Saturday, September 02, 2017

Another Reason to Join the AGU

Well, the Fall Meeting has been moved to New Orleans, and RayP tweets
Having said that, have a look at the draft statement which starts:
It is not currently possible to robustly assess the potential consequences of geoengineering (also known as “climate engineering”). Therefore, significant additional research, risk assessment,  and consideration of difficult policy questions are required before the potential of  geoengineering systems to offset climate change can be evaluated adequately.
The weakness Ray sees, of course, is who is going to stop anybunny who starts, and if the consequences are positive for them and negative for others, what's gonna stop them.

Anyhow it continues
It is well established that humans are responsible, primarily through the release of greenhouse gases, for most of the well‐documented increase in global average temperatures over the last  half century. Further emissions of these pollutants, particularly of carbon dioxide from the  burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly cause additional widespread changes in climate, with major negative consequences for most nations and natural ecosystems. 
The only way to slow and stop human impacts on climate is through mitigation of these emissions, which must therefore be central to any policy response to the dangers of climate change. Over the last three decades it has become apparent that there are many political and technological difficulties in achieving deep, global reductions, and many studies have shown that current mitigation efforts are not sufficient to limit global warming to widely discussed goals such as 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Mindful of this reality there has been more attention to climate adaptation: moderating climate impacts by increasing the capacity of societies to cope with them.  
Insufficient mitigation and adaptation leaves humans and nature exposed to large, harmful changes in climate. That reality has led, in part, to growing interest in the option of geoengineering: “deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” In theory, geoengineering technologies could be deployed—in tandem with mitigation and adaptation—with a variety of goals, such as reducing peak levels and rates of climate change or responding to unforeseen and harmful shifts in climate.
The drafting committee points out that geo engineering is a wide tent that covers a lot of cess pools, with some being riper than others, but which can be generally divided into those that steal COout of the air (called carbon dioxide removal or CDM) and others that manipulate the amount of sunlight that is absorbed in the Earth system (called solar radiation management or SRM).

The questions raised wrt CDR are who is doing it, are they doing enough, can it be scaled up and should this be a private investment Obamacare for the Atmosphere effort or do we need a government run Medicare for all the CO2 model.

SRM is another kettle of problems altogether.  If the Earth is the test tube, even preliminary tests carry ethical and political threats and, as is the case with nuclear programs, distinguishing between climate mitigation and preparations for a weather war is not always straight forward, with the answer lying in the minds of the observer.

Anybunny who joins the AGU can submit comments until September 25. ** In conclusion
CDR and SRM will not substitute for aggressive mitigation nor the need for proactive adaptation, but they could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow 106 climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation, and transparent deliberation. 
Adopted by the American Geophysical Union DATE. Based on an earlier statement adopted by the AGU on 13 December 2009 in collaboration with the American Meteorological Society (as adopted by the AMS Council on 20 July 2009); revised and reaffirmed February 2012. 
** Turns out there is a radio button for non joiners so feel free to comment



This is anti-activism incarnate- the AGU , like the APS , remains the lawful prey of the politicized, including those more interested in regulating experiments than allowing the production of experiental results.


Not that it makes much difference, the above should end in 'experimental" rather than 'experiental' results.

Canman said...

Next thing you know, they'll be coming after your shiny bubbles.

Fernando Leanme said...

I AM for Geoengineering research. I have a million ideas i think need to be researched. But I'm not going to join the AGU, it's way too political. I bet the majority are closet Castroites.


Chill, Fernando-- the last time I saw the head of the Cuban National Oil Company his team was looking for jade deposits

Bob Loblaw said...

.....and, Fernando goes back to his usual place, seeing commies under every bed.

EliRabett said...

Eli looked yesterday. Only dust.

Bernard J. said...

There was an old man who swallowed a fly...

There was also a sorcerer's apprentice.

Anonymous said...

> Fernando goes back to his usual place, seeing commies under every bed.

Red-baiting is what Fernando does best.

Here he is this morning, peddling "but Venezuela!" in a Tweeter thread where Max Roser shows a letter from a kid asking why 16K children die every year from preventable deaths:

It starts well:

> "It cant be ended because many nations are misgoverned by corrupt and/or stupid mofos, new ones pop up all the time"

To which I add:

> "Most of these mofos meet the interests of other corporatist mofos, against which the democratic institutions are navel gazingly powerless."

Then of course Fernando had to peddle Maduro.

Freedom Fighters will do what Freedom Fighters do, I guess.


There are some very baitable reds afoot these days, and not all of them march wearing black hoods and designer gas masks :


Canman, one of them came after them before they were published - bashing alternatives to CO2 mitigation has been the normative response of its advocates since the days when Congressman Gore sported a beard.and claimed to be a grassroots tobacco farmer:

Alan Robock
Aug 24

Other recipients:

The draft statement is

Our committee is David Victor (Chair), Ken Caldeira, Piers Forster, Ben
Kravitz, Marcia McNutt, Joyce Penner, Alan Robock, Naomi Vaughan, and
Jennifer Wilcox.

There is a month-long period now seeking comments, with link at