The Nature of the Problem Dear All: There is a different viewpoint from which the nature of the problem is not that climate is changing, but that the human population of Earth is too close to its carrying capacity, so that we cannot relocate to deal with the coming change.
Further, there is a timescale of natural shrinkage of population which resembles th4 reverse of the curve by which we grew, but is slower both as a result of current life expectancy, and goals for future life expectancy. I agree that geoengineering is part of the solution, but the other part of the solution will need to be population reduction. If you think that geoengineering is a hard sell, try populastion reduction! As a species in a Lamarckina phase of evolution (in which we pass on to our descendants the fruits of all previous generations learning), we will be able to teach future humans to use their intelligence - if only we can get them to survive from here to there. Nick Woolf > Dear Mike, > > There is a big difference between geologic time scales and what the > public will infer as "sudden". The fact that we are talking on > sub-geologic time scales, but still relatively long ones, is almost > surely lost on the public when it hears "catastrophe". > > I agree with you that climate change is extremely challenging. The > technological challenge to stabilization is huge. Essentially climate > change is an energy technology problem and one that will be difficult > to solve--although, given time and an appropriate focus on technology > development and infrastructure, it is resolvable. The role of > geo-engineering is as a back up if it really becomes necessary. But we > should not be attempting to quicken its deployment by using highly > emotive language. I realize that you have been careful to avoid such > language, but too many of those who have engaged in the > google-engineering discusion have not. > > Best regards, > > Chris > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sun 1/18/2009 12:15 PM > To: Christopher Green, Prof. > Cc: [email protected]; Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- SETI perspective of Earth - I'd like > to hear more views on this > > > > Dear Chris-- > > On a geological timescale, the changes we are invoking are certainly > sudden. > And when I have seen that word used, or heard John Holdren use it, it is > creating a situation that is catastrophic (that is damage that would tend > to > overwhelm some nations, etc.). Such changes might involve a significant > loss > of biodiversity or ice sheets (with sea level rise of a meter or more per > century) or continuing drought in major food growing regions or loss of > runoff from glaciers for India/China or major shift in monsoons, etc. > > While I tend to be literal about words, if one is literal with respect to > the phrase "dangerous anthropogenic climate change," the UNFCCC goal might > well mean nothing at all has to be done as dangerous typically also refers > to events over a very short time (Inuits might argue that sea level loss > and > storm erosion of their communities is indeed dangerous; so might people > experiencing very significant flooding, etc.). The negotiators might > better > have said "environmentally or sociectally destabilizing" or > "environmentally > or societally disruptive" or something that allows for impacts over a > longer > time. Alternatively, we all should not be so literal as it seems pretty > clear what is being talked about. > > What makes the climate change problem so challenging is its time scales > and > inertia--takes time to cause problem, we are very dependent on fossil > fuels > so it will take a long time to change over to an alternative, the problem > will get worse for a considerable time after you cut emissions well back, > etc. And then there is the potential for thresholds--like starting loss of > ice sheets--that are not likely to be easily reversed. > > Arguing for caution is as much a policy (and moral) choice as arguing for > action. > > Mike MacCracken > > > > On 1/18/09 9:57 AM, "Christopher Green, Prof." <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> A dictionary (Webster's) definition of "catastrophe" is: "a sudden and >> terible event, e.g. an earthquake, flood or tornado, any disster >> affecting one >> or more persons". >> >> By this definition a giant meteorite hitting earth is a "catastrophe", >> but the >> relatively slow workings of climate change, while likely to be very >> serious, >> is not well-described as a "catastrophe". >> >> For this reason, the cautionary position taken by Alan, and by Tom >> Wigley, and >> that are implicit in Ken's many clarificatory statements and in the Bala >> article he recently circulated, are well taken. >> >> Level-headedness, to say nothing of science and political judgment, >> might >> benefit by (a lot) less use of the "c" word. >> >> Chris Green >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [email protected] on behalf of David Schnare >> Sent: Sun 1/18/2009 12:18 AM >> To: Alan Robock >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; John Nissen; >> Geoengineering >> FIPC >> Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- SETI perspective of Earth - I'd like >> to hear >> more views