Hi Andrew, You make several good points. They all point to the fact that the "powers that be" are not being told the whole truth about the horror of the situation Homo Sapiens faces on this planet (let alone countless other species) - and we cannot now save ourselves without geoengineering.
As you heard from the Lord Stern, at his lecture to RGS on Wednesday [1], the chances of keeping to 2 degrees are pretty small, the way we are going - and he was taking figures from Monte Carlo simulations done way back in 2004. He is not telling us the whole truth, as I think he admitted to you in private after the lecture. 1. The Earth system is slowly tipping into a super-hot state. This can be expected because the existing 105 ppm excess of CO2 in the atmosphere (the anthropomorphic part if you like) has an effective lifetime of centuries or even millennia, so the forcing will continue inexorably for centuries. 2. Immediate negative feedback on CO2 emissions, through rapid CO2 absorption by land and oceans, is reduced as temperatures increase [3]. Thus, as time goes on, a greater proportion of CO2 emissions will stay in the atmosphere - at present around just under half. 3. On top of this, the rainforests are under stress from deforestation as well as global warming - threatening release of vast quantities of CO2, especially if they burn. 4. Aerosols, as you say. Indeed, if China turned off all their coal power stations overnight, the temperature would rise because the tropospheric aerosols they generate would quickly get washed out of the atmosphere, leaving the forcing from the CO2 unmasked. Do the models, such as Tom Wigley's model, take this effect into account? So emissions reduction will not be as effective as people hope. 5. Energy demand growth. Population growth, and economic growth in less developed countries (China, India, Brazil, etc), means that demand for energy will grow - hence CO2 emissions are likely to grow for decades [2]. As John Gorman points out, obtaining a peak in 2015 is not conceivable. 6. Food and water demand growth. This is aggravated by glacier retreat, desertification advance, droughts, extreme weather events, all caused or made worse by global warming. This is a disaster anticipated by Professor John Beddington, government chief scientist [4]. 7. On top of this we have acidification of the oceans, disrupting the marine food chain, and threatening the protein supply for hundreds of millions of people. 8. On top of this we have positive feedback and polar temperature amplification, threatening methane release, as you mention. 9. On top of this we have the disappearance of Arctic sea ice at end of summer, some year soon, which could aggravate methane release, as you say. 10. On top of this we have the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets accelerated ice discharge - and possibility disintegration of Greenland's ice sheet once the barrier and cooling effect of Arctic sea ice disappears. The resultant sea level rise would cause a flooding of prime agricultural land and great conurbations, causing mass migration. As Lord Stern said, the environmental problems are far worse than any financial crisis we have at present. How right he is. The good news is that geoengineering offers a route out of this mess, if we act quickly and decisively, and combine the geoengineering with: emissions reduction; improved forestry, agricultural and fishing practice; and population control - so we are pulling out all the stops. Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] Lord Stern talk on Wednesday, http://www.rgs.org/WhatsOn/London+Lectures/Monday+night+Lectures.htm [2] Shell talk on Monday, ibid. [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1674158420080416 Also see in: http://www.climatechangenews.org/archive.php?p=indy_feedback [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Lockley To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; Tom Wigley ; [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or others who disagree you An important effect which is often ignored when debating emissions reduction is the tropospheric aerosols component. If CO2 emissions fall, so will SO2 emissions (which cause tropospheric reflective aerosols). This aerosol loss will 'unmask' the real forcing from existing CO2. As a consequence, emissions reduction will actually cause a substantial RISE in radiative forcing. This effect will persist as long as does the CO2, unless we geoengineer the aerosols back in. It seems to me that most people looking at this issue have ignored this effect - including some scientists. Even without losing the 'aerosol umbrella' we are already seeing two dangerous change: 1) Considerable methane excursions from land and sea 2) Arctic shrinkage with ice-albedo feedback (exacerbating 1 above) It is my view that we are now ALREADY in runaway climate change, because we're 'addicted' to further emissions to keep the aerosols in the atmosphere. I am in daily contact with non-geoengineering 'experts' in global warming, and trying to get get them to take this seriously is beyond my capability. In my view, there is a desperate need for someone to run a model which considers ice-albedo feedback, aerosol forcing and carbon cycle feedback all together. I'm not a climate scientist, but I've read a fair bit of research and I've not seen anything which joins up the dots in this way. Could I ask if one of the clever people