As an engineer I agree that engineering is purposeful. The other three words I disagree with, as would any other engineer. (Wikipedia's definition of engineering is reasonable)
Precision is clearly a subjective construct, as is predictability. I am quite confident for example that adding strat aerosols will cool the planet, and if you wanted to (hypothetically) maintain global mean temperature then with various caveats not qualitatively different from any other engineering project you could. So you might find it useful to not use the word in order to advance some argument, but it would clearly be engineering if we were to do it. (And, of course, relative to the original thread, anything inadvertent even if understood isn't engineered, though again someone might try and use that label simply to make a point) Doug Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Jim Fleming <jflem...@colby.edu> wrote: > > What used to be called "inadvertent climate change" in the 1970s is not > engineering, geo- or otherwise. > > Engineering requires precision, a plan, a product, and a permit. > > NAS 2015 refers to "Climate intervention," which may be purposeful, but not > precise or predictable. > > - - - - - > > James R. Fleming > Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College > Series editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology > > "Everything is unprecedented if you don't study history." > > Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/ > > >> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 4:44 AM, <em...@lewis-brown.net> wrote: >> Hi >> >> This made me wonder, do we have a list of current geo-engineering of the >> climate? It might include for eg:1) a wide range of ways we release of ghg >> to air (including water, all the ones under unfccc and those not) >> 2) Release of black carbon, eg from LUC, >> 3) Inputs of soil and sewage carbon to sea, >> 4) Inputs of CO2 to ocean by air, >> 5) Changes o albedo through ice, snow and forect cover change, >> 6) Contrails and other particulates that cause global dimming >> 7) Changes to the capacity of carbon sinks (via warming) eg menthane and >> ocean, >> 8) Changes in clouds through chnagin temperature affecting how much moisture >> the air can hold? >> Others? >> >> Happy for people to correct and contribute others, >> I think it might make an interesting (mag or news, rather than science >> publication?) article if anyone is interested in working with me on it. >> >> Thanks, Emily. >> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2 >> From: Brian Cady <briancady...@gmail.com> >> Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:36:46 -0800 (PST) >> To: geoengineering<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> ReplyTo: briancady...@gmail.com >> Subject: [geo] Re: "Accidental" Geoengineering? >> >> 1) Wouldn't our fossil carbon release into air classify as 'accidental' >> geoengineering? Couldn't one then argue that, since we're already doing >> geoengineering 'accidentally' or unintentionally, cleaning up that mess with >> intentional geoengineering is not committing an act that is of a different >> moral type, since we now know our culpability? Isn't it no longer truly an >> 'accident' when we know beforehand that changing the climate is an >> inevitable consequence of our fossil fuel use, industrial agriculture,and >> etc.? >> >> 2) I think it would be easy to be mislead by the quote from the the linked >> article: >> "...Prof Martin Wild, from of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in >> Zurich, ... commented on the work. >> Plants preferred diffuse light, he explained: "If you have a canopy >> structure, the direct light is absorbed by the uppermost leaves. Everything >> below is shaded and so misses out on that energy. But diffuse light can >> travel deeper into the canopy and can be absorbed by the plants lower down. >> So in that sense, if you have more diffuse light those lower plants will >> profit" >> >> a) I agree plants 'prefer' (grow faster under) diffuse light. I think this >> is due to direct light exposing some leaf parts to 'too much' sunlight, >> leading to photorespiration, while leaving other leaf parts in shadow, in >> sub-optimal levels of light. >> b) I concede that direct light is absorbed by uppermost leaves but so is >> diffuse light coming from the sky. >> c) I expect Prof. Wild speaks of diffuse light that is diffusing from the >> upper leaves, not from the sky. >> d) This upper-canopy-source is the reason that the diffuse light Prof. Wild >> speaks of "can travel deeper into the canopy..." >> e) The light diffusing from the sky has no special ability to bypass the >> upper canopy; just like direct sunlight, it will be stopped (or maybe >> diffused) by the first leaf it hits. >> >> Hope that helps, >> >> Brian >> >>> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 12:16:10 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35109198 >>> >>> ""If you look up the definition of geoengineering, it includes large-scale >>> manipulation of parts of the climate system or the environment, and I >>> believe this ice haze from jet traffic does satisfy that requirement," he >>> (Chuck Long, NOAA) told reporters." >> >> -- >> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