on this >> >> >> Alan: >> >> You do not deny that there is insufficient political will to reduce >> carbon >> emissions to levels necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. >> >> You do not deny the catastrophic nature of impending climate change. >> >> So, what do you want, to see food riots due to economic dislocation or >> food >> riots due to climate change? >> >> Finally, you conflate getting research dollars with some half-baked plan >> for >> immediate full scale implementation of various forms of geoengineering. >> I >> know of no one that is calling for the latter, so why are you presuming >> that's >> what this discussion is about. >> >> The world cannot sit behind a desk, like you, and play with models, >> thinking >> that is sufficient to understand the actual effects of the various >> approaches >> being seriously considered. The world needs to run the OIF study in the >> scale >> now being stopped by the environmental left - by people like you. The >> world >> needs to test SRM, either with aerosols or cloud albedo adjustment, but >> you >> and your ilk stand in the way. >> >> If you want to advance the science, then get behind a $20 million >> research >> effort and don't spend it all on modeling that does nothing more than >> make >> guesses as to real world implication. Stand up and speak publicly about >> the >> threat of a continued do nothing approach masked as modeling studies. >> >> Or, accept the fact that you and yours will be as guilty for the food >> riots as >> the deniers (nice scientific term, by the way). >> >> In prosaic terms, either you are part of the solution or you are part of >> the >> problem. Which is it Alan. >> >> d. >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alan Robock >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> I can't stand it anymore. >> >> How can all of you advocate geoengineering and try to build public >> support for >> it before the science is done? How can you advocate something that may >> be >> much worse than the problem it is trying to solve? >> >> You are acting like politicians or lawyers trying to win an argument, >> having >> already made up your minds with no regard to other information. >> >> Why don't you behave like scientists and evaluate all the information? >> Granted, we will never have everything, but why not wait a couple years >> until >> much more research is done into the climate effects, engineering of >> delivery >> mechanisms, psychlogical effects of changing sky color, ozone depletion, >> and >> many other things? >> >> Why can't we agree to advocate together for enhanced research funding >> for >> geoengineering, and stop this premature advocacy for geoengineering >> itself? >> >> This irresponsible behavior of advocacy for geoengineering now will hurt >> responsible calls for research. You will tarnish the rest of us who are >> trying to learn abouth the issue. >> >> If you were a program manager, how much money would you give a global >> warming >> denier for global warming research, knowing he has already made up his >> mind? >> Think about it! If you want to start a geoengineering advocacy group, >> go >> ahead but clearly separate yourself from responsible scientists. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> >> >> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, David Schnare wrote: >> >> >> >> Albert has asked me how to argue in a manner that will help build wide >> public support for geoengineering. Here are my suggestions, drawn from >> my >> paper of last March entitled The Uncomfortable Middle Ground (see: >> http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/Schnare_speech_2.pdf >> >> Step 1 - Identify all the high profile statements that the Kyoto limits >> have >> not worked, that governments refused to pass laws strict enough to >> prevent a >> climate catastrophe, and that people world wide refused to give up >> economic >> and personal growth in the name of climate change. >> >> Step 2 - Explain the belief that the failures of step one will destroy >> mankind as we know it due to the otherwise inevitable climate change. >> >> Step 3 - Explain that Step 1 and Step 2 result in the destruction of >> civilization as we know it, either by economic catastrophe or by >> environmental catastrophe. >> >> Step 4 - Offer a third way - geoengineering (See the Wigley papers on >> how to >> use it in companion with carbon emission reduction) - an option that >> avoids >> destruction of civilization as we know it; and admit that it may harm 5% >> of >> the world (and less than 1% of civilization), but that is a much smaller >> risk than harming 100%, than seeing food riots, than seeing mass >> starvation, >> than seeing inundation of the homes and businesses of over half the >> world >> economy, of death of families, neighborhoods, and nations. >> >> Publicly challenge the environmental activists to pick a side - death by >> economic harm, death by political inaction, death by climate change, or >> life >> through geoengineering. >> >> End of argument. >> >> Now comes the hard part - getting that message out. I have thoughts >> about >> that too, but until I see some environmental activists, including >> several on >> this group, speak up and