RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
And although not directly geoengineering (as such), an article came out recently that may be of interest for those looking into any kind of impacts of geoengineering related to temperature, precip, agriculture, and so on, using CMIP5 models (or even CMIP3 models): Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research Julian Ramirez-Villegas1,2,3, Andrew J Challinor2,3, Philip K Thornton1,4 and Andy Jarvis1,2 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/ Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies. Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Simon Driscoll [drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 01 August 2013 19:58 To: Fred Zimmerman; geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences Hi Fred, action with some degree of error is preferable to the likely consequences of inaction as a general rule to apply everywhere, of course, that statement does not hold at all - and very obviously so. I can't speak on behalf of the author of course, but I suppose he would say something along the following lines, which I agree with: Thinking about action or inaction is often better than not thinking about action or inaction. There are, of course, many specific cases/hypothetical scenarios in all arenas where action is definitely preferable and many cases where action is definitely not preferable. To make the jump from thinking about action or inaction (vs. not thinking) to something closer to what you say for this specific issue: simply action or inaction, definitely requires a certain knowledge about the system. Here again I can't speak on his behalf, but I would believe the author himself would suggest that we don't have that knowledge, from what he says in his paper looking into the basic physics of the models. Best wishes, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com] Sent: 01 August 2013 19:36 To: Simon Driscoll; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences How would you respond to the objection (which I am sure you have encountered frequently) that action with some degree of error is preferable to the likely consequences of inaction? --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Simon Driscoll drisc...@atm.ox.ac.ukmailto:drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk wrote: And a link to the referenced paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1761-5 Until now, climate model intercomparison has focused primarily on annual and global
RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
not directly geoengineering should read not directly related to geoengineering Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Simon Driscoll [drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 02 August 2013 11:12 To: Fred Zimmerman; geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences And although not directly geoengineering (as such), an article came out recently that may be of interest for those looking into any kind of impacts of geoengineering related to temperature, precip, agriculture, and so on, using CMIP5 models (or even CMIP3 models): Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research Julian Ramirez-Villegas1,2,3, Andrew J Challinor2,3, Philip K Thornton1,4 and Andy Jarvis1,2 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/ Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies. Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Simon Driscoll [drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: 01 August 2013 19:58 To: Fred Zimmerman; geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences Hi Fred, action with some degree of error is preferable to the likely consequences of inaction as a general rule to apply everywhere, of course, that statement does not hold at all - and very obviously so. I can't speak on behalf of the author of course, but I suppose he would say something along the following lines, which I agree with: Thinking about action or inaction is often better than not thinking about action or inaction. There are, of course, many specific cases/hypothetical scenarios in all arenas where action is definitely preferable and many cases where action is definitely not preferable. To make the jump from thinking about action or inaction (vs. not thinking) to something closer to what you say for this specific issue: simply action or inaction, definitely requires a certain knowledge about the system. Here again I can't speak on his behalf, but I would believe the author himself would suggest that we don't have that knowledge, from what he says in his paper looking into the basic physics of the models. Best wishes, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com] Sent: 01 August 2013 19:36 To: Simon Driscoll; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences How would
[geo] China’s domestic agenda and the global politics of geoengineering
An article on China's engagement with geoengineering - may be of interest http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6254-China-s-domestic-agenda-and-the-global-politics-of-geoengineering -- 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/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: China’s domestic agenda and the global politics of geoengineering
