John, Thanks for this. However, I am no longer willing to have my name on the author list. There are simply too many open-ended science issues here that are presented as facts rather than areas of continued uncertainty.
Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > I plan to send this tomorrow morning, so would appreciate corrections. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > To: Right Hon Ann Keen, MP - member for Brentford and Isleworth > > > > Your ref: 01082669 NISS01005 > > > > > > Dear Ms Keen, > > > > Thank you for your letter of 11th February, in which you enclosed a reply > from Joan Ruddock together with correspondence I had had with Christopher > Conder of Defra, in May 2008. > > > > Ms Ruddock may be aware of my accusation that the government is being > misinformed of the situation on climate change, which is far more serious > than hitherto accepted by mainstream scientific opinion. On the other > hand, she certainly seems unaware that the action required to reduce risk > of extreme calamity is relatively simple and easily affordable. > > > > The problem > > > > I believe the actual situation is very simple. Mankind has injected an > immense pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, sufficient to tip the Earth's > climate system into a new much hotter state. Scientists now calculate > that the current emissions trajectory could produce a temperature rise of > over four degrees by the end of the century, which would almost certainly > be catastrophic for humanity. And some scientists calculate that, even if > we could halt emissions overnight, global warming would continue for over > a century and we would still have catastrophic heating. There is the > additional danger that continued high CO2 levels will produce catastrophic > ocean acidification over a shorter timescale. Furthermore there is the > report from Prof John Beddington, chief government scientist, that food > and water shortages could provoke widespread starvation, migration and > strife, by 2030 [1]. > > > > But the actual situation is far worse. These calculations ignore polar > amplification: the fact that the poles are heating much faster than > average (probably due to local "positive feedback" effects, particularly > with loss of sea ice leading to greater absorption of sunshine). This > heating, if allowed to continue unabated, will inevitably trigger ice > sheet disintegration and massive methane discharge, causing respectively > many metres of sea level rise and many degrees of global warming, possibly > even within a few decades. This has got to be prevented. > > > > The solution > > > > The solution, besides emissions reduction, has to include both reducing > the CO2 level in the atmosphere and halting the polar warming. This will > inevitably involve geoengineering, hitherto considered a last resort > measure. > > > > Therefore I have been working with other scientists and engineers to > present a case for geoengineering action to the Climate Congress, which > met in Copenhagen in March. We presented an open letter to Dr Pachauri, > chairman of IPCC, which was delivered to him personally at the Congress > [2]. > > > > In this letter, it is argued that the solution to global warming should > have at least three parts: > > > > Part A: Emissions reduction > > About: Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. > > Target: Achieve near-zero carbon economies throughout the world by end > century. > > Difficulties: International agreement, life-style changes, high cost. > > Rationale: Long-term sustainability. > > > > > > Part B: Carbon stock management > > About: Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by various means. > > Target: Reduce levels below 350 ppm over next three decades. > > Difficulties: May involve change in agricultural practice, worldwide. > Side-effects may be difficult to anticipate. > > Rationale: Reduce CO2 climate forcing below its current level, halt ocean > acidification and protect carbon sinks. > > > > Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management > > About: Mainly about albedo engineering and solar radiation management. > > Priority target: Cool the Arctic sufficient to halt retreat of Arctic sea > ice within three years. > > Difficulties: Seen as tampering with the environment, and therefore > intrinsically dangerous; but cost is low and side-effects should be > manageable. > > Rationale: Reduce risk of massive methane discharge and stabilise the > Greenland ice sheet. > > > > It is the Part C that has the greatest urgency, particularly with the > threatened summer disappearance of Arctic sea ice, possibly by 2030 [3] > [4] or much sooner [5] [6]. This prospect is further threatened by > recently reported thinning [7]. > > > > If the human race were faced by an external threat, we would treat this as > a war situation. But since global warming is anthropogenic, we seem > incapable of seeing the obvious ways of combating the threat. We need a > project like the Manhattan project - with the focus, determination and > urgency to combat the threat with all the means at our disposal - and that > must involve rapid development, testing and deployment of geoengineering > techniques. Fortunately the techniques for cooling the Arctic using > "Solar radiation management" are easily affordable, even in a recession! > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > John Nissen > > > > College House, > > Chiswick Mall, > > London W4 2PR > > Tel: 020 8742 3170 > > Mobile: 07890 657 498 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > [1] Professor Beddington's warning: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate > > > > [2] A copy of the open letter to Dr Pachauri can be found here: > > http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html > > > > [3] > http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html > > > > [4] > http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/04/arctic-ice-loss-is-stunning-total-loss-possible-by-2030-scientists-warn/ > > > > [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm > > > > [6] > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt_2.html > > > > [7] http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2009/2009-04-06-01.asp > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