admit their approach (world socialism, >> population >> reduction, and economic misery) is not going to be politically >> acceptable, >> and thus geoengineering research NOW is essential, then I'm just going >> to >> watch this area of research remain in its muddle, since any further >> effort >> would be a waste of time. Leadership must come from the extreme left at >> this point. >> >> David Schnare >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Albert Kallio >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> I just wonder if you could suggest we overcome these innate evolutionary >> tendencies. >> >> I think our best chance as a survival of human species is to intensively >> train ourselves and society to sustainability. >> >> Otherwise, there is a risk that mankind becomes like overgrown mushroom, >> still growing but rot inside and full of worms. In a way this is how the >> Popcorn Theory of Evolution sees the apex of evolution. Classical >> evolution >> being the thesis where life develops into higher and higher forms >> (physical >> evolution >> biological evolution >> social evolution), then comes the >> antithesis, the crash and all advanced higher forms began to fail due to >> resource over-exploitation, the final phase being the synthesis where >> all >> the advanced life degenerates back into a stable form of primitive >> single >> cellular life, the consumed resources being locked until the solar >> system >> comes to its natural end. >> >> In a way the pop-n'-puff ('popcorn') evolution is a directionless >> movement >> of life phenomenan through spacetime that creates and degenerates life >> indiscriminately without any indefinite, deterministic, >> directional tendencies for the higher species continuously becomed >> 'better >> and better' as the classical Darwinian theory of natural selection may >> suggest. >> >> As it is Darvins 200 year anniversary, I would not accuse Darwin not >> spotting 150 years ago that the process is entirely directionless: so >> far we >> have been riding on the rising wave crest, but now the climate change >> may >> well reach the tipping point of the wave crest in our evolutionary phase >> within the Earth's history. >> >> SETI proves that the Earth system may be a typical executor of the >> 'popcorn' evolution where the dominant leading species is hell-bent to >> dismantle its own collective ecological foundations. >> >> People who say Darwin is so wrong, I think they should look better at >> him >> more like Isaac Newton of his age who created basic theory of mechanics, >> it >> later to be complemented with the additional perspectives and >> complexities >> of Albert Einsteins theory of relativity and quantum phenomena. >> >> In case of Darwin he could never have seen that man was about to destroy >> major Earth systems in their entirety such as the Amazon rainforest, >> world >> wide coral reef bleachings and ocean acidification, fish out the ocean >> to >> the last individual fish, starting to melt the Arctic Ocean sea ice and >> glaciers by all his greehouse gases emissions, excessive recless tree >> felling, fossil fuels use, and over-fishing destroying the balances >> from tropics to permafrost. >> >> Your comments would much be appreciated how do we encounter and re-train >> ourselves away from this suggested deterministic evolutionary outcome of >> a >> more recent evolution so that we as a species do not produce the final >> crest >> and get back to Martian stable state of incapacitated single cellular >> live >> that ekes out its existence in the silts. >> >> *I do believe the only solution behind all the other soltutiosn is to >> solve the global warming is education, education, education.. towards >> sustainable energy and land use and forms of transportation to get >> between A >> and B. People need to be educated to the sustainability and then all the >> rest of action will follow.* >> >> Rgs, >> >> Albert >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: [geo] Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of Earth >> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:55:15 +0000 >> >> >> E: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting SETI perspective of Earth >> >> >> >> *SETI Implication to Geoengineering* >> >> >> >> I have been a patron of The Planetary Society's project, the Search for >> the >> Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), that has been scanning countless >> nearby stars in the northern and southern hemisphere with very large >> radio >> telescopes. >> >> >> >> Despite massive distributed computer networks and excellent decryption >> algorithms that are deployed to detect and listen into any intelligent >> communications that occur in the space using radio communications. What >> the >> SETI result is? Is there life, anything, just more advanced than that >> which >> NASA yesterday stipulated that may exist in Mars? (References & links >> below.) >> >> >> >> The answer is: *NO.