I see the argument for zero emissions by 2040, but a wise guy will point out that if we stop all diesel and wood burning etc, the loss of particulate emissions would cause a reduction in global dimming and very likely ACCELERATE warming (at least lower atmosphere air temperatures, I think) - Lovelock has been saying this in recent clips.
Of course, this adds strongly to the case for a COMBINED approach of (i) urgent reductions in pure/potent greenhouse gases with short half lives (eg HFC23) (ii) physical cooling strategies (Salter Latham / pale roads / cool roofs / broadleaf forests in place of dark pine / expand Mali wetlands for more low altitude clouds over land / see pdf on semi-arid tropics at www.globalcoolers.net ) (iii) emissions reductions (all the usual suspects, but maybe less aggressive on diesel than on petrol) Ray LARI On Apr 25, 5:56 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > As a general comment, I think it's best to consider an immediate cut to zero > emissions when analysing climate effects. Whilst totally unrealistic, it > gets across the message that we may have already fallen over the waterfall, > and no amount of emissions reduction can save us from catastrophic effects. > Based on this 'zero-option': > From my personal understanding of the research, we've got at least 40 years > of further warming in the pipeline, whilst we wait for the oceans to warm up > (100rs is probably more likely). Then, we've got the feedbacks from Amazon > burn and permafrost melting (not to mention clathrates). We've also got the > summer ice-albedo feedback in the North pole. Added to that, we've got the > impending collapse of ice sheets, shelves and glaciers - together with the > resulting albedo changes. > > In my view, it's only when the media start reporting on studies that show > +ve feedbacks and catastrophic effects EVEN WITH ZERO EMISSIONS that we will > see a sea-change in attitudes to geoengineering from politicians and the > public. The current fashion for mitigation has lead to a research focus > that's not based on detailed consideration of this zero-option, so people > are largely unaware of its consequences. > > A > > 2009/4/25 Peter Read <[email protected]> > > > > > Hi folks > > > John does me too much credit with the word 'modest'. Thought I had > > circulated, actually, but as it seems not, the word is 'forgetful'. > > > Be that as it may, and given : > > A that time may be running out > > B that the last time I had something substantial to say it took > > three years to reach the light of day through the formal peer review > > process [ Climatic > > Change<http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/?p=a149716f589d4744b87cb8c...> > > *, * *87/3-4 *(2008) Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the > > threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial > > essay<http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/?p=4888011a778b4...> > > Peter Read <http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Peter+Read> > > 305-320) ] and > > C that I don't have the modelling capacity at my disposal to turn > > the idea into a formal paper, beyond what I presented to the IPCC meeting in > > Berlin, Nov 2007, > > >http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P...<http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/P...> > > which > > I find difficult to access but is also viewable at > >http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/219. > > would it be possible to use this blog for peer review of the language in my > > guardianonline article reproduced by John? > > > viz: "A measure of the threat is the accumulation of warmth from > > successive summers, which is making the glaciers' undersides increasingly > > mushy. Even a deeply implausible reduction of emissions to zero in 25 years > > sees that measure treble over the next half-century with no end in sight." > > > This metric is discussed at slightly greater length in sections 4 and 5 of > > my long essay "Global Gardening with a Leaky Bucket: Addressing climate > > catastrophe through Art 3.3 of the UNFCCC" which can be accessed at > >http://seat.massey.ac.nz/personal/p.read/GGLBnqf25ix08.pdf. If anyone > > sees anything wrong with this suggestion could they please comment, but note > > there are several danger metrics discussed in Tim Lenton's paper last year > > and others may turn out to be correct. When discussing threats all > > possibilities need to be considered unless demonstrably incorrect. > > > Ken once mentioned to me that there is a more academic blog for less > > informal discussion of geo-engineering issues and maybe he could circulate > > this message there also. > > > If anyone wants to use the concept I would quite like to be cited. I > > mention that because I find my ideas - or something like them - being used > > without acknowledgement, e.g. in scenarios involving substantial carbon > > removals developed recently by Hansen's group and not so far different from > > results that I published in the 1990's and reproduced at pp273 (I think it > > was, I' ve lost my copy) of the IPCC's 2000 LULUC report. > > > Attempting to communicate, possibly to collaborate, with Hansen, I got this > > message from one of his colleagues (Pushker Kharecha) whom I suppose didn't > > want Jim to know that some of his analysis was not exactly new. > > > I fully understood what you were requesting, and