Dear Eugene, You wrote "Right now the global average surface temperature, GAST, is not increasing. According to data I have seen it is at the 1980 value. " I do not believe I have seen the publication presenting the data you cite. However, I have seen temperature record appearing in publications that look more Figure 1 A the paper “Global temperature change by Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, et al.Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 103 Issue: 39 Pages: 14288-14293 Published: SEP 26 2006. Please email me if you do not have access to this journal.
It is this types of debates that has lead to many climate scientist waiting much to long until over whelming proof has established before they declared an emergency. Please let us not bring backward the discuss on climate 5 or 10 years. Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter On Dec 3, 12:30 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is time to be careful about choice of words. Rght now the global > average surface temperature, GAST, is not increasing. According to data I > have seen it is at the 1980 value. Yes the Arctic ice is melting but it is > doing that despite a currently stable GAST. There are other factors at work. > Some would say. myself included, we would be starting another mini ice age > were it not for the increased concentration of CO2; since we seem to be at > the beginning of another Maunder Minimum. As John says so well; can we not > concentrate on the dire Arctic warming and do something about that and worry > about reducing overall CO2 concentration, when it makes sense to and there > is the true conviction and a stable world to do it. We are not going to > reduce CO2 concentration simply by stopping use of fossil fuels. Even if we > succeed, not likely, it will take hundreds to thousands of years to reduce > significantly on its own by 'decay'. It will take a totally different > approach of capture and sequestration to force it down; so two very > difficult steps are needed versus lowering the solar input to the Arctic > region only by shading. Geoengineering can do that and should. Is there > anyone out there who can jump up and down and shake the floor? > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nissen > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:29 PM > To: Gwynne Dyer > Cc: geoengineering; Wilfried Haeberli; Paul Crutzen; Rapley Chris > Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here > > 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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Gwynne Dyer <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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-... > limate-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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
