Dear David‹Regarding your comment On 12/4/08 10:13 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. > > What is your citation for this comment about 100 C? I know of nothing anywhere near that large. Mike MacCracken > > 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 >>> <http://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-c >>> 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 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/ <http://www.festivalcinemas.ca/> >>> or at the door. >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > Source URL: >>> > >>> http://www.straight.com/article-173168/gwynne-dyer-four-harsh-truths-about-c >>> limate-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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
