[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:15:45 -0700


Hi Gene,

No.  It's not just a game.  The international focus is solely on emissions reduction because this is what the IPCC has requested.  All the scientific advisers are saying the priority has to be on this.  However the Royal Society report has just managed to break through the taboo on geoengineering by downplaying its importance, and saying it needs to be researched as an insurance policy in case emissions reductions prove not to be sufficient.  But we know they won't be!  How would one answer this first question:

1. Can emissions reductions of 80% by 2050 by themselves save the Arctic sea ice, if the trend towards summer disappearance by 2030 continues?

And then, accepting the need for geoengineering research, how would one answer the following questions:

2.  If we don't have experience of SRM geoengineering from experimental trials, can we be certain to be able to stop the sea ice disappearing?

3.  Once the sea ice disappears in summer, can we be certain that methane discharge and Greenland ice sheet disintegration can be stopped?

4.  If methane discharge and Greenland ice sheet disintegration cannot be stopped, can we be certain that civilisation can survive the ultimate consequences of global warming (perhaps well over 6 degrees) and sea level rise (tens of metres if you include West Antarctic ice sheet)?

If the answer to these questions is "no", then we should be doing geoengineering trials like crazy, and trying to find ways to avoid the side-effects that Alan Robock and others are so worried about, if they really exist.

We do have a "chemotherapy treatment" (with stratospheric aerosols) which can probably save the Arctic sea ice, if we don't leave it too late.  Any delay in trialling this treatment is putting all our lives at risk, as we see Arctic temperatures soar and we see the effects of global warming spread to all parts of our world - like a cancer.

Cheers,

John

P.S.  To put your 25 degrees in perspective, mean global temperature (five year average) is currently around 14.5 degrees C, see
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

But perhaps your 25 degrees is not so pessimistic:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.100-13-more-things-eocene-hothouse.html



Eugene I. Gordon wrote:

I am too dense to understand the point being made. The international focus is solely on emission reductions because that is the game. They don’t want to hear about geoengineering because that potentially screws up their game. This is not a group of idealistic people trying to do the right thing. This is a group of selfish people protecting their own interests, which include grant funding, investments, investments of other that are paying them off, the old boys club scratching one another’s sit zone, etc. Geoengineering simply provides the itch.

 

The earth is getting hotter for its own reasons and it won’t stop until it gets to 25 C even if the increase is not perfectly monotonic. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are only speeding it up.

 

Don’t compromise on the need for geoengineering.

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:11 PM
To: pre...@attglobal.net
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Manu Sharma; Phil Thornhill; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com; sarlo9; Andrew Revkin
Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming

 


Thanks Peter,

I note your throwaway comment: "by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job" (e.g. of avoiding polar meltdown).  So why is the international focus solely on emissions reduction, when it won't solve the most urgent problems?  Let's think back from the future.  I am reminded of the following parable we ignored to our cost, from way back in 2009:

----

A young actress has a terrible smoking habit and her health is declining.  The doctor says that all will be well if only she could reduce smoking 80% by 2050, but she says she'd find that really difficult.  Instead she smokes even more furiously, as if to enjoy it all the more while she can.

Meanwhile the nurse has noticed a tumour, but the doctor says that it's bound to be benign.  Tests show otherwise.  The actress has cancer.  The doctor is afraid to tell her that she has cancer, let alone that the cancer could be fatal and she might not have long to live.

A colleague suggests chemotherapy, but the doctor dislikes the idea - he has a gut feeling against it.  But the doctor is now in a spot.  If he suggests chemotherapy to the patient, she will realise that she has cancer and might panic. Anyhow, he has assured her that reducing her smoking 80% by 2050 will do the trick.  He convinces himself of at least twenty reasons for not treating her, among them as follows:

  • If she knew that chemotherapy could prolong her life, she might not give up smoking.  Indeed he argues to himself that this is a "moral hazard".
  • Chemotherapy could have dreadful side-effects, such as her beautiful hair falling out.  Indeed the cure could be worse than the disease.  Particularly worrying are the “unknown unknowns” of the treatment.
  • Chemotherapy would not cure all her health problems.
  • If any of these got worse, the chemotherapy might be blamed.
  • If the chemotherapy were suddenly withdrawn, she would probably die anyway.
  • The chemotherapy might prove very expensive (although his colleague has assured him it is quite affordable).
  • He would have to get permission from her family members dotted around the world, and that might be impossible.


He decides to wait until the cancer is so bad that she cannot help but notice it.  Meanwhile he tells her that she should cut down on smoking immediately.  She pledges to reduce her smoking 10% by 2010, but everybody knows she has a stock-pile of fags under the bed...

The cancer spreads rapidly to all parts of her body and she eventually realizes she must have cancer.  But it is too late for chemotherapy and she dies a long and painful death.

----

Now of course, we realise what we should have been doing, way back in 2009 (and earlier would have been better).

Cheers from Chiswick-under-sea

John





Peter Read wrote:

On the contrary Manu

We are trying to understand the relationship between a variety of SRM and CDR technologies to see if we can find a way to cool the earth (to avert threats of polar meltdown that will inundate many highly fertile delta regions) without threatening critical regional patterns such as tropical monsoons.  Any thoughts ? (by the way, emissions reductions alone cannot do the job).

Peter  

----- Original Message -----

From: Manu Sharma

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:06 PM

Subject: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming

 

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote:


However the effects of volcanic eruptions on the monsoon are not
equivocal, and they are the best natural analog we have for SRM

 

Perhaps the best analog to SRM is the phenomenon of global dimming and its links [1] with the Ethiopia famine of mid 80's that was caused due to shifting rainfall and killed a million people. 

 

It seems to me that this list is in denial of possible adverse impacts of SRM on rainfall patterns.  

 

Manu

 

 

 

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2352 - Release Date: 09/07/09 18:03:00

 


 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to