I was trying to be > > reasonably polite about the whole thing, but let me now be more blunt. > > > Completely setting aside my assessment of your essay and draft paper, your > > email messages alone contain too many erroneous statements to even count at > > this point, much less attempt to correct. I don't know what your academic > > background is, but it's unfortunately clear that you not only have a > > fundamental lack of understanding about much of our paper, but you also > > don't seem to grasp some key aspects of general carbon cycle science. Given > > all of this it simply wouldn't make sense for Jim to endorse your > > presentation. Again, I sincerely regret to tell you these things, since > > ultimately you do seem well-intentioned and genuinely concerned about the > > issues. > > > Dirty work at the academic crossroads? > > > Cheers > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > *From:* John Nissen <[email protected]> > > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > > *Cc:* [email protected] ; Davies, John<[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2009 3:01 AM > > *Subject:* [geo] The emissions reductions gospel is failing - we need > > something more > > > Contribution from our geoengineering comrade, Peter Read (since he's > > probably too modest to post it himself): > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/15/geoengine... > > > Interviewed last week, John Holdren, President Obama's chief scientific > > adviser, said that drastic measures should not be "off the > > table"<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-joh...>in > > discussions on how best to tackle climate > > change <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> and that > > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering>geo-engineering<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering>could > > not be ruled out. Making clear these were his personal views, he said: > > "It's got to be looked at. We don't have the luxury of taking any approach > > off the table." > > > He's right. We don't have that luxury – not only because the Kyoto > > protocol's first phase, running to 2012, is manifestly failing, but because > > the emissions reduction approach that it embodies cannot succeed. It is > > manifestly failing because emissions are going ahead faster than even the > > worst scenarios considered by the IPCC, which provides scientific > > assessments to the UN Climate Convention and because many rich countries are > > on course to fall short of their emissions reductions commitments. > > > Research since the IPCC's last assessment reveals that the threat of > > climatic disaster is more serious than previously supposed. Several threats > > exist but the most imminent is probably a collapse of substantial areas of > > land-based ice into the > > oceans<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-ice-sheet-se...>, > > as studies of ancient climates show happened in previous warming phases. > > This seems likely to be due to the lubrication of Greenland's ice floes by > > water that accumulates year after year, with warmer summers melting the > > surface and rivers of melt-water flowing down crevasses to the bedrock, > > making the underside of the ice increasingly mushy and prone to slip down > > towards the ocean. Reports from Greenland, of increased frequency of > > "ice-quakes", suggest that areas of the ice cover have slipped and bumped > > into other areas that are still stuck. When the last bit gives way there may > > be an unstoppable rush of ice into the ocean, as with ancient warming > > phases, raising ocean levels by several metres over a few decades. > > > "Probably"? "Likely"? "Suggest"? "Maybe"? Yes, all is uncertain and the > > models are inadequate. But you don't drive full-speed down a twisty lane on > > a foggy winter's night hoping there's no ice round the next bend. A measure > > of the threat is the accumulation of warmth from successive summers, which > > is making the glaciers' undersides increasingly mushy. Even a deeply > > implausible reduction of emissions to zero in 25 years sees that measure > > treble over the next half-century with no end in sight. > > > So something more than emissions reductions is needed. We must take CO2 out > > of the atmosphere or prevent some of the sun's radiation from reaching the > > surface. But geo-engineering is usually thought of as shielding the earth > > from solar radiation by whitening clouds and by putting reflectors in space > > between earth and sun. The latter seems difficult to reverse and perhaps a > > very last resort. But whitening clouds can be quickly halted. It involves > > putting sulphur aerosols into the clouds in amounts that are trivial > > compared with the effects of either volcanic eruptions or coal burning > > worldwide. Or injecting saltwater micro-particles into ocean clouds which, > > whitened, then rain slightly salty water back into the oceans. > > > Amazing though it may seem, these apparently hopeful options are opposed by > > NGOs that seem more willing to run the risk of climatic catastrophe than > > deviate from the emissions reductions gospel. Their concern seems to be that > > geo-engineering will result in relaxed pressure to reduce > > emissions<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/18/climatechange-green...>, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
