[geo] Fwd: Climate Engineering News Review for 26th week of 2014

[Andrew Lockley]

-- Forwarded message --
From: "i...@climate-engineering.eu" 
Date: 24 Jun 2014 06:40
Subject: Climate Engineering News Review for 26th week of 2014
To: 
Cc:

 [image: tl_files/newsletter/NewsletterBalken.jpg]

Dear Climate Engineering Group,

please find below our weekly climate engineering news review. You can find
daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal
www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html.

Thank you

The Climate Engineering Editors


Climate Engineering News Review for Week 26 of 2014

Upcoming Events and Deadlines

   - 24.06.2014
   
,
   Debate: Is climate engineering completely crazy?, Copenhagen/Denmark
   - 28.07.-01.08.2014
   
,
   Fifth Interdisciplinary Summer School on Climate Engineering,
   Heidelberg/Germany
   - 11.08.2014
   
,
   Lecture: Geoengineering – Human Innovation, or Hubris?, Glasgow/UK
   - 18.-21.08.2014
   
,
   Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC14), Berlin/Germany
   - 5.-7.09.2014
   
,
   Lecture: Human Rights Considerations and Climate Geoengineering, Yale
   University, USA



New Publications

   - Amelung, Dorothee; Funke, Joachim (2014)
   
:
   Laypeople's Risky Decisions in the Climate Change Context: Climate
   Engineering as a Risk-Defusing Strategy?
   - Moore, John C.; et al. (2014)
   
:
   Arctic sea ice and atmospheric circulation under the GeoMIP G1 scenario
   - Curry, Charles L.; et al. (2014)
   
:
   A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering
   experiment
   - Scheer, Dirk; Renn, Ortwin (2014)
   
:
   Public Perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate
   - Tang, M. J.; et al. (2014)
   
:
   Heterogeneous reaction of N2O5 with airborne TiO2 particles and its
   implication for stratospheric particle injection
   - Hansson, Anders (2014)
   
:
   Ambivalence in calculating the future: the case of re-engineering the world



Selected Media Responses

   - Scientific American
   
:
   The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disaster
   - UNESCO
   
:
   Hutchison medal awarded for Ocean fertilization for geoengineering
   publication
   - WGC Blog
   
:
   Climate Geoengineering Governance: Expanding the Conversation – Guest Post
   – Mihir Shah
   - The Engineere Q&A
   
:
   Geoengineering



*To unsubscribe please send short message to **i...@climate-engineering.eu*
* or use the web interface.*

-- 
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.

[geo] apologies for wrong piece clipped

[Andrew Revkin]

Not sure what happened there. Here's latest reply to the Hamilton rejection
of a 'good' path in a turbulent time - from Michael Tobis and Curt Stager:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/two-climate-researchers-weigh-the-notion-of-a-good-path-in-the-anthropocene
Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the Anthropocene
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
 JUNE 22, 2014
9:50 AM 20 Comments
[image: A 2013 art installation at Edge Hill University near Liverpool,
England, by Robyn Woolston included this mock sign, "Welcome to the
Fabulous Anthropocene Era" (enlarge). The Anthropocene is a name some
scientists have proposed for this era in which humans have become a
dominant influence on the environment.]Robyn WoolstonA 2013 art installation
 at
Edge Hill University near Liverpool, England, by Robyn Woolston
 included this mock sign, “Welcome to the
Fabulous Anthropocene Era” (enlarge
).
The Anthropocene is a name some scientists have proposed for this era in
which humans have become a dominant influence on the environment.

I’m just catching up with reactions from two climate and sustainability
analysts (Michael Tobis and Curt Stager) to my recent talk charting a
“good” path through the age of us
, the Anthropocene,
and Clive
Hamilton’s blunt critique

.

Stager — a hybrid of climate scientist, ecologist and author
 (and musician
) — posted a comment that is
worth elevating here as a “Your Dot ” contribution:

Ethicist Clive Hamilton’s premise that seeing anything but catastrophe in
an Anthropocene future is “un-scientific” is itself unscientific – a value
judgment, not a statement of fact. As a climate scientist, I see many
changes coming that worry me, but I also try not to confuse my feelings
about them with the full complexity of reality, and I do see some rays of
hope amid the storm.

