Hi Christian,
Apologies if I came across more negatively than I meant to, though at least in
the short term the connection between SRM research and mitigation decisions
seems speculative, though of course I agree that measures to minimize trade-off
make sense.
Regarding the seat-belt ana
I’m glad Pete recognizes the potential for a lot more research in this area!
This is really just scratching the surface, and of course a lot more research
will need to be done in the next years/decades to really understand what the
limits are for managing this complex, nonlinear, uncertain, hig
Regardless of the framing, while it is undoubtedly true that some people will
claim they have been damaged or that they were losers, as a technical matter
that is certainly not the forgone conclusion that people seem to blithely
assume that it is. (Aside from the obvious case of those who stand
Specific, but irrelevant criticism.
Lester, Kate, and Ken’s simulation did an extreme case to illustrate what
happens, but the basic physical argument is true regardless of the amount. If
you bring colder water to the surface then yes, initially, you cool the
surface, but you also don’t r
Plot is from Cao et al, 2011. Zeroing emissions does cause CO2 to drop
somewhat, but the climate is not yet in equilibrium with current CO2 levels, so
the net effect is roughly constant temperature, all else being equal.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googl
Of course, one should point out that (i) global average precipitation increased
with CO2, and decreases with solar reduction, and is only over-compensated if
one tried to bring global mean temperature all the way back to preindustrial,
which is a choice, not a given (and an unlikely one at that)
, at 12:10 PM, Doug MacMartin wrote:
Hi Ron:
j. Yes, I agree completely with David… regarding the “only known” part, I think
absolutely everyone on this list agrees that CDR is a great thing to pursue,
but I do not think that there are any CDR approaches (including the one you
note in
Hi Ron:
j. Yes, I agree completely with David… regarding the “only known” part, I think
absolutely everyone on this list agrees that CDR is a great thing to pursue,
but I do not think that there are any CDR approaches (including the one you
note in point g) that could substantially reduce te
I’ve talked with lots of astronomers about this. None of the ones that I
happen to talk to could recall problems with observations after Pinatubo, but
it likely depends a lot on what astronomy you are doing.
With sulfate aerosol, a 2% reduction in total irradiance requires much larger
reduc
: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Doug MacMartin
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering'
Subject: RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and
barking mad. Pie
Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering
would be the path we’re currently on… in that sense I agree with him, but
insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t actually present any
cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argume
Jim – Just to clarify what others have said, I think that most people who read
your website will interpret the words “Some of…” to mean a meaningful
percentage, rather than “There exists one…” So you might call that public
record, but unless you expect your readers to all understand the broader
multiple algorithms could also be useful
eventually.
doug
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Kravitz, Ben
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 2:10 PM
To: Andrew Lockley; Ken Caldeira
Cc: geoengineering; Doug MacMartin
Subject: Re: [geo] Re
And a follow up on the follow up to briefly note that we used a very simple
model predictive control (i.e. relying on a simple dynamic model to make an
initial estimate of the needed radiative forcing that can subsequently be
corrected with feedback) in the paper Ken mentioned yesterday. (The f
Accepted for publication in Nature Climate Change (perspectives piece), but I
note that the version Andrew attached wasn’t the final version (lots of good
reviewer feedback). Apologies that I can’t find the final version on my
laptop, so you might have to wait for NCC to format it for the final
Hi Angus,
Re your first point, there isn’t such a thing as “the forcing distribution…
resulting from aerosol injection”. Anyone implementing geoengineering gets to
choose the latitude and altitude and amount and seasonal timing of injection,
and those choices will change the distribution.
