Thsi isn't the joint letter. It's just a letter from John to his MP. I think his level of urgency and his attack on the "head in the sand posture" of our dept of the Environment is fully justified. We are developping quite a few MPs in our parliament who at least understand what geoengineering is and may become convinced.
John G ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "John Gorman" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; "Stephen Hugh Salter" <[email protected]>; "John Latham" <[email protected]>; "John Beddington" <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Letter to MP re geoengineering > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