Science demands that we consider more than what most grabs our attention,
and as with past global changes one’s loss is another’s gain; this makes
rigorous ethical analysis more difficult than the science itself. As Arctic
sea ice species wane, southern taxa are re-colonizing waters their
ancestors knew in past warm periods, and as parts of Bangladesh submerge
Greenlanders find new opportunities. Hamilton’s response is understandable,
but he seems to forget what “scientific” means.

Judging from reactions to my book, “Deep Future: The Next 100,000 Years of
Life on Earth ,” it is often strict
scientific views of such changes that most upset people who, as Andy
suggests, appear to hope for the worst. Our responses to global change
reflect who we are, what we know (or think we know), and our emotional
wiring.

But in this turbulent dawn of the Anthropocene when our thoughts and
actions trigger massive, long-lasting changes for better and for worse,
recognizing what is or is not “science” is crucial to understanding what is
happening and thus — by my own ethical lights — a responsibility, too.

Michael Tobis
,
who is often a critic of my thinking on climate change science, creditably
took the time to watch my talk and offered a constructive reaction on his
Planet 3.0 blog .
Here’s an excerpt:

[T]he argument is whether it is permissible to juxtapose the words “good”
and “anthropocene.” But “good” is such a vague word that objecting to it
seems to me a very weak posture. Indeed, in his Dot Earth piece he mentions
that he is using “good” in an ethical sense, not in a sense of outcomes. He
says:

*I was invited to give the opening talk, which I called “Paths to a ‘Good’
Anthropocene” — with quotation marks around the adjective “good” to stress
that values determine choices.*

Not only do I entirely agree that we can have an ethically “good” future, I
also believe that we can have an actually “good” future in terms of
dignity, sustainability and joy. Some say it is automatic, and we should
just eschew meddling with the corporate economy which will inevitably
deliver left to its devices. I don’t believe that for a minute. A good
outcome will require a lot of work and a fair amount of courage. But if I
thought it was out of reach, I’d go all doomer and hide in a cave.

What motivates me to keep going is the following by Bruce Sterling:

*Our capacities are tremendous. Eventually, it is within our technical
ability to create factories that

[geo] A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment - Curry - 2014 - JGR Atmospheres - Wiley

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: non Roman characters didn't cut and paste correctly. Please
view online

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020648/abstract

A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering
experiment

Charles L. Curry, Jana Sillmann, David Bronaugh, Kari Alterskjaer, Jason N.
S. Cole4, Duoying Ji, Ben Kravitz, Jón Egill Kristjánsson, John C.
Moore, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock,Simone Tilmes and Shuting
Yang

Article first published online: 14 APR 2014

DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020648

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Volume 119, Issue 7, pages 3900–3923, 16 April 2014

Temperature and precipitation extremes are examined in the Geoengineering
Model Intercomparison Project experiment G1, wherein an instantaneous
quadrupling of CO2 from its preindustrial control value is offset by a
commensurate reduction in solar irradiance. Compared to the preindustrial
climate, changes in climate extremes under G1 are generally much smaller
than under 4 × CO2 alone. However, it is also the case that extremes of
temperature and precipitation in G1 differ significantly from those under
preindustrial conditions. Probability density functions of standardized
anomalies of monthly surface temperature  and precipitation  in G1 exhibit
an extension of the high- tail over land, of the low- tail over ocean, and
a shift of  to drier conditions. Using daily model output, we analyzed the
frequency of extreme events, such as the coldest night (T), warmest day
(T), and maximum 5 day precipitation amount, and also duration indicators
such as cold and warm spells and consecutive dry days. The strong heating
at northern high latitudes simulated under 4 × CO2 is much alleviated
in G1, but significant warming remains, particularly for T compared to T.
Internal feedbacks lead to regional increases in absorbed solar radiation
at the surface, increasing temperatures over Northern Hemisphere land in
summer. Conversely, significant cooling occurs over the tropical oceans,
increasing cold spell duration there. Globally, G1 is more effective in
reducing changes in temperature extremes compared to precipitation extremes
and for reducing changes in precipitation extremes versus means but
somewhat less effective at reducing changes in temperature extremes
compared to means.

-- 
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.