Comments on: Climate News Roundup http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:46:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6357 Ron Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:37:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6357 Did you see the story in Rolling Stone about 'Prophet' James Lovelock? Yep, it's a new religion alright. Did you see the story in Rolling Stone about ‘Prophet’ James Lovelock?

Yep, it’s a new religion alright.

]]> By: Ambitwistor http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6358 Ambitwistor Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:46:19 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6358 I think you're too harsh to dismiss Caldeira's op-ed. I assure you, he is as aware as you of the negative risks of geoengineering, e.g. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/24/9949" rel="nofollow">here</a>. He isn't arguing that geoengineering is a replacement for abatement. He directly says that the vast majority of funding should go to abatement. He's merely proposing that geoengineering should still be researched, in case abatement fails and we need a last-ditch backup. As you yourself have said, there is a real possibility that we could pass an irreversible climate threshold. We should do what we can to reduce GHG emissions to prevent us from crossing that threshold. That being said, it's possible <em>we might fail in this task</em>. If so, even though geoengineering has serious problems, it might still be preferable to use it than to cross such a threshold. Geoengineering is only a problem when it is viewed as a replacement for abatement, rather than an emergency backup measure. Which was Caldeira's point. I think you’re too harsh to dismiss Caldeira’s op-ed. I assure you, he is as aware as you of the negative risks of geoengineering, e.g. here. He isn’t arguing that geoengineering is a replacement for abatement. He directly says that the vast majority of funding should go to abatement. He’s merely proposing that geoengineering should still be researched, in case abatement fails and we need a last-ditch backup.

As you yourself have said, there is a real possibility that we could pass an irreversible climate threshold. We should do what we can to reduce GHG emissions to prevent us from crossing that threshold. That being said, it’s possible we might fail in this task. If so, even though geoengineering has serious problems, it might still be preferable to use it than to cross such a threshold.

Geoengineering is only a problem when it is viewed as a replacement for abatement, rather than an emergency backup measure. Which was Caldeira’s point.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6366 Joe Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:23:30 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6366 I know Caldeira knows the downside. He is the expert on ocean acidification, among other things. That's what bothered me -- he didn't mention them at all. This is exceedingly misleading to the typical NY Times reader. I am sure we will get desperate in the coming decades and consider every possible strategy, including geo-engineering. I just don't want to leave the public with the false impression that it is very likely to save us -- particularly aerosol injection. I know Caldeira knows the downside. He is the expert on ocean acidification, among other things. That’s what bothered me — he didn’t mention them at all. This is exceedingly misleading to the typical NY Times reader.

I am sure we will get desperate in the coming decades and consider every possible strategy, including geo-engineering. I just don’t want to leave the public with the false impression that it is very likely to save us — particularly aerosol injection.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6431 Jay Alt Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:38:01 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/25/climate-news-roundup-34/#comment-6431 Joe, Reading the editorial again I agree it is oversimplified and could be misleading to readers. (But if he'd been more careful, the media echo-chamber would just promote it without any cautions.) Since you've mentioned them, Realclimate has blogged this. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/gee-whiz-geoengineering/ Dr. Caldeira's reply to the criticism, in more words than the Times gave him, is at comment #73. Joe,
Reading the editorial again I agree it is oversimplified and could be misleading to readers. (But if he’d been more careful, the media echo-chamber would just promote it without any cautions.) Since you’ve mentioned them, Realclimate has blogged this.

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2007/ 10/ gee-whiz-geoengineering/

Dr. Caldeira’s reply to the criticism, in more words than the Times gave him, is at comment #73.

]]>