With text now By Kingsley Edney http://www.chinadialogue.net/author/1415-Kingsley-Edney and Jonathan Symons * Given the fractious nature of international climate politics, an emerging global governance framework for geoengineering could be derailed if China is not fully engaged in the process* Should we fear future international conflict over geoengineering of the earth’s climate?http://is%20it%20better%20to%20let%20the%20greenland%20ice%20sheet%20collapse%20or%20use%20geoengineering/?As the impacts of climate change become more apparent, might China and the United States take such divergent approaches that cooperative global governance of geoengineering will be impossible? Careful analysis of Chinese domestic political factors suggests that a feared scenario in which unilateral Chinese implementation of geoengineering triggers international conflict is highly unlikely, although not impossible. A recent debatehttp://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/6117-UN-climate-talks-can-spur-emission-cuts-in-China/enin *chinadialogue* over the capacity for international negotiations to prompt domestic action on climate change has highlighted the importance of transnational interaction for national climate politics. Where Li Shuo of Greenpeace China argues that international agreements spurhttp://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/6117-UN-climate-talks-can-spur-emission-cuts-in-China/endomestic Chinese efforts, Thomas Hale questions the potentialhttp://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6168-Understanding-China-s-domestic-agenda-can-end-UN-climate-gridlockfor the UNFCCC negotiation process to constrain national GHG emissions; rather, he argues that external actors can best influence national climate polices through strategic engagement with domestic policymaking. Hale cites the recent Xi-Obama Sunnylands agreement to regulate HFCs under the Montreal Protocolhttp://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6160-China-s-shifting-stance-on-hydrofluorocarbons-as a case where international negotiations strengthened the hand of reform advocates within China, and so shifted the balance of domestic political forces. In Hale’s account effective international interventions must be strategic and engaged with domestic policy debates. In an articlehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2013.807865#.UeSkVI03B8Ein *The Pacific Review*, we consider the Chinese domestic policy factors and transnational interactions that will ultimately shape the international governance of solar radiation management (SRM). SRM refers to forms of intentional geoengineering of the planetary environment that seek to counteract climate change by blocking the absorption of solar energy. While there are many possible forms of SRM, most discussion currently surrounds techniques that would reflect sunlight by dispersing sulphate particles in the upper atmosphere. We know from previous volcanic eruptions that stratospheric sulphates have the capacity to cool the planet and studies suggest http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034019/article that the warming impact of GHG emissions could be negated by SRM for a fraction of the cost of constraining emissions. Although SRM has economic appeal, it is widely viewed as an undesirable fallback measure because a planet cooled by SRM would possess novel atmospheric chemistry; the environmental consequences are not fully understood but would include changes in rainfall and weather patterns, continued ocean acidification and potential harm to the ozone layer. Despite the obvious pitfalls, the continuing failure of global climate negotiations to arrest GHG emissions growth means that some form of planetary intervention seems increasingly inevitable. It is testament to this growing interest that the Fifth Assessment Reporthttp://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.Ue3flo03B8Fof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) will, for the first time, review the science of geoengineering. Since SRM could be initiated by any technologically capable country, but would have profound global implications, it creates a serious global governance challenge. Some scholars, including Clive Hamilton in a recent* chinadialogue* interview,http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5952-China-could-move-first-to-geoengineer-the-climatehave worried that China might be tempted to implement SRM unilaterally. Fortunately, however, early steps toward strategic international engagement over SRM have been promising. In September 2011 a group of international scientists involved in the non-governmental SRM Governance Initiativehttp://www.srmgi.org/(SRMGI) conducted high-level meetings with Chinese scientists and government officials. These meetings raised SRM’s profile in China and have coincided with increasing interest within Chinese scientific funding bodies. The result has been that the first serious discussion of SRM in
Re: [geo] Re: China’s domestic agenda and the global politics of geoengineering
Thanks, Tom. What this article tells me is that China, if it chooses, is in the driver's seat re SRM (and CDR?) research and implementation, unlike the US and others which seem to have difficulty even acknowledging that there is a potential need. Greg From: Tom Levitt tommylev...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 7:27 AM Subject: [geo] Re: China’s domestic agenda and the global politics of geoengineering With text now By Kingsley Edney and Jonathan Symons Given the fractious nature of international climate politics, an emerging global governance framework for geoengineering could be derailed if China is not fully engaged in the process Should we fear future international conflict over geoengineering of the earth’s climate? As the impacts of climate change become more apparent, might China and the United States take such divergent approaches that cooperative global governance of geoengineering will be impossible? Careful analysis of Chinese domestic political factors suggests that a feared scenario in which unilateral Chinese implementation of geoengineering triggers international conflict is highly unlikely, although not impossible. A recent debate in chinadialogue over the capacity for international negotiations to prompt domestic action on climate change has highlighted the importance