Hi Eugene,
If that's contingency planning, then we don't need it for our
geoengineering!
Peter's spot on. We should get ahead with precautionary measures -
rather than wait.
Every moment of delay in the _deployment_ of geoengineering, in a
rapidly declining situation, increases the risk of being too late. With
positive feedback, causing polar warming to accelerate, the risk of
being too late could be rising exponentially.
As I've argued before, we need a Manhattan-style project to save the
Arctic sea ice, principally using solar radiation management. That
would be the best precaution against sea level rise. That must be
a central message for Bill Clinton.
However, in case geoengineering proves too late,
precautions/protections against rapid sea level rise are problematic.
For example, when should a replacement for the Thames Barrier be built,
and for how much sea level rise? Currently the planners seem content
that the barrier can cater for the 1 in 1000 year event until around
2030, when they will raise its height by a metre or so. That does not
seem precautionary enough. But could one protect London against four
or five metres of sea level rise anyway, especially if this coupled
with increased surge intensity? Probably not - so we have to put much
of our faith in geoengineering. Meanwhile get those structural
engineers onto the Greenland ice sheet!
Cheers from front-line Chiswick-on-Thames,
John
P.S. I was interested in Alvia's point about lake Agassiz dam being
bust by meteors (or comet), and found this reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/science/02impact.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=nanodiamonds&st=cse
Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
In project management that is
called contingency planning. The key is to have a plan and to take the
steps needed to put it in place when and if needed--- not put it in
place.
The essence of risk management is to
prerpare for the worst until it has been proved it can't happen.
Blanchon et al 2009 Nature 458
881-884 provide evidence from coral reef back-stepping of rapid sea
level rise at the close of the last interglacial highstand
Hearty et al 2007 Quartenary Sci rev
26 2090 report sea level rises of several meters per century
There are reports of increasingly
frequent ice-quakes on Greenland
We should not wait for structural
engineers to prove that sudden disintegration is possible.
On the contrary we should get ahead
with precautionary measures and then leave off if and when structural
engineers prove it's impossible.
Especially as such measures will
likely be a lot cheaper than emissions reductions a la Kyoto Protocol
and help reduce the impact of climate change even if it proves to be
only gradual after all.
Peter
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:14 PM
Subject:
[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
I'm still not sure I understand what you
guys are talking about with regard to sudden catastrophic
disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet. About 5 years ago, I raised
the same possibility, but have yet to see any analyses that would
support large slides of ice into the ocean. As Greenland consists of
three separate islands covered with ice, at some point, if enough of
the ice sheet melted, the remaining ice would become unstable and fall
into the ocean, but that would be a long way off.
I do believe, however, that a survey of the
structural stablility of both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice
sheets is merited. I am not aware of this having been done and simply
having climatologists say large pieces won't break off isn't good
enough as they continue to be surprised by ice shelf collapses and sea
ice disappearance. In other words, they don't seem to be all that good
at predicting the future. We have a shortage of a lot of things in
this world, among them civility and fresh drinking water, but one thing
not in short supply is structural engineers. I want to hear what they
have to say about the Greenland Ice Sheet.
I am not, however, convinced that an
imminent catastrophe is upon us. The basis for your concern appears to
be folklore of the Inuits living along Hudson Bay around 12,400 years
ago whose tales tell of their villages being swamped by a sudden rise
in the water level and that the Younger Dryas period immediately
followed. Is that correct? Your conclusion was then that the sea level
rise was due to a sudden release of ice by the Greenland Ice Sheet.
However, the most likely explanation for
the Younger Dryas (a period of abrupt climate change in which ice age
like conditions returned for around 1000 years to the N. Hemisphere and
so named after an Arctic wildflower that was prevalent at the time) is
the discharge of fresh water into the N. Atlantic from a large glacial
lake in southern Canada and northern Minnesota, Lake Agassiz. This
lake was larger than all of the present Great Lakes combined and was
closed on the southern end by an ice dam blocking discharge into the
Mississippi River and also on the northern end by another ice dam,
preventing emptying into Hudson Bay.
The fresh water released entered the N.
Atlantic and disrupted the northern end of the Gulf Stream, hence the
colder weather that followed. This is loosely what the movie the Day
After Tomorrow is based on, although that is a bad sci fi movie with
little scientific basis behind it. The events portrayed in the film
could never happen as they violate laws of physics and thermodynamics.
Various theories have been advanced for the
collapse of the ice dam, but the most likely one now seems to be a
comet strike in eastern Canada that also caused massive wildfires,
killing off most of the large mammals in N. America along with the
Clovis people of New Mexico. Soot and quartz particles found at the
proposed impact site seem to confirm an extraterrestrial source of the
event. There is no evidence that Greenland was affected by the comet
strike. The explanation for the much shorter cooling period of around
8000 years ago also seems to be related to a discharge from Lake
Agassiz, although that one is also still debated.
I am interested in your comment about
someone studying ways to stabilize the Greenland Ice sheet and would
like to hear more about it. Previously, we have discussed such ideas
as filling in Moulins with some kind of straw, with ice and of course
there was the Discovery Project Earth episode about placing insulating
foam sheets around melt lakes.