* The SETI scanning has never produced any positive >> result for advanced life and it seems that there is not any single >> advanced >> civilisations in nearby stars using radio communications (due to pure >> lack >> of radio signals which should be intense enough and detectable with the >> radio telescope technology we already posses). >> >> >> >> We have the answer already. There is no intelligent life out anywhere in >> space, we need to ask the question: Why? >> >> >> >> SETI forms an important consideration and possibly a framework within >> geoengineering why it may or may not be carried out. The answer for the >> apparent lack (or utmost scarcity) of intelligent civilizations in tens >> of >> thousands nearby solar systems scanned is readily answered by "The >> Popcorn >> Theory of Evolution". What the hell that means? >> >> >> >> >> >> *The Popcorn Paradigm* >> >> >> >> A Popcorn Theory of Evolution suggests that there will always be an >> inherent lack (or at least immense scarcity) of advanced life forms in >> the >> universe because within the destructive processes of evolution itself >> the >> populations pop in and out of existence (much alike the vacuum energy >> that >> materialises and annihilates upon itself in the vacuum). >> >> >> >> No advanced life forms have been found in space as the life >> pops-and-puffs, >> in and out of the existence, by the whim of its smallest constituent >> element, individual, that makes up the advanced populations in the >> planetary >> ecosystems. >> >> >> >> The reason for existence-threatening puff is found within the innate >> resource-hungriness of an individual that then drives out the >> sustainability >> of the Gaia (self-regulating ecosystems) to brinks of collapses due to >> the >> population booms in combination with associated technological booms >> (that in >> initial transition population growth phase facilitate and help in >> sustenance >> of all advanced civilizations) that are using radio technologies to >> communicate. >> >> >> >> The 'deterministic grab' of an individual, its resource hungriness, then >> ultimately drives out all advanced specie systems into their ultimate >> collapses due to the insatiable resource-hungriness in use resources for >> imminent pleasure. Therefore, the Earth control system is now >> transiting >> from the productive pop phase to the puff phase, where the leading >> species >> crashes and takes with it much of the rest of the Gaia, leaving no radio >> operators behind. >> >> >> >> When a capacity of species is very limited, such as the arctic rodent >> - lemming, which happily copulates every now and then, enjoying pleasure >> of >> sex and food and producing the maximum litter as much as individual can, >> its >> population grows and its consumption eventually reaches the supply side >> limit until no further resource for sustenance is left and the numbers >> collapse to zero at the core range occupied by that species. Then from >> the >> periphery ranges, few survivors emerge who will find the decimated area >> vacated and growing in plenty of food, and then happily re-fill the area >> where lemming population had been decimated to zero. >> >> >> >> The implication of SETI research for geoengineering is that the more >> advanced a species becomes, the more will be its ecological >> reach. Therefore, every planetary system arrives to an evolutionary >> tipping >> point where the capacity of the advanced species' (either in isolation >> or in >> combination) reaches and exceeds the cliff-edge and the entire, >> self-regulatory, planetary Gaia system ecological high structure falls >> apart >> due to the dominant species (or group of species). >> >> >> >> The puff-phase in the popcorn evolution then leaves nothing behind but a >> fossil planet (aside a few extremely simple, single-cellular life forms >> that no longer tip system back towards its earlier complexity) as the >> materials have been consumed and locked efficiently in a way that they >> do >> not re-emerge in the useable life span of ordinary sun. >> >> >> >> Thus when it comes to technologically advanced species, such as >> ourselves, >> The Planetary Society's SETI programme searches suggest that we are >> alone >> amongst the tens of thousands solar systems scanned for advanced >> communications. This leading to conclusion that most advanced life forms >> must all have gone bust as the individual innate survival instinct is >> much >> greater force than the collective architecture for specie's survival. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Deterministic Nature of Evolution* >> >> >> >> Therefore, the Search for the Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is >> suggestive that no advanced civilisation can exist on sustainable basis >> and >> therefore schemes such as geoengineering, well meaning, may be directed >> against the very nature of universe to create and annihilate its >> advanced >> civilizations due to a destabilising resource-hungriness at the core of >> individual survival instinct and individual pleasure seeking that >> rejects >> the ecological architectures. >> >> >> >> Let me suggest, that a great deal more education is put onto ecological >> sustainability as the SETI research is quite suggestive that no advanced >> life seems to appear at present even in favourable solar systems in so >> huge >> numbers. Can geoengineers train Homo Sapiens to behave sensible >> instructions >> like dog, or does it retain individual independence of Felix Catus, >> until >> there is no more breathable air and food left for the kitten? >> >> >> >> By definition the evolution dictates that human species inherited a >> complex >> social hierarchy and behaviours from their ancestors, the apes, that are >> pack animals with a complex set of behaviours related to determining the >> individuals' position in the social hierarchy of the species. All >> advanced >> species do exhibit these various postures and other means of nonverbal >> communication that express their states of mind to status and control >> function. These sophisticated forms of social cognition and >> communication, >> often expressed through insatiable consumption, and legitimised as need >> for >> the infinite economic growth, may still be utilised for mankind's >> trainability and ability to fit into the Earth system and into >> ecologically >> sustainable social situations where individual social hierarchy is still >> expressible. >> >> >> >> Let us resolve the problem of reaction and energise the society like a >> war >> economy to create energy and transport sustainably, make plans in place >> for >> adaptation when the adverse comes, and motivate backing for >> geoengineering. >> >> >> >> Let us make geoengineering the end and high apex of the evolution to >> save >> the world! >> >> >> >> *Veli Albert Kallio*, FRGS >> >> Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign >> >> of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans >> >> >> >> References and Links to Primitive Life NASA Claims may have been found: >> >> >> >> *New light on Mars methane mystery *Scientists detect seasonal releases >> of >> methane gas on Mars and say either geological activity or life could be >> the >> cause. >> >> *http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7829315.stm*<http://news.bbc.c >> o.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7829315.stm> >> >> >> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html >> http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-006_Mars_Methane.html >> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/main/index.html >> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane_media.html >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2133475.ece >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2137842.ece >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The trouble is that the Earth system is not driven by some life >> >> >> force, as in >> >> >>> the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven by suicidal tendencies, as in the >> >> >> Medea >> >> >>> idea. The Earth system has behaved in the way it has, because it >> >> >> needed to >> >> >>> produce us. Putting that the other way round, we wouldn't be here to >>> appreciate our own development if the universe wasn't precisely as it >> >> >> is, >> >> >>> and the history of our planet had not been much as it has been. This >> >> >> is the >> >> >>> anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm applying to geological history. >> >>> So, if you like, there may have been many chance events during the >> >> >> past four >> >> >>> billion years that enabled human life to develop eventually. And >> >> >> there have >> >> >>> almost certainly been chance events and situations that have enabled >>> civilisation to develop and the human population to explode to its >> >> >> current >> >> >>> level. >> >>> These chance events (and absence of events) for our own survival are >>> unlikely to continue. Therefore we are most likely to have to >> >> >> intervene for >> >> >>> own survival. This message is most obvious for the absence of events >> >> >> such >> >> >>> as super and large bodies colliding with the Earth. We can >> >> >> appreciate the >> >> >>> danger, partly because we can think of it as far in the future or >> >> >> very >> >> >>> theoretical, and therefore can be detached about it [5]. >> >> >> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:01:03 -0800 >> Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia perspective >> >> >> of Earth >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> A teleological, anthropomorphic description of a "series of suicide >> attempts" seems just as silly as a teleological, anthropomorphic >> description of a loving mother-goddess. In the range of possible >> states of the system, there are regions of negative feedback and other >> regions of positive feedback. The system spends most of its time in >> regions of negative feedback, for the obvious reason that it tends to >> stay in those when it's in them. But changes such as the appearance >> of a new metabolic pathway can nudge it into a region of positive >> feedback, sometimes leading to mass extinction. >> >> Was the argument about anything but imagery and rhetoric? >> >> On Jan 16, 2:51 am, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I also agree completely. i thought Andrews email was very clear. >> My hope is that the Royal Society's report this spring will reach the >> >> >> same conclusion. >> >> >> >> john Gorman >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: John Nissen >> To: [email protected] ; [email protected] >> Cc: geoengineering ; Peter Read ; [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:15 PM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia >> >> >> perspective of Earth >> >> >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I agree with you absolutely: >> >> I think we need to be focussed very carefully on preventing any >> significant sudden climate change. According to my reading of the >> Arctic sea ice data, this means we have to act almost immediately if >> we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'. Something far more onerous >> >> >> may >> >> >> be required if we dawdle and argue for a year or two. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage >> >> That to me is completely rational. But why aren't people leaping >> >> >> into action? >> >> >> >> My point was that our "world view" affects the way we consider our >> >> >> present condition, and can produce irrational behaviour. If we (as a >> society) had a world view that expected disaster, then we would be on >> the >> lookout for imminent disasters to ward them off. As it is, we are >> looking >> at the Arctic sea ice disappearing, and behaving as if we can't or >> shouldn't >> try and save it - quite irrational. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:16 AM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia >> >> >> perspective of Earth >> >> >> >> I think this debate has become overly narrowed by it's focus on >> survival. Our existence is testament to to survival of a mere >> fraction of our ancestors. The genetic records suggests that at >> several point in human history, entire races or the species itself >> were reduced to a few individuals. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe >> >> I think we should be looking at preserving civilisation, not merely a >> few scattered individuals eking out an existence in a >> >> >> post-apocalyptic >> >> >> wasteland (a la Mad Max or Terminator). >> >> Many writers have suggested that civilisations of whatever complexity >> just aren't that stable in the face of even temporary climate change. >> The Toba eruption, the Mayan collapse, the Clovis event and the >> >> >> 1159BC >> >> >> cooling event are examples among many. >> >> >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10884-collapse-of-civilisations... >> >> >> >> Further, the complexity of our society makes it far less robust than >> distributed, agrarian societies of the past. >> >> >> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.500-the-demise-of-civi... >> >> >> >> I think we need to be focussed very carefully on preventing any >> significant sudden climate change. According to my reading of the >> Arctic sea ice data, this means we have to act almost immediately if >> we are to use 'gentle geoengineering'. Something far more onerous >> >> >> may >> >> >> be required if we dawdle and argue for a year or two. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage >> >> A >> >> 2009/1/15 Bonnelle Denis <[email protected]>: >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> I am surprised that time orders of magnitude are not considered as >> >> >> a main parameter in such a debate. >> >> >> >>> It is an interesting idea that "Although windows of stability are >> >> >> possible, they are simply respites between catastrophic boom-and-bust >> cycles", but those windows have proved able to be stable during tens of >> millions years (ice ages oscillations - driven by positive feedback >> forces - >> have developed within a "tunnel" of precise limits which operated as >> rather >> efficient negative feedbacks, so I'm speaking only about the major >> events >> which really threatened life itself). >> >> >> >>> I agree with the anthropic principle, which says that things are >> >> >> what they are but that if there had been thousands of narrow escapes, >> very >> likely we wouldn't be here to discuss them. So, things are what they are >> but >> there are some reasons that the number of such narrow escapes is lower >> than >> ten in 4 billion years. >> >> >> >>> So, three time orders of magnitude should be considered: >> >>> - geological time: the Gaia model would probably provide us with >> >> >> some tens of millions years of security, even if in the longer run the >> Medea >> one could override it; >> >> >>> - anthropogenic perturbation time: will we, e.g., reach the 800 ppm >> >> >> CO2 level in 2040 or 2100 or never? >> >> >>> - science progress time: when will there be enough knowledge for us >> >> >> to either offer the economy clean and cheap solutions such a renewable >> energies, or be able to fix the climate (using geoengineering) in a safe >> way? >> >> >> >>> Two conclusions can be drawn from this: >>> - the Gaia / Medea debate is not an emergency from a practical >> >> >> point of view (it may be relevant from a political / symbolic one) >> >> >>> - there is a race among anthropogenic perturbation time and science >> >> >> progress time, and every efforts should be considered as adding up >> rather >> than competing against each other: curbing the CO2 emissions is >> necessary to >> slow the anthropogenic perturbation down, and investigating, at the same >> time, "fundamental applied physics", massive renewable energies >> economics, >> and geoengineering, is safer than relying on only one tool to fix the >> climate up. >> >> >> >>> The third possible debate: "should geoengineering be promoted in >> >> >> order to protect us from Medea's dangers?" (surveying and fighting every >> dangerous asteroids, and biological equivalents of such an idea) is, >> from a >> theoretical point of view, equally interesting, but it is clearly not >> that >> urgent. >> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Denis Bonnelle. >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : [email protected] [mailto: >> >> >> [email protected]] De la part de John Nissen >> >> >>> Envoyé : mercredi 14 janvier 2009 18:08 >>> À : [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Cc : geoengineering; Peter Read; [email protected]; >> >> >> Martin J Rees >> >> >>> Objet : [geo] Re: Boston Globe-- Very Interesting anti-Gaia >> >> >> perspective of Earth >> >> >> >>> Dear all, >> >>> I think this kind of life-force thinking runs very deep, and >> >> >> prevents us >> >> >>> acting appropriately. >> >>> Just about the whole environment movement seems to be based on a >> >> >> thinking >> >> >>> that the planet is naturally stable, and if only mankind can behave >>> "naturally", all will be well - the negative feedbacks will kick in >> >> >> to halt >> >> >>> the current global warming and bring the temperature back to >> >> >> normal. >> >> >>> Putting vast amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is not "natural". >> >> >> Putting >> >> >>> sulphur in the air is not "natural". Both are CO2 and sulphur >> >> >> compounds are >> >> >>> seen as pollutants, and therefore, by definition bad. >> >>> This leads to illogical behaviour. We have to reduce sulphur >> >> >> emissions, >> >> >>> although this leads to exacerbate global warming - possibly causing >> >> >> the >> >> >>> visible acceleration in global warming in mid 80s shown in the >> >> >> glacier ice >> >> >>> mass loss record (a good proxy for global temperature) [1] [2]. I >> >> >> know that >> >> >>> the argument is supposedly all about acid rain and asthma, but it >> >> >> has >> >> >>> inhibited our clear thinking about the possibility of using >> >> >> stratospheric >> >> >>> aerosols to cool the planet. >> >>> And, as another illogicality, our view of CO2 as pollutant makes us >> >> >> think >> >> >>> that, because CO2 has caused global warming, therefore cutting our >> >> >> emissions >> >> >>> will solve all our problems. This blinds us to seeing that the >> >> >> Arctic sea >> >> >>> ice problem cannot be solved by cutting CO2 emissions and we have >> >> >> to apply >> >> >>> geoengineering. >> >>> But geoengineering in general is seen as unnatural. Our instinct >> >> >> is to let >> >> >>> the planet sort itself out, with minimum interference from >> >> >> ourselves. We >> >> >>> seem even happy for another 2 degrees global warming, although >> >> >> global >> >> >>> warming is already causing enormous problems. >> >>> The trouble is that the Earth system is not driven by some life >> >> >> force, as in >> >> >>> the Gaia theory. Nor is it driven by suicidal tendencies, as in >> >> >> the Medea >> >> >>> idea. The Earth system has behaved in the way it has, because it >> >> >> needed to >> >> >>> produce us. Putting that the other way round, we wouldn't be here >> >> >> to >> >> >>> appreciate our own development if the universe wasn't precisely as >> >> >> it is, >> >> >>> and the history of our planet had not been much as it has been. >> >> >> This is the >> >> >>> anthropic principle [3] [4], but I'm applying to geological >> >> >> history. >> >> >> >>> So, if you like, there may have been many chance events during the >> >> >> past four >> >> >>> billion years that enabled human life to develop eventually. And >> >> >> there have >> >> >>> almost certainly been chance events and situations that have >> >> >> enabled >> >> >>> civilisation to develop and the human population to explode to its >> >> >> current >> >> >>> level. >> >>> These chance events (and absence of events) for our own survival >> >> >> are >> >> >>> unlikely to continue. Therefore we are most likely to have to >> >> >> intervene for >> >> >>> own survival. This message is most obvious for the absence of >> >> >> events such >> >> >>> as super and large bodies colliding with the Earth. We can >> >> >> appreciate the >> >> >>> danger, partly because we can think of it as far in the future or >> >> >> very >> >> >>> theoretical, and therefore can be detached about it [5]. >> >>> What we seem unable to do is to appreciate an impending disaster >> >> >> which could >> >> >>> take us all out. We cannot think that such a thing is possible. >> >> >> Yet it is >> >> >>> staring us in the face. It is the Arctic sea ice disappearance and >>> consequent massive methane release. That could kill us all, and >> >> >> most of >> >> >>> life, through global heating far above the 6 degrees hell mark. >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> John >> >>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance >>> [2] See also Haeberli comments in: >> >> ... >> >> read more » >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the >> world<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465942/direct/01/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