of transnational interaction for national climate politics. Where Li Shuo of Greenpeace China argues that international agreements spur domestic Chinese efforts, Thomas Hale questions the potential for the UNFCCC negotiation process to constrain national GHG emissions; rather, he argues that external actors can best influence national climate polices through strategic engagement with domestic policymaking. Hale cites the recent Xi-Obama Sunnylands agreement to regulate HFCs under the Montreal Protocol as a case where international negotiations strengthened the hand of reform advocates within China, and so shifted the balance of domestic political forces. In Hale’s account effective international interventions must be strategic and engaged with domestic policy debates. In an article in The Pacific Review, we consider the Chinese domestic policy factors and transnational interactions that will ultimately shape the international governance of solar radiation management (SRM). SRM refers to forms of intentional geoengineering of the planetary environment that seek to counteract climate change by blocking the absorption of solar energy. While there are many possible forms of SRM, most discussion currently surrounds techniques that would reflect sunlight by dispersing sulphate particles in the upper atmosphere. We know from previous volcanic eruptions that stratospheric sulphates have the capacity to cool the planet and studies suggest that the warming impact of GHG emissions could be negated by SRM for a fraction of the cost of constraining emissions. Although SRM has economic appeal, it is widely viewed as an undesirable fallback measure because a planet cooled by SRM would possess novel atmospheric chemistry; the environmental consequences are not fully understood but would include changes in rainfall and weather patterns, continued ocean acidification and potential harm to the ozone layer. Despite the obvious pitfalls, the continuing failure of global climate negotiations to arrest GHG emissions growth means that some form of planetary intervention seems increasingly inevitable. It is testament to this growing interest that the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) will, for the first time, review the science of geoengineering. Since SRM could be initiated by any technologically capable country, but would have profound global implications, it creates a serious global governance challenge. Some scholars, including Clive Hamilton in a recentchinadialogue interview, have worried that China might be tempted to implement SRM unilaterally. Fortunately, however, early steps toward strategic international engagement over SRM have been promising. In September 2011 a group of international scientists involved in the non-governmental SRM Governance Initiative (SRMGI) conducted high-level meetings with Chinese scientists and government officials. These meetings raised SRM’s profile in China and have coincided with increasing interest within Chinese scientific funding bodies. The result has been that the first serious discussion of SRM in China has occurred within an internationally connected scientific community. This context has reduced the likelihood that governance of SRM will be framed as an attempt by the developed West to impose restrictions on China’s development in the name of environmental protection. Early international scientific engagement also increases the possibility that states will share common perceptions concerning the
RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!
We (Ocean Foresters) pulled out of the geoengineering category for fear of negative publicity if we won in that category. However, we would appreciate comments (or votes) from members of this forum as we hope to be the "almost as fast as geoengineering" alternative to geoengineering. Also, one of our proposals may be important for tracking methane releases (Arctic or anywhere). To vote on Ocean Foresters proposals, click on the links below: Managed seaweed forests completely replace fossil fuels (1 of 5 finalists left in Agriculture and forestry) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/18/planId/1303918 Fiji, then Small Island Ocean Afforestation Initiative, then Indian Ocean, … (1 of 3 finalists left in Scaling renewables in major emerging economies) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/23/planId/1303924 Replace the diesel, reuse the engines, waste seaweed biogas (1 of 2 finalists left in Replacing diesel generation) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/24/planId/1303929 Methane-sniffing drones with distributed mobile sensors (1 of 3 proposals left in Hydraulic fracturing (fracking)) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/30/planId/1303603 To learn more about Ocean Foresters, click here (http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1005309). Thanks, Mark Capron, P.E., for the Ocean Foresters Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Thu, August 01, 2013 10:20 pmTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Poster's note : Many geoengineering and climate ideas to vote on here, including some from regular posters to the geo group. -- Forwarded message --From: "Laur Fisher" l...@mit.eduDate: Aug 1, 2013 5:21 PMSubject: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!To: andrew.lock...