[geo] Re: Protect Polar Bear Habitat, Take Action Now

[John Nissen]

Title: Center for Biological Diversity

Hello again, Kieran and colleagues, It's almost a year since I wrote to you, and the situation is much clearer as to its gravity: * Cap and trade is unlikely to bring down emissions significantly. * Emissions will inevitably increase from India and China as their economies grow. * Global temperature is now expected to increase at least 4 degrees this century, compared to maximum "safe" level of 2 degrees. * Furthermore effective lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 is now reckoned to be thousands of years. * Thus global warming will continue for thousands of years, without reduction of atmospheric CO2. * Emissions reduction, however drastic and universal, will not halt global warming, because of the vast amount of CO2 already added to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuel. * Crops and water supplies will fail, as weather patterns alter. * Floods and sea level rise will cause vast populations to migrate. * In the end, the whole human population will be at risk of decimation, not just poorer countries. What is needed is a three pronged approach,  to include carbon stock management and solar radiation management (SRM) [2].  But the situation in the Arctic is particularly dangerous: * The oil industry is poised to exploit the Arctic [1] as it warms - regional warming which is way ahead of global warming due to "polar amplification". * The underlying trend appears to be accelerated warming, due to various positive feedback mechanisms such as the "albedo flip" (as ice is replaced by water, more sunlight is absorbed). * Last year's Arctic sea ice was close to 2007's minimum area, and possibly at a record minimum volume.  The continued large uncertainty about sea ice behaviour means that there is a significant possibility of sudden retreat resulting in seasonal disappearance, within five years.  * There is thus risk of loss of an entire ecosystem - with the virtual elimination of polar bears, walruses, etc. from their natural habitat. * There is increasing risk of massive methane release from unfreezing permafrost, which could send global warming spiralling out of control. * There are continued signs of Greenland ice sheet instability, with meltwater lubricating the base of glaciers to allow rapid descent, and sea level rise of several metres this century. Experimental trials of SRM are urgently needed in the Arctic, as being the only option available for saving the Arctic sea ice and associated ecosystem. Note that, as we remove sulphur aerosol "polution" from the lower atmosphere (troposphere), global warming increases.  This could be countered by putting a percentage into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), to reflect sunlight, as a method of SRM.  This is known to work because of volcanoes, such as Pinatubo, which have injected vast amounts of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere, resulting in global cooling. After much consideration in the geoengineering group, it has been concluded that the most significant risk from Arctic SRM would be a weakening of Indian monsoon - but this effect is more likely to be beneficial than harmful, as global warming has tended to strengthen monsoons.  This risk palls into insignificance compared to the risks from the Arctic's accelerated warming. Best wishes, John Nissen Chiswick, London W4 +44 20 8742 3170 [1] Scramble for the Arctic: http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=755 [2] Open letter to Dr Pachauri http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html ---- Kieran Suckling wrote, in June 2008: We follow the Arctic situation closely and are in contact with Arctic biologists and climatologists. While the situation is very dire, we’re not yet convinced that the Arctic and its wildlife can’t be saved through reduction of greenhouse emissions, especially powerful, short-lived emissions like methane and black carbon which also have a disproportionate localized effect.   Geo-engineering responses are risky, of course, due to both known and unknown side effects. While we’re not likely to endorse them anytime soon, I wouldn’t mind seeing your introduction.   Kieran From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:37 AM To: kie...@biologicaldiversity.org Cc: cen...@biologicaldiversity.org Subject: Re: Protect Polar Bear Habitat, Take Action Now     Dear Keiran,   You may not be aware just how quickly the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, with this summer's retreat even more rapid than last year's record: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm and there is a real possibility of the sea ice disappearing altogether within five years.   As I scientist, I can assure you that we are now well past the point at which emissions reduction can save the Arctic ecosystem and polar bears.  Therefore we have to think the hitherto unthinkable - namely "geoengineering as a last resort", as proposed by Paul Crutzen, Nobel Lauriate.  He proposed that we created clouds in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.  Unfortunately the way to do this is using sulphur-based aerosols, and most scientists are naturally averse to putting a "pollutant" back in the atmosphere.  But it seems the only way to halt the fierce regional heating that is occurring in the Arctic.  So I am advocating experimental trials   Would you would be interested to know more?  I have written a short introduction to the subject.   Kind regards,   John   John Nissen Chiswick, London W4, UK +44 20 8742 3170   --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---