Many thanks for that delightful read Stephen Oh dear It seems I specialize in being only roughly right It seems, Mike, that Clinton is not such a simple fellow after all And, Gene, that I can't rightly remember what he said Or that I know what KISS stands for.either. Whether sulphur seeding is safe, maybe I deferred too much to the Royal Society's overly cautious report. But I had in mind tele-climatic effects on e.g. tropical rainfall patterns
Still Albert, I strongly favour a simple [user-simple that is, Stephen] policy recommendation Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "'Albert Kallio'" <[email protected]>; "'Geoengineering'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "'Mike MacCracken'" <[email protected]>; "'Andrew Lockley'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: One message for Clinton > With apologies to the people who have already seen it, I attach a paper > about simplicity in engineering design. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering and Electronics > University of Edinburgh > Mayfield Road > Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > tel +44 131 650 5704 > fax +44 131 650 5702 > Mobile 07795 203 195 > [email protected] > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > > Eugene I. Gordon wrote: >> >> For the record KISS = ‘Keep it simple; stupid.’ The phrase ‘It’s the >> economy stupid.’ was coined by Clinton campaign strategist James >> Carville <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carville>, and refers to >> the notion that Clinton was a better choice because Bush had not >> adequately addressed the economy. In the same way, the ‘reduce carbon >> strategists’ have ignored that the economy won’t let it happen. It >> destroys economies and lifestyles and appeals only to the economies >> that have neither. >> >> I disagree about SO2. It certainly works. The standard argument >> against it is ‘acid rain’ If we do a simple experiment and get >> significant acid rain or snow it is a problem. If not, it is a great >> solution. Keep it simple. >> >> *From:* [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Peter Read >> *Sent:* Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:32 AM >> *To:* Albert Kallio >> *Cc:* Geoengineering; [email protected]; Mike MacCracken; Andrew >> Lockley >> *Subject:* [geo] Re: One message for Clinton >> >> Albert >> >> Seems to me he might ask what can we do about it? >> >> Famously he once remarked "it's the economy stupid" >> >> So have a KISS [Keep It Stupid Simple ] response ready >> >> ""Grow a lot of trees -- and be ready to shoot sulphur into the Arctic >> stratosphere"" >> >> If he asks why tell him that both are >> >> * cheap, >> * simple, >> * effective >> * require no rocket science [[OK use aircraft for the sulphur]] >> * can be started tomorrow and >> * can be easily stopped (i.e. reversible) >> >> and tell him planting trees is safe [subject to sustainability best >> practice] but sulphur isn't [so don't do it unless you hear the air >> raid sirens -- John may well say we can hear them already] >> >> OK, all claims contestible but UNFCCC Article 3.3 says we do not need >> full scientific certainty in face of serious or irreversible threats >> >> If he asks why it isn't being done tell him the world has gone mad >> >> Best >> >> Peter >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* John Nissen <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> *To:* Mike MacCracken <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> *Cc:* Andrew Lockley <mailto:[email protected]> ; >> Geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:18 AM >> >> *Subject:* [geo] Re: One message for Clinton >> >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> The situation is desperate on many fronts. Here are some points, >> which one might put to Clinton. >> >> 1. It is going to be difficult to get agreement on emissions >> reduction, especially while Obama is focussed on getting >> healthcare sorted: >> http://planetark.org/wen/54728 >> >> 2. Emissions reduction to zero overnight, by all nations, would >> not prevent further Arctic sea ice retreat, because of the >> continued climate forcing by anthropogenic CO2 in atmosphere (over >> 100 ppm giving around 1.6 Watts/m2) and the accelerated warming in >> the Arctic (as positive feedback effects build up). >> >> 3. Emissions reduction to zero overnight by either developed >> nations OR developing nations would still allow temperature to >> rise above 2 degrees (MacCracken). >> >> 4. The best chance of saving Arctic sea ice, and avoiding manifold >> hazards that could arise therefrom, would be by SRM geoengineering. >> >> 5. Due to excess CO2 in atmosphere, the oceans have become more >> acidic, which could have disastrous implications for corals and >> marine food chains. Reduction below 350 ppm advocated by Jim >> Hansen (and below 330 by some others). >> >> 6. Major CO2 sinks are reaching a critical condition where they >> might stop absorbing CO2 or even provide positive feedback. >> >> 7. In particular the Amazon rainforest is at a critical point, >> where a widespread drought of two or more years could cause >> die-off and burn. This would return much CO2 to atmosphere, thus >> exacerbating global warming. (It would also disrupt American and >> Atlantic weather systems.) >> >> 8. Political and charitable initiatives have so far failed to halt >> the deforestation of rainforest in Amazon and elsewhere. >> >> 9. Geoengineering, both for cooling (SRM) and carbon air capture, >> is still opposed by most scientists, environmentalists and the media. >> >> 10. Most scientists, environmentalists and media hacks believe >> that geoengineering presents a "moral hazard", in providing a >> "climate fix" which would let governments off the hook, in >> negotiations to reduce emissions. >> >> Because of the rapidly deteriorating situation, and the political >> difficulties above, geoengineering is liable to come too late. We >> need a wake-up call from a senior and respected leader. