Hello Alan, I have long admired the independent stances that you have taken on aspects of climate engineering. However, by consistently focusing attention on only one idea (stratospheric sulphur) and then damning it you relegate all other ideas (such as MCB, which I am involved with) to the untenable or crazy category such as persuading seagulls to remain perpetually in sunlight. The sulphur scheme has many virtues, and some difficulties which may well be overcome - I very much hope so. The same is true of MCB, in my view. Definitive statements on the value of both ideas cannot be made until they have been rigorously field-tested. It is not sufficient to say that MCB will work because ship-tracks enhance cloud brightness. All Best Wishes, John [John Latham]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Dear Mike and Jon, > > I agree with Jon. > > And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with > geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most likely > option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 is > injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, "[A] solar radiation > management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at that > anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining ‘business as usual’ conditions, > would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 Tg(S)/yr which > amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption each year." > > Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric > sulfur climate engineering? *Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.*, *15*, > 10,939–10,969. > > And how will you deal with everyone of these risks? From Robock (2014), > updated: > > *Benefits* > > *Risks* > > 1. Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse > negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger > storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise > > 1. Drought in Africa and Asia > > 2. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation > > 3. Ozone depletion > > 4. Continued ocean acidification > > 5. Will not stop ice sheets from melting > > 6. Impacts on tropospheric chemistry > > 2. Increase plant productivity > > 7. Whiter skies > > 3. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink > > 8. Less solar electricity generation > > 4. Beautiful red and yellow sunsets > > 9. Degrade passive solar heating > > 5. Unexpected benefits > > 10. Rapid warming if stopped > > > 11. Cannot stop effects quickly > > > 12. Human error > > > 13. Unexpected consequences > > > 14. Commercial control > > > 15. Military use of technology > > > 16. Societal disruption, conflict between countries > > > 17. Conflicts with current treaties > > > 18. Whose hand on the thermostat? > > > 19. Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere > > > 20. Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere > > > 21. Environmental impact of implementation > > > 22. Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy > > > 23. Affect stargazing > > > 24. Affect satellite remote sensing > > > 25. More sunburn > > > 26. Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would > > reduce drive for mitigation > > > 27. Moral authority – do we have the right to do this? > > > Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. *Issues Env. > Sci. Tech.* (Special issue “Geoengineering of the Climate System”), *38*, > 162-185. > > Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is > clear that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation > is? I agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, > could be doing much more. This just means he needs more pushing, and the > Chinese and Indians need to agree to take strong steps. We're certainly > not there yet, but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them > an out. > > 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 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > Dear Jon—While I think you overstate the situation with climate > engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the > climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 > to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering > may well be a good bit less than mitigation—though mitigation costs do seem > to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes > rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests > and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively > pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that > these (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions > that seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused > more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation > could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the > particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive > energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning > energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are—a situation that > might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial > resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution > is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of > the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public > lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard > to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means > to reduce overall suffering and loss. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, "Jon Lawhead" <lawh...@usc.edu> wrote: > > As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this > provides a really strong argument in favor of focused attention on > mitigation. There's at least some degree of popular perception that > geoengineering provides a "fail safe" for fixing the climate if/when we > fail to successfully implement sufficient mitigation policies. In some > cases, this leads to more lukewarm (or downright cold) support for > mitigation than it otherwise would have. Philosophers and social > scientists call this a "moral hazard." > > But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly > backward. If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that > our only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a *very* strong reason > to mitigate early and mitigate often. The costs associated with > geoengineering--both in terms of financial commitments and in terms of > potentially dangerous side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be > reasonable to think of a large-scale geoengineering program as a "fail > safe." I think we would do well to work harder to promulgate that message > more widely and more forcefully than we do now. > > Naturally, > > Jon Lawhead, PhD > Postdoctoral Research Fellow > University of Southern California > Philosophy and Earth Sciences > > 3651 Trousdale Parkway > Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 > > http://www.realityapologist.com <http://www.realityapologist.com/> > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another > reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management > methods. And I don't mean adaptation. > Greg > -------------------------------------------- > On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering > To: "Geoengineering" <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM > > For those who argue that it is best > to keep relying on mitigation as the > only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful > decisions such as > described in: > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras > e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change > > that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a > couple of lawsuits > trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The > Administration could > have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental > review of the > consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but > instead they > have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS > (their analysis > starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they > could have > imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if > one wants to use > the free market system to level the field across > technologies--but no, > leases would be at very low prices. > > So, first, the criticism that those of us favor > geoengineering first are > just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But > decisions like this > keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with > whether > geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having > to go deeper and > deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the > devastating > consequences of warming lying ahead. > > Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the > rest of the world > is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough > to make a > difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it > makes all the > clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar > sands development > ring very hollow. > > Mike MacCracken > > -- > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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. > > > -- > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@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. > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