The Royal Society report is not going to
endorse the immediate use of geoengineering. Most of these "evaluation
type studies" have either rejected research altogether (the DEFRA
paper) or called for some kind of long drawn out research program
(Koonin workshop) in which the authors are never able or willing to
pull the trigger and say what should be done and when.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:43 AM
Subject:
[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
Hi Albert,
Thanks for calling last night. As I said, this is an opportunity to
get three vital points across to Bill Clinton for your meeting in
September:
* the situation is far more serious and urgent than any scientist
dares to admit [1], and warrants emergency action [2];
* the action must include geoengineering, because emissions
reduction will be too slow to have an effect;
* geoengineering must be both SRM for cooling and carbon air
capture for reducing acidification.
As regards the situation, there is both the risk of sea level rise from
Greenland (with tsunami if there's a containment failure) and the risk
of massive methane release (see John Davies' email yesterday) if the
Arctic sea ice disappears in summer. The temperature forcing (from
positive feedback) is building up much faster than expected or forecast
by IPCC models. The ocean acidification, loss of coral reefs,
reduction of rainforest and glacier decline (e.g in Himalayas) are also
critical problems requiring action, starting now.
The consensus of scientists is concentrating on emissions reduction,
but it's clear, from the Climate Congress in March, that this alone is
not going to be enough to reduce the risk of catastrophic warming [3]
to an acceptable level. The risk could already be > 50:50, without
geoengineering. (Every year that we delay increases this risk -
politicians should note.)
For saving the Arctic sea ice we need SRM - for which there are two
main candidates: stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.
(A report from the Royal Society is due 1st September, so you can
mention that.) The risks of such geoengineering have to be balanced
against the risk of not geoengineering - i.e. catastrophe for everybody!
If you can get Clinton to appreciate these central points, then you
will have done a service for the world! Try and explain slowly, simply
and clearly, so he can really take in the enormity of what you are
saying. Be careful not to drown him with science. And be careful not
to distract him with thoughts which are not central to these three
points about where we are now, why we have to change course and what we
have to do most urgently.
It would be really helpful to have a draft of a paper that you will
present to Clinton, summarising your arguments and including these
points.
BTW, please email me details about this amazing bloke you've
discovered, who has studied the possibility of containment failure and
has considered geoengineering. I couldn't find anything on Google to
track him down. Can you also remind me of the other people you have
asked?
Cheers,
John
P.S. I'll try to see the film! I wish that being plunged into an ice
age were a significant possibility, as this would save us from becoming
toast.
[1] Dares to admit, or is able to face. People stop admitting the
existence of danger when it gets too great - e.g. in final stages of
cancer or when living just below a dam. And what do you tell your
children - that they could be doomed?
[2] Manhattan Project is good example of what can be done in emergency
when facing an enemy. We need to treat global warming as an enemy,
regardless of whether it is anthropogenic or not, and so regardless of
responsibility.
[3] Global warming likely to provoke global conflict and risk nuclear
war, because of extreme effects on food scarcity, water shortages, and
mass migration.
---
Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
If you have not seen the film A Day After Tomorrow,
please hire or buy a copy of it.
The only thing you substitute in the film is that the sea level surge
and subsequent massive cooling is a result of global warming causing
the footing of the ice sheet getting damange due to melt water
lubrication within and under the ice. Once ice slides and breaks into
sea, a sudden climatic cooling results as the disintergrating ice sheet
rapidly melts into warm sea, making it as cold as your coca-cola in
summer.
I'll take the points and trying to accommodate people as much as I can
as I have a good team here and in the States moving this thing and the
Danish, will eventually turn around too if things go to the direction
the First Nations think the events went when ice age ended.
Kr, Albert
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:53:26 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Meeting with Clinton
>
>
> Hi Albert,
>
> I'm just back from holiday, and have been talking to John Davies.
It is
> clear than the central topic for discussion is the possibility of
> massive ice slide in past and future, to create sea level rise
(but also
> tsunami) and exacerbate global warming.
>
> So I urge that the following be included on agenda for Clinton,
arising
> directly from your central topic:
>
> 1. No tsunami warning system for Greenland and neighbours, let
alone
> other N Atlantic nations.
> 2. Past slides were due to global warming and/or volcanic action.
> Future slides can be expected due to global warming.
> 3. Global warming is amplified at poles - at least doubling the
> temperature rise both in the Arctic and around the Antarctic
(affecting
> WAIS).
> 4. How does one stop, delay, or reduce risk of future slide? For
> Arctic, must save the Arctic sea ice - and similarly for the
Antarctic.
> 5. For saving Arctic sea ice, physical measures are being
considered
> (such as river diversion) - but research is needed and there is no
> research funding.
> 6. CO2 emissions reduction, however drastic and global, will take
> decades before warming is halted, let alone reversed.
> 7. Positive feedback building up now - has to be countered.
> 8. Emissions of carbon black (fine soot particles) must be reduced
-
> which will have rapid effect.
> 9. SRM Geoengineering with sulphur aerosols must be trialled.
> 10. Cooling of water entering Arctic ocean, by marine cloud
brightening
> over Gulf Stream, must be attempted.
> 11. Research needed for cooling the WAIS, and preventing ice shelf
loss.
> 12. Research needed on risks from volcanic action under WAIS.
>
> Certainly we should not make global warming worse by removing
reflecting
> aerosols from troposphere without at least countering that effect
using
> other reflecting aerosols - esp sulphur aerosols in stratosphere.
>
> Lunch calls,
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
Windows Live Messenger: Thanks for 10 great years-enjoy
free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.59/2310 - Release Date:
08/17/09 18:04:00
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