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> >> Mike MacCracken wrote: >> >> On this issue of the desperation of our situation, as I noted in a >> paper >> >> last year (see >> >> http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken-CritReviewSummary-final.pdf ), >> and >> >> later confirmed using Wigley's MAGICC model, consider the following: >> >> >> >> A) If emissions from the developing world went to zero next year and >> stayed >> >> there, the trajectory of developed nation emissions (even considering >> a >> >> reasonably low emission IPCC SRES scenario) would take the world to >> greater >> >> than 2 C warming, only about a decade or two later as compared to at >> >> present. Clearly, the developed nations have to go to virtually zero >> GHG >> >> emissions over coming decades. >> >> >> >> B) If emissions from developed nations went to zero next year and >> stayed >> >> there, the trajectory of developing nation emissions (again >> considering a >> >> reasonably low scenario) would also take the world to over 2 C, >> delayed by a >> >> little bit more. Clearly, the developing nations are going to have to >> also >> >> get their emissions down toward zero. >> >> >> >> For reasons of both practicality and equity, developed nations need >> to lead >> >> on CO2, showing the world that a modern economy can prosper on low >> CO2 >> >> emissions. But both developed and developing nations can really >> reduce >> >> near-term forcing (and so warming) by cutting their non-CO2 emissions >> >> (methane, black carbon, ozone generating air pollutants, etc.--and >> >> controlling each of these can improve health and well-being now >> and/or >> >> improve overall economic efficiency) and by taking steps to improve >> >> efficiency and end deforestation/start reforestation. Roughly >> speaking, the >> >> 21st century warming influence of 21st century emissions of non-CO2 >> >> greenhouse gases is nearly as much as the 21st century warming >> influence of >> >> 21st century emissions of CO2 (of course the CO2 effect carries on >> for >> >> centuries and longer). So, if we want to slow warming, negotiators >> must work >> >> toward an agreement that limits both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. And >> the >> >> point is starting to get through to high levels (see >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/11/co2-other-cause- >> >> climate-change). >> >> >> >> So, while keeping below 2 C will still be hard if we also control >> non-CO2 >> >> greenhouse gases (and the world may still want and need >> geoengineering to >> >> keep the warming down and deal with special impacts like the Arctic >> because >> >> cutting CO2 emissions will also cut SO2 emissions and the aerosol >> cooling >> >> offset we have now), if the negotiating focus is only on CO2 >> emissions, >> >> we'll all be getting a good bit warmer and the pressure for >> geoengineering >> >> will be even greater. >> >> >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/17/09 10:07 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The clear message is that: >> >> 1) Even if we stopped emission completely tomorrow, we'd >> probably >> >> still be in deep trouble. It is abundantly clear that we face >> not >> >> one, but several potential major tipping points, as identified by >> >> Lenton et al. >> >> 2) Without urgent and significant funding for geoengineering >> research, >> >> the technologies will be unlikely to be ready for swift and safe >> >> deployment when needed. >> >> 3) The later we can deploy any necessary geoengineering, the >> less >> >> likelihood there is that these technologies will work >> effectively. >> >> >> >> >> >> A >> >> >> >> 2009/9/16 John Nissen <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> Albert is seeing ex-president Clinton next week. This is an >> unusual >> >> opportunity to a get a message across to somebody with real >> influence. >> >> Is there a single message that could catalyse action? >> >> >> >> Seeing the bad news in the Guardian [1], about which Stephen >> sighed, one >> >> should not be "rocking the boat", yet I feel that the people >> advising >> >> Obama must warn him that emissions reductions, however >> severe, are no >> >> guarantee of safety. Any level of emissions reductions which >> appear >> >> politically acceptable, like 80% reduction by 2050, has >> little chance of >> >> preventing tipping points like Arctic sea ice summer >> disappearance. >> >> >> >> Perhaps Clinton should be told that we actually face a >> climate >> >> emergency, but IPCC have dug themselves collectively into a >> hole over >> >> emissions reductions. Scientific advisers (like John >> Holdren) should be >> >> asked a straight question: would emissions reductions by >> themselves >> >> guarantee to prevent the kind of climate catastrophe that >> could follow >> >> from loss of Arctic sea ice (methane discharge, sea level >> rise) - and if >> >> not, is there any alternative to geoengineering for >> significantly >> >> reducing the risk? The answer does not have to be made >> public, but that >> >> is another issue. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.105/2380 - Release Date: >> 09/18/09 07:49:00 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.107/2382 - Release Date: 09/19/09 06:03:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
