Gwynne and everybody, One additional point to make it absolutely clear about why we need geoengineering. I'll number this zero, so it begins the chain of argument:
0. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions overnight, the CO2 level in the atmosphere would remain at around 385 ppm, and the net positive climate forcing (i.e. heating) around 1.6 Watts per square metre, for decades. The global warming would therefore continue for decades. Therefore there is no way that emissions reductions can produce a cooling effect on a timescale of a few years. Actually the point can be made even stronger. To produce a cooling effect, one would need to have a net negative forcing. To produce this you would need to bring the CO2 down below the pre-industrial equilibrium point, generally taken as 280 ppm. And to do this in the Arctic, and counter the local albedo forcing, you'd need to take CO2 well below 280 ppm within a few years. This is clearly absolutely impossible. And as regards geoengineering "as a last resort" [1], when do you determine the time that you should use it? When you can see that other methods are not working, surely. That was probably in the mid 80s, when the glacier mass ice loss suddenly deviated from the curve it had previously followed - showing a doubling of global warming per decade [2]. This sudden acceleration could not be explained by CO2 - but could have been explained either by the additional forcing of Arctic sea ice which had started to retreat, or by the removal of "pollutant" sulphur compounds from the atmosphere, or a combination of the two. (I discussed this with the glacier expert Wilfred Haeberli himself, to no definite conclusion.) We should then have realised that putting sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere was an obvious way to stop the acceleration, as it could counter both the effect of sulphur removal from the troposphere AND any additional forcing of Arctic sea ice. But it is easy to be wise in hindsight. Now we have no time to lose as the sea ice threatens to disappear faster than we ever imagined possible. Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] Paul Crutzen has considered albedo enhancement a last resort: www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf [2] Glacier mass ice loss. Haeberli et al. See trend on figure 1b: http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html ----- Original Message ----- From: John Nissen To: Gwynne Dyer Cc: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:58 PM Subject: Fw: [geo] Can't Get There from Here Hello Gwynne, I appreciate very much that you explore the security dimension. But there's one vital thing you miss. You write: "The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which warming becomes unstoppable—and we are probably going to sail right through it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming triggers huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases of both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2 degrees C hotter (3.6 degrees F). " but you miss the glaring example of a tipping point - the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice. So here is a logical argument. Considering: 1. The Arctic is warming at least double the speed of average global warming. 2. If the sea ice goes, the Arctic warming accelerates and is liable to trigger huge releases of methane from permafrost, long before the global warming reaches 2 degrees. (It is also liable to trigger disastrous sea level rise from Greenland ice sheet melting.) 3. According the latest research, documented in the Climate Safety report (launched last week [1]), the sea ice could disappear in 3-7 years (at the end of summer). 4. Geoengineering now appears to be the only possible means to save the Arctic sea ice, and prevent a "tipping point" becoming a "point of no return". 5. The local climate forcing (heating) from the albedo effect, as Arctic sea ice retreats in summer, could more than double between now and complete sea ice disappearance. 6. Geoengineering needs to be up to full scale as quickly as possible, to maximise the chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. Therefore: 7. We need immediately to initiate a top-priority, super-urgent project for geoengineering to save the Arctic sea ice - a project with the focus, determination and urgency of the Manhattan project. The consequences of failure are too dreadful to contemplate. Failure is not an option. Psychologically, we have to think of this as war, in order to accept the enormity of the predicament we are in and be spurned to action. Can you refute this argument? Can anybody refute this argument? Could Obama and his defense advisers accept this argument? (I shall work on our own Prime Minister Brown.) Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414238.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Alvia Gaskill To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:08 PM Subject: [geo] Can't Get There from Here Like the financial crisis, when the roof falls in, watch out, it may be your own. http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about-climate-change Gwynne Dyer: Four harsh truths about climate change By Gwynne Dyer Publish Date: December 2, 2008 About two years ago, I realized that the military in various countries were starting to do climate change scenarios in-house—scenarios that started with the scientific predictions about rising temperatures, falling crop yields, and other physical effects, and examined what that would do to politics and strategy. The scenarios predicted failed states proliferating because governments couldn’t feed their people; waves of climate refugees washing up against the borders of more fortunate countries; even wars between countries that shared the same rivers. So I started interviewing everybody I could get access to: not only senior military people but also scientists, diplomats, and politicians. About seventy interviews, a dozen countries, and eighteen months later, I have reached four conclusions that I didn’t even suspect when I began the process. The first is simply this: the scientists are really scared. Their observations over the past two or three years suggest that everything is happening a lot faster than their climate models predicted. This creates a dilemma for them, because for the past decade they have been struggling against a well-funded campaign that cast doubt on the phenomenon of climate change. Now, finally, people and even governments are listening. Even in the United States, the world headquarters of climate change denial, 85 percent of the population now sees climate change as a major issue, and both presidential candidates in last month’s election promised 80 percent cuts in American emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. The scientists are understandably reluctant at this point to publicly announce that their predictions were wrong; that they are really much worse and the targets will have to be revised. Most of them are waiting for overwhelming proof that climate change really is moving faster, even though they are already privately convinced that it is. So governments, now awakened to the danger at last, are still working to the wrong emissions target. The real requirement, if we are to avoid runaway global warming, is probably 80 percent cuts by 2030, and almost no burning whatsoever of fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil) by 2050. The second conclusion is that the generals are right. Food is the key issue, and the world food supply is already very tight: we have eaten up about two-thirds of the world’s grain reserve in the past five years, leaving only 50 days’ worth in store. Even a one degree C (1.8 degrees F) rise in average global temperature will take a major bite out of food production in almost all the countries that are closer to the equator than to the poles, and that includes nearly all of the planet’s bread-baskets. So the international grain market will wither for lack of supplies. Countries that can no longer feed their people will not be able to buy their way out of trouble by importing grain from elsewhere, even if they have the money. Starving refugees will flood across borders, whole nations will collapse into anarchy—and some countries may make a grab for their neighbours’ land or water. These are scenarios that the Pentagon and other military planning staffs are examining now. They could start to come true as little as 15 or 20 years down the road. If this kind of breakdown becomes widespread, there will be little chance of making or keeping global agreements to curb greenhouse gas emissions and avoid further warming. The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which warming becomes unstoppable—and we are probably going to sail right through it. It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming triggers huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases of both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2 degrees C hotter (3.6 degrees F). Once that point is passed, the human race loses control and cutting our own emissions may not stop the warming. But we are almost certainly going to miss our deadline. We cannot get the ten lost years back, and by the time a new global agreement to replace the Kyoto accord is negotiated and put into effect, there will probably not be enough time left to stop the warming short of the point where we must not go. So—final conclusion—we will have to cheat. In the past two years, various scientists have suggested several “geo-engineering” techniques for holding the temperature down directly. We might put a kind of temporary chemical sunscreen in the stratosphere by seeding it with sulphur particles, for example, or we could artificially thicken low-lying maritime clouds to reflect more sunlight. These are not permanent solutions but merely ways of winning more time to cut our emissions without triggering runaway warming in the meanwhile. However, the situation is getting very grave, and we are probably going to see the first experiments with these techniques within five years. There is a way through this crisis, but it isn’t easy and there is no guarantee of success. As the Irishman said to the lost traveler: If that’s where you want to go, sir, I wouldn’t start from here. Gwynne Dyer will be speaking on his new book, Climate Wars, at the Park Theatre (Cambie and 18th) in Vancouver on December 6 and 7 at 1 p.m. Tickets available from www.festivalcinemas.ca/ or at the door. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source URL: http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about-climate-change --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