on this list, with their clever computers, could do such a paper? IMO we really, really need to know if we've 'fallen over the waterfall'. A 2009/4/3 John Gorman <[email protected]> Emissions peaking in 2015 is pure fiction. In the recent report by the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers the prediction was 100 years from the time when we really start panicking. Most engineers and economists seem to realise this. Only a climate scientist could possibly suggest 5 or six years. This is one of the differences in thinking that results in the strong opinions for and against geoengineering. John Gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> To: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Peter Read" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:08 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or others who disagree you Dear Tom, What do the latest models say if emissions were reduced to zero instantaneously? What happens to CO2 (eq), and what happens to temperature? Does any model take into account the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and, if so, what is taken as the most likely date for that? Nicholas Stern in his lecture to the RGS in London yesterday, gave some probabilities for temperatures of 2 degrees up to 6 degrees for various levels of CO2 (eq). I noted that the figures he'd used were from monte carlo simulations in 2004. The science, and hence the modelling, has moved on since then. What is the probability of keeping below 2 degrees, if emissions peaked in 2015 - some consider the soonest possible with really aggressive policies? If we can show that we need geoengineering, however tough we are on emissions cuts, that would perhaps force people to take geoengineering seriously. Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Indianice FIPC" <[email protected]>; "Peter Read" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:06 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or others who disagree you > You can use MAGICC to see what will happen if emissions of > CO2 (or any gas) are reduced to zero (or any level) instantaneously > (or over any other time period). > > Just copy one of the emissions files, rename it, and edit it to > your chosen scenario. MAGICC also allows uncertainties to be > explored. > > MAGICC can be downloaded from the cgd web page. > > Tom. > > ++++++++++++++++ > > John Nissen wrote: >> Hi Albert, >> What I find incomprehensible is that Jim Hansen, who I admire greatly >> for convincing people about the reality of global warming, should appear >> to be supporting the message that emissions reduction (including >> sequestration) *alone* can get us out of the mess we are in. Humanity >> has put a great "pulse" (Hansen's word) of CO2 in the atmosphere, >> sufficient to cause over 2 degrees of global warming, even *without* >> positive feedback making the situation worse. I believe that climate >> models now indicate that, even if we were to halt emissions overnight, it >> could take centuries for the CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels, >> other things being equal. (Ken, do you have a time for this, from your >> own modelling?) Thus to get the level quickly down to the 350 ppm that >> Hansen now wants, we have to employ CO2 extraction by geoengineering, >> bioengineering, aforestation and reforestation. This perhaps requires >> "reengineering of the economy" in some countries, e.g. for widespread >> uptake of biochar practice. >> So, thus far, I go along with Gene: >> We don't stand a chance in hell of significantly reducing GHG emissions >> sufficiently to make a difference and if the lifetime of GHGs is as long >> as some think, it is already too late for mitigation. All we have left is >> the geoengineering option or building rocket transports to establish life >> on another planet. I am a homebody so I elect geoengineering R&D. >> Now on top of this, we have colossal threats/risks from the Arctic sea >> ice retreat and regional warming - one threat being sudden sea level rise >> (not impossible), another being massive methane release from permafrost >> (possibly enough to cause runaway global warming). To counter these >> threats we have to use geoengineering to cool the Arctic. But this is >> extraordinarily *inexpensive*, using stratospheric aerosols or marine >> cloud brightening. We don't have to reengineer any economies for this. >> Deployment cost could work out at well under 1$ billion per year, which >> is peanuts compared to bailing out banks for example. >> BTW, it is very confusing to lump the two quite different types of >> geoengineering together - the one for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, >> and the other for cooling through solar radiation management (SRM). >> Cheers, >> John >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Albert Kallio <mailto:[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; >> Geoengineering FIPC <mailto:[email protected]> ; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; Indianice FIPC >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 3:27 PM >> *Subject:* [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking >> Hansen or others who disagree you >> >> *MISLEADING COMMENTS:* >> It is very *dangerous criticism *and unfair as Jim Hansen has put >> his skin deep in and out to point out the dangers of climate change. >> An unhelpful criticism like