@gmail.comCc: Voting Is Now Open! The finalist proposals have been critiqued, revised, and approved by experts from around the world. Now we're looking to you to tell us which should be sent to the top. From August 1 until August 31, 2013, Climate CoLab members and the public are invited to cast their votes for the proposals that they would most like to see implemented. The proposal with the most votes in each contest will win the Popular Choice Award, and will be invited to present in person or via video to key implementers at our Crowds and Climate Conference on November 6 7 on the MIT campus. Along with the Judges Choice winners, they will also get a chance to win the $10,000 Grand Prize! How to Vote Voting is free and easy -- all you need to do is login to the Climate CoLab website and select the "Vote for proposal" button on the proposal page. You are given one vote per contest, and may change your vote as many times as you wish until midnight EDT on August 31. Remember: "Supports" do not become "Votes" -- Finalists, make sure your supporters vote for you! (All voting is subject to the Climate CoLab's Voting rules.)Vote Now!See the list of Finalists eligible for voting.Browse by contest. Spread the Word You'll notice that we've extended the voting period from two weeks to one month. This is to give you even more time to discuss, debate, select, and share your favorite proposals with the world.We love to see emails, tweets, posts, pins, and Google +1's about proposals! Include us in the conversation by adding our Twitter and Facebook hashtag #climatevote in your posts and tag us @ClimateCoLab(our Facebook tag has a space between the two words: @Climate CoLab). For more information and guidance about sharing proposals over social media, check out our Social Media Guide.Go to the Climate CoLab now to select your favorite proposal in each contest, and invite your friends, colleagues, readers, fans and followers to vote, too! Sustainably, Laur Fisher Community Partnerships Manager MIT Climate CoLab Vote for climate change solutions! www.climatecolab.org Join our community! #climatevote Twitter FacebookLinkedIn Pinterest reddit The Climate CoLab is a project of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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
RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!
Only the Geoengineering category has an elaborate comment by the judges on Geoengineering in general and the 3 finalists. Too big to copy here at http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals. Mark Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.netDate: Fri, August 02, 2013 8:55 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Now that the floodgates of vote solicitation and self promotion have been breached, I heartily encourage you to consider supporting these final round offerings by the Planet Doctors/Physicians: http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304003 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1303630 Greg From: "markcap...@podenergy.org" markcap...@podenergy.orgTo: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 8:26 AMSubject: RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open! We (Ocean Foresters) pulled out of the geoengineering category for fear of negative publicity if we won in that category. However, we would appreciate comments (or votes) from members of this forum as we hope to be the "almost as fast as geoengineering" alternative to geoengineering. Also, one of our proposals may be important for tracking methane releases (Arctic or anywhere). To vote on Ocean Foresters proposals, click on the links below: Managed seaweed forests completely replace fossil fuels (1 of 5 finalists left in Agriculture and forestry) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/18/planId/1303918 Fiji, then Small Island Ocean Afforestation Initiative, then Indian Ocean, … (1 of 3 finalists left in Scaling renewables in major emerging economies) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/23/planId/1303924 Replace the diesel, reuse the engines, waste seaweed biogas (1 of 2 finalists left in Replacing diesel generation) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/24/planId/1303929 Methane-sniffing drones with distributed mobile sensors (1 of 3 proposals left in Hydraulic fracturing (fracking)) http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/30/planId/1303603 To learn more about Ocean Foresters, click here (http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1005309). Thanks, Mark Capron, P.E., for the Ocean Foresters Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Thu, August 01, 2013 10:20 pmTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Poster's note : Many geoengineering and climate ideas to vote on here, including some from regular posters to the geo group. -- Forwarded message --From: "Laur Fisher" l...@mit.eduDate: Aug 1, 2013 5:21 PMSubject: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!To: andrew.lock...@gmail.comCc: Voting Is Now Open! The finalist proposals have been critiqued, revised, and approved by experts from around the world. Now we're looking to you to tell us which should be sent to the top. From August 1 until August 31, 2013, Climate CoLab members and the public are invited to cast their votes for the proposals that they would most like to see implemented. The proposal with the most votes in each contest will win the Popular Choice Award, and will be invited to present in person or via video to key implementers at our Crowds and Climate Conference on November 6 7 on the MIT campus. Along with the Judges Choice winners, they will also get a chance to win the $10,000 Grand Prize! How to Vote Voting is free and easy -- all you need to do is login to the Climate CoLab website and select the "Vote for proposal" button on the proposal page. You are given one vote per contest, and may change your vote as many times as you wish until midnight EDT on August 31. Remember: "Supports" do not become "Votes" -- Finalists, make sure your supporters vote for you! (All voting is subject to the Climate CoLab's Voting rules.)Vote Now!See the list of Finalists eligible for voting.Browse by contest. Spread the Word You'll notice that we've extended the voting period from two weeks to one month. This is to give you even more time to discuss, debate, select, and share your favorite proposals with the world.We love to see emails, tweets, posts, pins, and Google +1's about proposals! Include us in the conversation by adding our Twitter and Facebook hashtag #climatevote in your posts and tag us @ClimateCoLab(our Facebook tag has a space between the two words: @Climate CoLab). For more information and guidance about sharing proposals over social media, check out our Social Media Guide.Go to the Climate CoLab now to select your favorite proposal in each contest, and invite your friends,
