Hi All
The poster below says that there are International laws to stop
countries changing other countries climate. That should mean that it is
illegal to burn fossil fuels. Or does it mean that it is OK if you do
not understand what you are doing but illegal if you do. Or does mean
that it is OK if you make a profit but not if your reasons are
philanthropic.
Stephen
On 07/09/2012 14:17, Andrew Lockley wrote:
Posters note - insightful op ed piece from a researcher's perspective
A
http://www.gpem.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=184787&pid=114392
Climate Engineering ICCP2012
What do the Aral Sea and cane toads have in common? Both were
environmental engineering projects that caused a bigger problem than
they solved. Will “climate engineering” (CE) be any different?I took
some of my PhD study to the International Conference on Clouds and
Precipitation (ICCP) at the Leipzig University, Germany in August
2012. This conference happens every four years and is the domain of
atmospheric scientists researching aerosol-cloud-rainfall
interactions. After a busy five days the last session plenary, ever
mindful of the enormity, tentatively considered an ICCP position on
CE. The plenary convener started with a quote attributed to Einstein;
“No problem can be solved from the same level of thinking that created
it”. The opening question “who believes carbon reduction alone will
mitigate anthropogenic climate change” was designed to elicit a
response – and maybe it was peer group dynamics at work – but not a
hand went up. What follows are some of my observations of the briefing
and related discussion.Assuming global warming can’t be reversed by an
immediate reduction of green house gases because of the lack of
political will, the question is - what options can the atmospheric
science community offer? These boiled down to (1) proceed with
whatever fossil fuel reductions are socially palatable – and “adapt as
best you can”; (2) CO2 removal; (3) space shields - although spoken of
near words meaning “impossible”; and (4) solar radiation
management:stratospheric aerosol injection – something not further
discussed and clearly not on an ICCP agenda;marine, warm phase,
stratiform cloud brightening by aerosol injection thus reflecting
short wave solar radiation – a net cooling effect; andnon-tropical
cirrus, ice phase cloud reduction also by aerosol injection, thus
allowing thermal radiation to escape to space – also a net cooling
effect (the option that would appear to have the “consent by plenary
murmur” – clearly early days).Discussion centred on the reasons why
the ICCP might endorse research into CE as opposed to considering
operational projects: (1) garnering information to inform debate on
the best economic option; (2) preparing to respond to a climate
emergency - something that could happen within 50 years; (3) buying
time to transition to a non-carbon economy; (4) a realistic
recognition that green house gas mitigation may be no longer possible;
and that on balance, (5) scientists do objective studies devoid of
commercial imperatives.On the other hand the plenary thought of some
reasons why ICCP might not support research into CE. The meeting was
concerned that strongly endorsed research would send the wrong
message. For example, applicable research might be used before its
ready and there is a moral hazard that attention might be drawn away
from the mitigation action that is still entirely necessary in any
event.Speakers made a few related comments – some of which were quite
poignant. It is highly likely that the research findings may well be
too costly or risky or just not feasible. Adaptation activity is now
unavoidable. Much was made of the need to fully and openly communicate
any ICCP endorsed research activity. Research should focus on
exploiting natural analogues and finding out how they work - volcanic
eruptions and dust storms for example. It was intriguing to find out
that there are international laws that prohibit countries from
changing other countries climate. Numerical weather and global climate
models need to be vastly improved.The process of any mooted research
got an airing – with comments centring on the need to engage in large
field trials only after convincing the scientific community and the
public of the need. Any climate interference should start with
reversible small steps in time and space and, if that’s positive, then
increase the scale, and if that proves useful then, and only then,
fund operational projects – essentially “do no harm”. It was ruefully
observed that it would help to decide how to measure any results first
and frankly, while some previous weather modification trials were done
well – others were done badly and there is no leeway to launch a “bad”
CE experience.I was left with three impressions. Firstly, most of the
floor discussion that followed was about the merits of avoiding the
words “climate engineering” - it shows that engagement in the topic is
difficult. Secondly, conversations around the idea of “stewardship” or
reducing our energy and resource use footprint in this so-called
anthropocene era, is assumed not worth having. And, cane toads – can
you eat them?
Michael Hewson PhD candidate
Climate Research Group | Centre for Spatial Environmental ResearchThe
University of Queensland | Brisbane Q 4072 |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | +61
(0)408 379 373
Last updated: Sep 6, 2012
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
