Sceptical realist

I think I've formalised my position on geoengineering...

I am skeptical realist: I know, unequivocally, that reducing carbon emissions is the right thing to do. I believe that CDR has the best long term outcome if we can’t do that, as it deals with the problem at source, but it’s not a free ride. There are some serious technical and ethical challenges there too. However, if we suddenly find ourselves in a period of rapid-onset climate instability the only way out is SRM. It’s the only thing we could do in a short timeframe to mitigate the effects of such an event. Given that, it has be on the table as an option to be investigated. That is all we are doing.

I am skeptical that geoengineering is the right option (I am pretty green at heart, really) but realistic enough to know that it may be required. 

I want to make it clear that I have no vested interest in making  SPICE work. I do not stand to profit from it and I will report any scientific findings honestly, transparently and without bias.

Interesting ideas from the blogosphere....

I am in the midst of developing a 'sticky questions' brief for EPRSC. For that, I've been trawling the web for ideas/prompts and I'm heartened by the fact that there are some very good ideas, well-articulated, floating in the ether. Roger Pielke's is still my favourite I think - he appears to manage to have deep insights into a spectacularly broad range of subjects...

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

With focus a bit more on the job in hand, as it were, are two orthogonal perspectives from 'futarists' of different flavours - Mark Lynas's (we're going to have to talk at some point about the 'hush-hush' barb in his blog - I guess soon that won't be a criticism soon)

http://www.marklynas.org/

and George Dvosrky's (although the title annoys me :) )

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2010/08/create-future-myth.html

Given that they are almost polar opposites in terms of their crystal ball reading, I suppose that instinctively I side with Dvosrky. Odd that, given what I am doing you could argue. I digress (meaninglessly) as I've not crystalised this feeling yet. If/when I do, I'll let you know...

The brief itself is in preparation for any media interest in SPICE over the next few weeks. It is not, I hasten to add, designed to subvert or spin, simply to prepare for the challenge and to fully develop a personal framing. I guess, given what I decided to call the blog, my internal conflict is apparent - although it is resolving itself through the strong assertion that you can see the importance of research into geoengineering without being an advocate of deployment...

I thought I'd try this for the blog, courtesy of wordle - not sure what to make of it really.

A period of reflection

I've been doing a lot of thinking about geoengineering, not all of it completely coherent, over the last month. Some of this was prompted by an interesting article published in GRL, looking at the impacts of tropical volcanism on climate...

Vernier, J.-P., et al. (2011), Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L12807, doi:10.1029/2011GL047563.

This is exceptionally relevant for SPICE, particularly the modellers, as it is an observation of the aerosols being transported by Brewer-Dobson circulation. The bottom line of the article is that the recent increase in stratospheric aerosol loadings, otherwise postulated to be sourced from industry in SE Asia, is in at least part in due to the eruptions of Soufriere Hills, Manan and Reventador.

Global events too play on my mind. Events in Norway strongly underscore the fact that extremism, in any form, is abhorrent.

Another mention of SPICE in the media...

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/geoengineering-why-all-the-fuss/#more-545

An interesting take on things, although I think the 'hush-hush' thing is nonsense. Interesting that, in the same paragraph, it was linked to a popular website? How can that be hush-hush?

Ecotopia - a new moral hazard?

Although I fully accept that the moral hazards is alive and well, and it is vital we worry about (and prevent) any action undermining efforts to reduce carbon use, the argument used against geoengineering that relies on casting the Earth as some sort of precious, pristine system to be ruined by 'mad scientists' is a fallacy. Precious it is, pristine it ain't.

More than that however, is that this idea leads us towards the moral hazard. If the Earth in 2011 is so in danger of being ruined by geoengineering, why change the status quo?  Where's the need for environmental change if Ecotopia is where we are now?

I do genuinely sympathise with the deep greens, it must be odd drifting towards being allies with the climate sceptics.

Newsnight (16/06/2011)

As with the Guardian article, I felt that the report (from Susan Watts) was pretty even handed and accurate. Both Ken Caldiera (on IPCC steering group, advocate into research (at least)) and Doug Parr (Chief Scientist, Greenpeace, sceptic) came across very well and rationally, despite having very different views.