Re: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
Can someone point me to any action that we take that has only known consequences? Doesn't every decision carry unknown consequences? *Deciding to deploy a solar geoengineering scheme might be a little like deciding to get married -- entered into with high hopes by the parties involved while the onlookers speculate about impending disaster. Could markedly improve life for all involved, but we could be in for an ugly divorce if things don't work out well.* On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.comwrote: This is not to express any animus, or to quarrel with the basic point that models need to improve in accuracy, but it is absolutely bizarre that authors of a study about modelling accuracy estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work are required to improve regional temperature simulations, while 30–50 years may be required for sufficiently accurate regional precipitation simulations, arrive at this estimate by Assuming improvements have a linear trend in time (p.8 of the full text). This is such a silly prediction as to undercut the entire study (which may be quite reasonable otherwise). Who knows what computer technology and modellers will be capable of in ten years, let alone fifty? How can they justify the assumption that improvements in accuracy will be linear? There is a painful irony in using this simple-minded model of technology improvement to assess the prospects for technology improvement... --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Simon Driscoll drisc...@atm.ox.ac.ukwrote: And although not directly geoengineering (as such), an article came out recently that may be of interest for those looking into any kind of impacts of geoengineering related to temperature, precip, agriculture, and so on, using CMIP5 models (or even CMIP3 models): Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research Julian Ramirez-Villegas1,2,3, Andrew J Challinor2,3, Philip K Thornton1,4 and Andy Jarvis1,2 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/ Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies. Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll -- *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Simon Driscoll [drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk] *Sent:* 01 August 2013 19:58 *To:* Fred Zimmerman; geoengineering *Subject:* RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences Hi Fred, action with some degree of error is preferable to the likely consequences of inaction as a general rule to apply everywhere, of course, that statement does not hold at all - and very obviously so. I can't speak on behalf of the author of course, but I suppose he would say something along the following lines, which I agree with: *Thinking *about action or inaction is often better than
[geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
I believe that Article 15 http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html of the Rio Declaration provides the clearest thinking on this subject. *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..* * * Best, Michael * * On Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Simon Driscoll wrote: The physicists out there may have already seen this short article: http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3 (also copied down below) which may be of interest to group members. Best wishes, Simon +++ I read with interest David Kramer’s piece on geoengineering (*Physics Today*, February 2013, page 17 http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1878). I must say, I am more alarmed by what the geoengineers in his report are proposing than by the climate changes that are taking place. I believe geoengineers are removed from scientific reality. They ignore the fact that the climate system and its components—clouds, hurricanes, and so forth—are highly nonlinear and thus very sensitive to the initial conditions and to changes in the parameters. Nevertheless, one could study the system’s response in a probabilistic way when certain parameters are changed or when we introduce fluctuations, if the relationships among all the components are known exactly. And here lies the whole problem with geoengineering. The formulation of the climate system and its components is only approximately known. More than 30 climate models are floating around in the climate community, and their predictions about general dynamics simply don’t agree with each other. In a recent publication,1http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3#c1we considered 98 control and forced climate simulations from 23 climate models and examined their similarity in four different fields (upper-level flow, sea-level pressure, surface air temperature, and precipitation). We found that except for the upper-level flow, the agreement between the models is not good. Moreover, none of the models compares well with actual observations. One person in the *Physics Today* story said that geoengineering may result in changes in various weather patterns, but nobody knows what the changes are going to be and how they will affect the climate system. If the warming in the Arctic is a big event to mitigate, then it will require a significant “geoengineering” effort. To