The special issue of Phil. Trans. is now out; I would encourage everyone to
look at the table of contents, as there are quite a few interesting and good
papers in there! (Including Andy’s, of course.)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031.toc
doug
From: geoengineeri
Jim – I’m not sure whether I’m included in the category of sincere but deluded
folk… are you referring to (a) anyone who thinks SRM will cause global
temperatures to decrease, or (b) people who think that SRM will so perfectly
compensate for effects of greenhouse gases that we can continue to bu
Clearly I’m a bit late (sorry, skipped the conference to go on a honeymoon
instead), and I see others have made similar points, but three things strike me
in the original wording:
1. If you consider something like the global-average radiative forcing
perturbation, there are perhaps 8 o
I use that every time I give a talk on SRM!
Though I'm not quite sure it's entirely apt.
If we burn fossil fuels, we know we are causing damage to large groups of
people that one could in principle list. If we choose to implement some
limited amount of SRM, we can hypothesize that there could
The paper is now up on the ERL website:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/7/074013
Ken's suggested "future paper" would actually be a better title. the
original title of this was something more like "Winners and losers from
solar geoengineering", but the reviewers rightly pointed out th
The only advantage is the disposition of the salt - making ice thicker at
the bottom ensures that the salt stays in the water, not the ice. As has
been pointed out before, we don't know what happens with the salt if you
flood the ice from the top, nor whether higher-salinity ice creates a
problem
Of course. By the exact same logic, no-one understood combustion enough to
build an internal combustion engine until quantum mechanics was worked out.
Sorry, I don't see any connection at all between the ability to understand
small scale (in space and time) and the average of that behaviour o
Mark - read more carefully; David's comment regarding "won't work with
sulphates" was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put
enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out
is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require
intentio
Andy,
Just adding my $0.02 regarding tipping points:
I think that some thought regarding what we mean by tipping point is useful.
Typically people think about these as a step change in the slope of some
response variable to an input. This does not necessarily imply any
hysteretic or irreve
Hi Stephen,
Did you or Ben conduct a signal to noise analysis for this? (Sorry, I
haven't read his thesis, nor walked through quantitative analysis myself.)
When we did our testing paper a few years back, we found that a global-scale
forcing of 1 W/m^2 would still take decades to get adequate
Pat,
Those of us who work on geoengineering don't generally share your rosy
optimistic view of climate change.
I have never encountered, nor heard any tale of someone encountering, this
strawman person that you throw up that believes that geoengineering is a
substitute for emission reductio
elves by
claiming that others have no right to harm them. If they blocked SRM in that
scenario, they might be obligated to compensate those who wanted to use it.
That's my initial response, anyway. Does that seem sensible?
David
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:39:12 PM UTC-6,
Agree that we all need to work together. Two quick comments:
1. Just want to reiterate to the non-physical-scientists that while it
is quite plausible that some would be harmed by SRM (a trivial example being
those who want to ship through the Arctic) it is premature to assume any
specif
Andrew - I agree that if one were to only pick two variables, then
temperature and soil moisture (or P-E as a reasonable proxy for it) might
even be better ones to pick than temperature and precipitation. However,
given that geoengineering will change both precip and evaporation, it isn't
obvious
Benjamin, was this post related to Ken's? I don't see the connection, but
rather a reactionary and unsubstantiated insinuation that somehow
"scientists" believe that "ethicists" are a problem for geoengineering. Ken
tried to clarify what seems to be an ill-defined term regarding playing God.
A fe
ot that this has been
seen). There are going to be regions where people judge that they have been
harmed by SRM geoengineering, Although whether Monsoon affected India and
Africa are in that class is uncertain.
nice paper by the way,
Pete
On Monday, October 29, 2012 4:03:58 AM UTC+1, Doug M
Andrew, others,
Are there any modeling results that support the hypothesis that there exists
some region on the planet for whom the slightest amount of solar
geoengineering will shift their climate even further away from whatever
baseline you pick (current or pre-industrial) than it will be und
Hi Ron – I’ve made this comment before, and I’ll make it again, but I don’t
follow why you and others are so keen to keep CDR associated with the word
geoengineering and hence with SRM, rather than quietly allowing
geoengineering to become associated only with “risky” SRM. Seems to me (and
almost
34 matches
Mail list logo
