Dear Alan,
Thank goodness some people are beginning to take matters seriously. It has also become clear to some of us that emissions reduction, however drastic and however widespread, would have little chance by itself to prevent a global catastrophe. The Arctic sea ice has seemed the most critical thing to save, but there is also the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), the Amazon rainforest and the Himalayan glaciers, while the combination of global warming and ocean acidification is threatening coral reefs and ultimately the whole marine food chain. Thus geoengineering has become absolutely necessary; and it is now a matter of extreme urgency, since we are battling against growing positive feedback and unpredictable effects. A number of us have put our names to an open letter to Dr Pachauri, delivered to him at the Copenhagen Climate Congress in March [1]. However, as yet we have not received a response. I still think that his acknowledgement of the need for geoengineering (here including carbon stock management processes such as biochar) would have a big impact in advance of the Copenhagen meeting in December. Would you be willing to add your name, and support a second approach to Dr Pachauri? I think we should extend our proposal to include SRM geoengineering more widely (i.e. not just to save the Arctic sea ice). What would be the best timing? Could we make an announcement on the occasion of, or immediately following, the public release of the Royal Society's report - which is due 1st September? We might also enlist some people who worked on the report. Best wishes, John Nissen [1] http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachauri.html -- Alan Gadian wrote: > > John, > > Yes: I do think that we are in a critical situtation, and although > alarmist, there has been progress in the way the whole subject has > been taken much more seriously, even since Xmas. > > Thanks for your support ... rather apt, because the Indian sub > continent is where may be the biggest effects may be felt > > Alan > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, John Gorman wrote: > >> In my rather unprepared question/statement at the House of Commons >> seminar, >> I hope I said how strongly some of us agree with your "alarmism". The >> possible or probable future without geoengineering is alarming!! It >> reminds >> me of the quote from the old Englishman Rudyard Kippling -"If you can >> keep >> your head when all about you are loosing theirs, could it be that you >> havn't >> understood the situation?" >> >> I also agree that a combination of cloud whitening and aerosols, both >> being >> carefully placed should be able to control temperature while we sort out >> some methods of getting CO2 levels back to preindustrial. Difficult >> but we >> have got to do it. A whole new science. >> >> John Gorman >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alan Gadian" <[email protected]> >> To: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>; "Michael Box" >> <[email protected]>; "Jeff Ridley" <[email protected]>; >> "Stephen >> Salter" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:12 PM >> Subject: [geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely >> >> >>> >>> Re: House of Commons Session in Geoengineering (15/7/09) >>> John, >>> >>> A quick note. I hope I was saying that, if you believe the >>> models which seem OK for temperatures, the sulphur scheme >>> would cool the poles, and the rest of the planet more. >>> Both Rasch's results and those of Lund (bristol) showed this. >>> However, the cooling associated with the cloud whitening scheme, >>> is especially pronounced at the pole (as shown by Rasch and our HaDGAM >>> results) and therefore could help preserve the permafrost. >>> >>> I am afraid I have little faith in the precipitation from climate >>> models, especially in the tropics. Parts of India have predictive >>> errors >>> of over 2m per year for current simulations. With doubling CO2 >>> there will be precipitation shifts, definitely. Cloud whitening is >>> likely >>> to have them too, but hopefully will counterbalance the increasing CO2 >>> shifts. >>> >>> I think it is important not to jump in too soon, but examine with >>> models >>> and small experiments the viability of schemes. I appreciate that >>> some (well Steven Rayner) at the meeting called me a "climate porn >>> merchant" ... and many other "jibes" , and I was also called a >>> "scaremongerer", but I feel it would be of advantage to take as many >>> people forward as possible, and explore all the facets of each >>> approach. >>> >>> NERC and EPSRC are preparing initiatives, and I do agree it is >>> urgent. There may ( or may not) be ozone depletion problems with >>> significant use of sulphates, so we must take care. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, John Nissen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Recently the geoengineering group discussed the pros and cons of solar >>>> radiation management (aka SRM geoengineering) using stratospheric >>>> aerosols in the Arctic [1]. >>>> >>>> A possible downside of more widespread deployment of stratospheric >>>> aerosols has come to light; it is from decreased rainfall on Amazon >>>> [2]. Some of us were already concerned by possible slight >>>> weakening of >>>> monsoons. >>>> >>>> This decreased rainfall is liable to be aggravated by the growing El >>>> Nino. (The last strong one was in 1998.) >>>> >>>> Yet some experts (e.g. Jeff Ridley) are saying that deployment in the >>>> Arctic will not be sufficient to save the sea ice. (And if the sea >>>> ice >>>> goes, the methane could come out of permafrost, Greenland ice sheet >>>> disintegrate, etc.) >>>> >>>> And Alan Gadain, from the University of Leeds was warning me, last >>>> week >>>> [3], that Arctic deployment wouldn't work, yet on the other hand an >>>> effect of more general deployment would be to cool the Arctic. >>>> >>>> Who is right, and what should we do? >>>> >>>> Could there be a way to protect Amazon and elsewhere from reduced >>>> rainfall, while deploying stratospheric aerosols at a range of >>>> latitudes >>>> to produce both widespread cooling effect and specific cooling in the >>>> Arctic? >>>> >>>> We could use marine cloud brightening rather than stratospheric >>>> aerosols, because the risk of undesirable side effects is smaller and >>>> because the technique can be applied locally, but do we have the >>>> luxury >>>> of time to develop the technique? The Arctic sea ice is liable to >>>> disappear more rapidly than anyone expected - we just cannot predict >>>> with any certainty. Likewise the Amazon rainforest could perish if >>>> there were consecutive years of drought - which we cannot predict. >>>> >>>> Isn't there an overwhelming case for some kind of experimental >>>> trial of >>>> stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic, preferably starting next spring, >>>> before El Nino effects set in? There is so much at stake, wouldn't it >>>> be stupid to delay? >>>> >>>> And shouldn't some significant funding be put into marine cloud >>>> brightening? >>>> >>>> Cheers from Chiswick, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> [1] "Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering" thread: >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b045b6428fc89a93/95b940c3c3352e35?#95b940c3c3352e35 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [2] Aerosol effects investigated by Met Office: >>>> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090604.html >>>> >>>> [3] Geoengineering seminar at the House of Commons, 15th July 2009. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
