Dear David, I would like to evaluate the Huntsville data myself. Could you kindly direct me to where I can find this data set.
Thanks, Oliver Wingenter On Dec 4, 8:13 am, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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-... > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
