Dear Ron,
All the discussion was about SRM geoengineering. I support CDR if it
can be done safely.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 4/23/14, 10:59 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Alan and list:
1. This is to ask for a clarification on your sentence from below:
Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of
geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal
in Keith's book.
Do you support the ramp up of at least some forms of CDR - as I think
urged by the authors of the WG3 report?
2. I haven't the foggiest idea how Prof. Hamilton would respond - as
(at least from the abstract), he doesn't seem to recognize that the
CDR portion of geoengineering was considered part of mitigation.
Anyone read the whole BOS article to know if he makes any CDR
distinction there? That is - what is his view of the latest AR5
report? My belief is that his book sees CDR as "benign".
3. This is another example of a need for new nomenclature for the
topics being discussed on this list.
Ron
On Apr 23, 2014, at 1:47 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
Geoengineering and the politics of science, by Clive Hamilton
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 16, 2014, doi:
10.1177/0096340214531173
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/15/0096340214531173.abstract.html
The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) include an assessment of geoengineering--methods for removing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by
reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. The IPCC
assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into the mainstream
of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy
response to global warming. Already, conservative forces in the
United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions
reductions. Climate scientists are sharply divided over
geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Project
scientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II.
Testing a geoengineering scheme, such as sulfate aerosol spraying, is
inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers
highly dependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world,
experts would control the conditions of daily life, and it is
unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate
number of scientists currently working on geoengineering have either
worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the
Cold War reveals a belief in humankind's right to exercise total
mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is
staging a powerful comeback in the face of climate crisis.
----
Hamilton correctly explains my arguments against a gradual ramp up of
geoengineering as proposed by David Keith, and the lack of a rebuttal
in Keith's book.
But I just want to point out that even though I had a summer job at
Livermore when I was a grad student 41 years ago, and have
collaborated with climate scientists there since then on nuclear
winter and geoengineering, I am not evil and determined to control
the world with geoengineering.
Alan
--
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
--
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
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