that sinking into the political patrons, >> and the rest assured, there will be _no money and then no >> geoengineering_. >> Many on the emissinons curtailment camp point out to */Winston >> Churchill /*as an example to his ability to *re-engineer the economy >> to respond to the threat*. In a just few years the UK industry was >> converted to supply aeroplanes and munitions. As the car industry is >> going to decline in the US and UK due to >> falling demand and cheap cars from elsewhere, what is better than >> *industrial conversion *to make them to turn up wind turbines, >> solar energy gensets, insulation materials, and - geoengineering >> gadgets. >> _Neither /renewable energy /nor /geoengineering/ can be >> substantially implemented without establisment of *approppriate >> industrial base *for both._ Is someone just trying to create clever >> experiments whitout any intent to fix the climate problem? [snip] >> *There are many things that can go wrong and badly, both known and >> unknown, both agreed and disagreed, but blaming each others >> different perspectives is just disgusting and leads into a >> dysfunctional response to the grave danger.* >> >> Kind regards, >> Albert >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:55:50 -0400 >> Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> >> If David Hawkins knows of a way to accomplish geoengineering >> research absent third party funding, it might be helpful if he >> proffers his knowledge. In the mean time, I suppose he would use >> OIF (the commercial investment) as an example. Otherwise, he simple >> pricks the skin of the geoengineers without helping whatever. David >> Schnare >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Gene says-- >> "Any honest scientists will agree that you cannot prove the >> negative; you cannot prove that it will not be affordable; and >> you cannot prove that it will not be available in time. In >> contrast dishonest scientists can make it not happen by ignoring >> or deprecating the possibility; or by preventing it from getting >> funding to establish feasibility, timing and cost." >> This statement is correct whether the word "it" represents >> geo-engineering or emissions mitigation. But not everyone who >> raises questions about either approach should be characterized >> as dishonest. And we should recognize that "funding" is not the >> only tool available to society. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Eugene >> I. Gordon >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:10 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Revkin >> *Subject:* [geo] Post on geoengineering >> >> This appeared today in the New York Times Dot Earth post by Andy >> Revkin on Tipping Points. Please send comments and particularly >> send items to Andy that he should include in an article on >> geoengineering. Many of you are just a prestigious as the people >> he includes in his Posts. You can help him get it done and get >> some discussion going. >> If you don't follow these posts you may not know that 'denier' >> is the term used AGW aficionados to describe those who don't >> agree with them. I am making a small twist of the knife >> -gene >> Andy, I continue to find it amazing that in all these >> discussions, including this one on tipping points and the value >> of using it as a scare tactic in forcing action on reducing use >> of fossil fuel, reality has not set in. I was glad to see some >> experts in your Post point out that in effect that 'crying polar >> bear', as in crying 'wolf', can be counter productive. >> >> Experts like Hansen keep pushing 'reduction' when it is clear >> that they are working against a prevailing force or resistance >> that will only give slowly if at all. The real deniers are those >> who are pushing for a change that cannot occur to any great >> extent in the next half century and possibly longer. >> >> Even more amazing is that these deniers never consider or >> discuss alternate solutions such as geoengineering. In my >> opinion the human mind is capable of producing viable techniques >> for reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface >> or removing CO2 from the atmosphere long before it will be able >> to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Any honest scientists >> will agree that you cannot prove the negative; you cannot prove >> that it will not be affordable; and you cannot prove that it >> will not be available in time. In contrast dishonest scientists >> can make it not happen by ignoring or deprecating the >> possibility; or by preventing it from getting funding to >> establish feasibility, timing and cost. >> >> Hansen totally ignores it. That is incredible! By my limited >> definition that makes Hansen a dishonest scientist. That cannot >> be refuted because that limited claim is totally true. >> >> Finally I have to say Andy you are failing us by not including >> geoengineering in the discussion, by not posting related >> comments by experts, by not getting opinions from people like >> Chu and other government 'experts'. >> >> And you readers please attack what I say. Produce your arguments >> and URLs that pooh pooh geoengineering. You don't and you have >> not in the past despite many past comments about geoengineering >> by me. You deniers, where are your competitive juices? >> >> — Gene G, New Jersey >> </div >> >> >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
