Hi all, News from the Arctic. CO2 levels are rising sharply: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/arctic-carbon-dioxide-levels
Here are some extracts. [quote] CO2 levels recorded in Svalbard tend to be higher than the global average, but scientists said the CO2 level they had measured was unprecedented even for that location. "These are the highest figures collected in 50m years," said Johan Strom, professor of atmospheric physics at the government-funded Norwegian Polar Institute, which collected the data. "It is not the level of CO2 that is the problem, because the earth will adapt. What is very worrying is the speed of change. Levels [here] are now increasing 2-3ppm a year. Dr Vicky Pope seems to suggest this doesn't matter because the growth in emissions is somehow confined to the Arctic: [quote] "These are quite large numbers. It sounds like this is an Arctic phenomenon," said Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter. "It fits with the general increase in emissions. You would expect the concentrations of CO2 to grow." And she confuses growth in emissions with growth in concentrations. And she is adviser to the Government!! Then the article adds to confusion by suddenly bringing in CO2 equivalent: [quote] The figures will concern policy-makers ahead of global talks on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol in December. Climate scientists advise that the world must prevent CO2 levels from rising higher than around 450ppm CO2 equivalent (a measure of global warming potential that incorporates other gasses such as methane and is higher than the measured CO2 levels) to avoid a 2C increase on preindustrial global average temperature. The 450ppm is a revised figure. So that begs the question, what is the CO2 equivalent level today. They don't tell you. Here's a figure from the Stern Review summary [2006]: [quote] "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year." So if the level is now rising as much as 3ppm per year, we could reach the revised 450 ppm limit within 7 years - or perhaps even within 5 years (since Stern published in 2006). Jeezzz. No wonder that scientists play down the seriousness of the situation. It's just too frightening. But then, why do they also play down geoengineering - when it must now be the only conceivable way out of our mess. Isn't there now be a race against time to get the geoengineering into deployment on sufficient scale, not only to keep greenhouse gases below 450 ppm CO2e (using carbon stock management), but also to save the Arctic sea ice (using solar radiation management)? What kind of advice is the government getting? Perhaps, Vicky Pope, you can answer for yourself. John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
