a questionaire on climate > engineering that was deposited into the "ballot box" at the end of the > event. We thought the results of this survey would be of interest to the > editors of the AMS Bulletin (BAMS), who seemed initially interested but > then became non-responsive; it has been well over a year since we have > heard from them. So since BAMS does not want this, Greg and I felt that it > would be appropriate to share this survey/questionaire with this > geo-group. Attached is the proposal we sent to BAMS that includes the > questionaire on attitudes towards climate engineering. I think you will > find some of your impressions reflected in this survey. > > The group discussion addressed all types of climate engineering but was > more focused on marine stratus cloud brightening and cirrus removal since > these were mostly cloud physicists. > Enjoy! > David Mitchell > Associate Research Professor > Desert Research Institute > Division of Atmospheric Sciences > 2215 Raggio Parkway > Reno, Nevada, USA > Phone: 775-674-7039 > E-mail: david.mitch...@dri.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > Date: Friday, March 2, 2012 17:49 > Subject: Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering > To: voglerl...@gmail.com > Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, theseglyphsaredu...@gmail.com, geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > > > In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I > find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing relevant > research. > > > > A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah > subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the topic. > There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks, but I > sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to contribute > to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding sunshade > geoengineering. > > > > That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of > deployment at this time. > > > > My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited > research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little support > for active development of a deployment capability. > > > > This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection of > myself in the people that I speak with. > > > > > > _______________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> > @kencaldeira > > > *> YouTube:* > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo>> Climate change and the > transition from coal to low-carbon > electricity<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo> > > Crop yields in a geoengineered > > climate<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > Hello Ben et al., >> > >> > I'm simply an interested citizen scientist and so I do not speak >> for anyone. However, the interested citizen's view also needs to be >> understood. Within democratic states, it will be the "public opinion" which >> will most likely swing this issue >> > >> > Ben's question of; *"Is the economic/ >> >> > scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering is >> > becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable?"* hinges >> upon the question of: >> > >> > Is the Precautionary Principle the overriding guiding principle? >> Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration states: *"In order to protect the >> environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States >> according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or >> irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as >> a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental >> degradation."* >> > >> > Will the standard of "(the)...*lack of full scientific certainty shall >> not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures" *become >> the rallying flag for the GE community or will a far more cautious standard >> be sought. >> > >> > More to the point, Ben's question is looking at GE being "...seen as >> plausible, desirable, and even inevitable". At this time, I believe the >> answer is NO to all three. >> > >> > 1) *Plausible*...With the debatable exception of Cloud Brightening, >> there are no fully vetted methods which can, in a short period of time, >> reverse a climate/planetary emergency. There is no wide spread support for >> non-emergency deployment. Also, most, if not all, existing concepts have >> been largely championed by individual efforts with relatively minor >> financial backing. >> > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, if given a $10-20-100B fully >> funded budget and and 24 months to vet and deploy a planet saving GE >> method, *which could turn back a "tipping point*", it would not be >> "plausible" at this time. >> > >> > 2) *Desirable*...Any method which does gain widespread scientific >> acceptance will surely have a degree of adverse effects for some percentage >> of the global population. This obviously will effect geopolitical dynamics >> and thus the short and long term desirability. >> > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, even with the most *benign* GE >> method, no universal level of "desirability" will be found. >> > >> > 3) *Inevitable*...At this time, we have little more than broad stroke >> concepts which have little possibility to be put into fully effective >> operation within the near (2-3yr) future. And, two to three years may >> possibly be too late. >> > >> > I believe it is safe to state that, given the need for years worth of >> development and evaluation, we *may not be able* to "inevitably" fall >> back upon GE in the face of a near term emergency. >> > >> > Most importantly, Ben* *points out that *"(GE*)...is gaining ever more >> public exposure in the media.". Yes, and the overwhelming exposure is >> negative. Few policy makers will support the needed science/engineering >> efforts while this negative slant is applied by the media. >> > >> > To conclude, the overall issue of GE is approaching a critical point >> at a number of different levels. Simply put, >> > >> > 1) Gaining even basic support for GE research is difficult under the >> pressure of negative media. >> > >> > 2) No one knows, with a high degree of certainty, if a tipping point >> is 10-100 years off; *or even if one is currently underway*. >> > >> > 3) There is no ability to stop an active tipping point and no one can >> rule out that we are *not* in the beginning stages of one. >> > >> > 4) The only "inevitable" aspect about GE is that it will be >> contentious, to a high degree, regardless of the weight of scientific >> consensus. >> > >> > Ben, I look forward to reading your article...as usual. >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Eugene Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>wrote: >> >>> > I speak only for myself. Geoengineering represents THE contingency if >>> global >>> > warming continues for whatever reason. Any decent organization >>> engaged in a >>> > project with uncertainty develops contingency plans. Why not >>> countries? I >>> > recall my post doc work at MIT in 1957 on Project Sherwood, the first >>> > contingency work to develop thermonuclear fusion for producing >>> energy. Can >>> > you guess how many tens of billions of dollars have been spent on that >>> > contingency? Can you guess how much the US has spent to develop a >>> means to >>> > end cancer over 50 years; $400 billion still with no solution in >>> sight? >>> > >>> > Geoengineering seems not to be reaching a critical mass. However it >>> is long >>> > overdue. How much is being spent on it? >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>> > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Martin >>> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 6:12 AM >>> > To: geoengineering >>> > Subject: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering >>> > >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > I'm currently putting together an article for the Ecologist on >>> attitudes >>> > towards geo-engineering in the scientific and economic communities >>> and was >>> > wondering if anyone here could help. >>> > >>> > I noticed this week that a couple of environmental economists >>> (Professors >>> > Alistair Ulph and Robert Hahn) from Manchester's Sustainable >>> Consumption >>> > Institute have published a new book, which basically argues that >>> governments >>> > have done so little to reduce carbon emissions that it's now >>> essential to >>> > invest in geo-engineering R&D. >>> > >>> > The press release is here: >>> > http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8003<http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8003> >>> > >>> > Basically, I'm interested in whether this book is indicative of the >>> > emergence of a wider consensus on geo-engineering. Is the economic/ >>> > scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering is >>> > becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable? >>> > >>> > Of course, I'm fully aware of the huge divides in opinion that still >>> exist >>> > on the subject, and I realise that there are many many risks and >>> issues >>> > which must be dealt with first before geo-engineering solutions can be >>> > implemented. But is there a sense of gathering momentum? The issue >>> has been >>> > discussed in Westminster and is gaining ever more public exposure in >>> the >>> > media. Is geo-engineering reaching critical mass? >>> > >>> > Any thoughts much appreciated! >>> > >>> > Many thanks, >>> > >>> > Ben Martin >>> > b...@theecologist.org >>> > 0207 422 8100 >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> >>> . >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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. >>> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> *> Michael Hayes* >> *> 360-708-4976 <360-708-4976>* >> > http://www.voglerlake.com <http://www.voglerlake.com/> >> > >> > >> >> > -- >> > 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. >> > > > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