me, that means significant changes will occur elsewhere. Who can say whether those changes will be less serious than those taking place now? How can geoengineers talk about modifying clouds and albedo when clouds are represented in the climate models as mostly linear parameterizations? Kramer’s report did not mention hurricanes, but geoengineers also propose to dissipate them. Hurricanes are unique in the climate system because they represent major self-organization. As physicists well know, self-organization occurs in dissipative systems in which energy is not conserved but instead is exchanged with the environment. Hurricanes involve huge amounts of energy. Scientists have little idea how the atmosphere and the ocean will be affected if that energy is not allowed to be exchanged. I would not have a problem with geoengineering if the physics and dynamics of the climate system were well known. Climate scientists have a good idea of the large-scale flow of ocean currents, but detailed measurements are not available. They know the basic physics of cloud formation and its thermodynamics but do not fully understand detailed cloud microphysics or the complex connections between climate and ecosystems. And with complex nonlinear systems, details are important. So we need to make an effort to improve our understanding of our climate system and its components before we try to operate on it. We can engineer a car or a plane because we know the underlying physics of motion, combustion, and flight, and we understand the role of every component. Can geoengineers say the same about climate? Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll -- 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
RE: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
Hi Ken, Can someone point me to any action that we take that has only known consequences? Doesn't every decision carry unknown consequences? not really outside of the hypothetical, of course. The statements that naturally flow out of these questions are true, but they can't really help about the problem at hand in a fairly real sense. Pointing out uncertainty exists in areas where many sensible decisions are made isn't a logical argument for then justifying action in a very different area. At one extreme hypothetical end, a single action could contain non-negligible chances of anything between (and including) saving the world from climate change damage and guaranteed realisation of an existential risk. Obviously, almost no-one would perform that action - unless they had some obscure ethical position, (jokingly) perhaps a non-cognitivist crypto-anarchist virtue ethicist or a negative utilitarian, but a rhetorical truism isn't validation for action in all cases. Fred - This is such a silly prediction as to undercut the entire study, are you suggesting their suggestion of a linear trend (which they note as being possibly not true) as undermining the science analysis? As for their predictions, people working specifically on computing at microsoft, IBM etc. probably have done some kinds of projections. I do not know if they are linear or not. Very importantly (given I am not an expert) I would not call them silly on face value. I'm not defending their claims, but nor do I attack them. I may actually ask them on their predictions and whether they were not mere guesses - if I do so I'll let you know. Best wishes, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: kcalde...@gmail.com [kcalde...@gmail.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: 02 August 2013 17:25 To: geoengineerin...@gmail.com Cc: Simon Driscoll; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences Can someone point me to any action that we take that has only known consequences? Doesn't every decision carry unknown consequences? Deciding to deploy a solar geoengineering scheme might be a little like deciding to get married -- entered into with high hopes by the parties involved while the onlookers speculate about impending disaster. Could markedly improve life for all involved, but we could be in for an ugly divorce if things don't work out well. On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.commailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: This is not to express any animus, or to quarrel with the basic point that models need to improve in accuracy, but it is absolutely bizarre that authors of a study about modelling accuracy estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work are required to improve regional temperature simulations, while 30–50 years may be required for sufficiently accurate regional precipitation simulations, arrive at this estimate by Assuming improvements have a linear trend in time (p.8 of the full text). This is such a silly prediction as to undercut the entire study (which may be quite reasonable otherwise). Who knows what computer technology and modellers will be capable of in ten years, let alone fifty? How can they justify the assumption that improvements in accuracy will be linear? There is a painful irony in using this simple-minded model of technology improvement to assess the prospects for technology improvement... --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Simon Driscoll drisc...@atm.ox.ac.ukmailto:drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk wrote: And although not directly geoengineering (as such), an article came out recently that may be of interest for those looking into any kind of impacts of geoengineering related to temperature, precip, agriculture, and so on, using CMIP5 models (or even CMIP3 models): Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research Julian Ramirez-Villegas1,2,3, Andrew J Challinor2,3, Philip K Thornton1,4 and Andy Jarvis1,2 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024018/ Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the
RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
Dear Michael, I agree. If we can demonstrate to a sufficient certainty that a measure is sensible and cost effective, then lack of entire certainty is not a reason for inaction - decision theory deals well with these types of things, and often climate deniers have used a lack of absolute certainty as reason for inaction, which I dispute. I think it only sensible to abide by the certainty bounds provided by the physics in the models from scientific literature (such as the ones below), and have neither an stance that is pro or anti geoengineering. It could be useful to include the authors in on the discussion, although I don't think they would disagree with the quote you gave below. Best wishes, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/driscoll From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 August 2013 19:59 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences I believe that Article 15http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html of the Rio Declaration provides the clearest thinking on this subject. 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.. Best, Michael On Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Simon Driscoll wrote: The physicists out there may have already seen this short article: http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3 (also copied down below) which may be of interest to group members. Best wishes, Simon +++ I read with interest David Kramer’s piece on geoengineering (Physics Today, February 2013, page 17http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1878). I must say, I am more alarmed by what the geoengineers in his report are proposing than by the climate changes that are taking place. I believe geoengineers are removed from scientific reality. They ignore the fact that the climate system and its components—clouds, hurricanes, and so forth—are highly nonlinear and thus very sensitive to the initial conditions and to changes in the parameters. Nevertheless, one could study the system’s response in a probabilistic way when certain parameters are changed or when we introduce fluctuations, if the relationships among all the components are known exactly. And here lies the whole problem with geoengineering. The formulation of the climate system and its components is only approximately known. More than 30 climate models are floating around in the climate community, and their predictions about general dynamics simply don’t agree with each other. In a recent publication,1http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3#c1 we considered 98 control and forced climate simulations from 23 climate models and examined their similarity in four different fields (upper-level flow, sea-level pressure, surface air temperature, and precipitation). We found that except for the upper-level flow, the agreement between the models is not good. Moreover, none of the models compares well with actual observations. One person in the Physics Today story said that geoengineering may result in changes in various weather patterns, but nobody knows what the changes are going to be and how they will affect the climate system. If the warming in the Arctic is a big event to mitigate, then it will require a significant “geoengineering” effort. To me, that means significant changes will occur elsewhere. Who can say whether those changes will be less serious than those taking place now? How can geoengineers talk about modifying clouds and albedo when clouds are represented in the climate models as mostly linear parameterizations? Kramer’s report did not mention hurricanes, but geoengineers also propose to dissipate them. Hurricanes are unique in the climate system because they represent major self-organization. As physicists well know, self-organization occurs in dissipative systems in which energy is not conserved but instead is exchanged with the environment. Hurricanes involve huge amounts of energy. Scientists have little idea how the atmosphere and the ocean will be affected if that energy is not allowed to be exchanged. I would not have a problem with geoengineering if the physics and dynamics of the climate system were well known. Climate scientists have a good idea of the large-scale flow of ocean currents, but detailed measurements are not available. They know the basic physics of cloud
[geo] Geoengineering piece on Aspen Public Radio
Another short piece on geoengineering, interviewing several people involved. It is quite balanced, as you would expect from Public Radio. http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/geoengineering-technological-fix-climate-change Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction 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 -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering piece on Aspen Public Radio
Alan: I agree that the report was balanced, if the criterion is knowledge in 2008 - the earliest date on the LLNL figure. To give ocean fertilization as the only example of CDR is not being very investigative or balanced. I have the same complaint about the CIA study behind the NPR piece, which is also only looking at examples - with a trivial budget. Almost guaranteed to miss the most likely winners. Ron - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:00:41 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering piece on Aspen Public Radio Another short piece on geoengineering, interviewing several people involved. It is quite balanced, as you would expect from Public Radio. http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/geoengineering-technological-fix-climate-change Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction 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 -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
