The Independent Survey on Geoengineering:
1. Are you more, or less optimistic about the prospects of curbing CO2 levels
to avoid dangerous climate change now compared to ten years ago when Kyoto was
signed? More optimistic...[ ]
Less
optimistic ......[ x ]
About
the same...[ ]
2. Are you more, or less optimistic about the ability of the Earth's climate
system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric carbon levels now
compared with 10 years ago given recent research on potential climate feedbacks
and carbon sinks?
More
optimistic...[ ]
Less
optimistic....[ x ]
About
the same...[ ]
3. Do you believe that talk of geoengineering is a dangerous distraction and
that on no account should it ever be considered as a viable option even if
carbon dioxide levels continue to rise?
Agree.......[ ]
Disagree......[ x ]
Don't
know.......[ ]
4. Do you agree that we now need a "Plan B" whereby a geoengineering strategy -
research, development and possible implementation - is drawn up in parallel to
a treaty to reduce carbon emissions (subject to international agreements and a
scientific assessment of risk)?
Agree.......[ x ]
Disagree......[ ]
Don't
know.......[ ]
Many thanks for completing this short questionnaire. Please feel free to add a
short comment (no more than 150 words) which explains your position on
geoengineering. Please include your name and institution and let us know
whether you would like your comments to be attributed.
Your name: John Gorman
Your institution: Chartered Engineer. Member of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology
http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm
Your short comment: (no more than 150 words)
Geoengineering is not a plan B. It is essential. The reason is timescale.
Even the most optimistic estimator cannot believe that CO2 emissions worldwide
will reduce to very low levels before 2050. That CO2 will then stay in the
atmosphere for at least one century. Warming will therefore continue for more
than a century.
On the other side, Arctic and Antarctic melting is occurring much more quickly
than predicted only a few years ago. The Arctic Sea ice could be gone in the
next decade with obvious implications for the Greenland ice sheet and sea level.
It would be irresponsible to allow this to continue with all the known dangers.
These include the release of methane from methane hydrate both in frozen tundra
and under Arctic Sea beds. Methane release is now seen as the cause of the
Permian extinction, the most effective of the catastrophes that have hit the
Earth in causing the highest proportion of species extinctions.
Would you like your comments attributed in a future article? Yes [ x ] No
[ ]
Please send you replies to [email protected].
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
