Oliver, the Huntsville data, which is not contaminated by a variety of "corrections" Hansen injects into his temperature histories, does support a conclusion that we are back at 1980 temperatures and that the last few years have reflected a level temperature. What that means about global warming, in light of the PDO status, has not been adequately discussed in the literature.
As for John Gorman's suggestion, it smacks a bit of the "leap before looking" philosophy. Those of us in positions of public trust are not free to ignore uncertainty when making investment decsions on behalf of citizens, nor are we able to ignore the costs of alternatives, including the "do nothing" alternative. We have to look at them all. The same applies to the private sector. Some of you might wish to look at the insurance industry model to see how to deal with large uncertainty, especially as so many have suggested that SRM research is akin to an insurance policy. When faced with large uncertainty, one makes small investments not large ones. One reserves options and capital untill the uncertainty clears somewhat. That is the position many are taking today. It is not necessarily a wrong approach. After all, the IPCC has described the uncertainties of the projections as so large that forecasts of temperature 100 years from now are plus or minus more than 100 deg. C. That's rather a lot of uncertainty, and does not warrent harm to the global economy, since it is that economy to which we must look for ways to rebalance the carbon cycles. d. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:47 AM, John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John is 100% right in all of these points. I t cant be proved till > afterwards. Asking for proof in advance is just a way of guaranteeing more > research and no action. It is also the wrong philosophy. In his lecture to > the world bank the Nobel Laureat economist -?- pointed out that we should > not be looking at probabilities or cost effectiveness or cost benifit. > Possibility plus dire consequences requires action -now > > JOhn Gorman > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Gwynne Dyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering" > <[email protected]>; "Wilfried Haeberli" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Crutzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Rapley Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:12 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Can't Get There from Here > > > > That's the critical point and it needs to be made clearly and backed > up with evidence. Further, you need to PROVE that the arctic sea ice > is the tipping point. > > A > > > 2008/12/3 John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
