That makes a lot of sense, John. In the light of the risks you mentioned, I believe it is our duty to make such a call and I call upon everyone here to have a look at this.
I'd support an effort to make this into an open letter to COP15. We've got enough clout (pun intended) here to be heard. I encourage everyone to add your thoughts and - most importantly - your name, and then let's all give wide publicity to this open letter. Cheers! Sam Carana On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Why is funding for geoengineering important? Who agrees with the argument > below? Is there a consensus for the proposed actions? > > My view of the situation is that the Earth system is tipping into a hotter > state, and the quicker we try and put it back in balance, the more likely we > are to succeed. I would like to know whether people share this view, or > differ from it in significant ways. > > So I am interested to know how many of you agree with the following chain of > argument. > > Considering: > > 1. The average temperature of the planet remains constant while there is a > balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. > > 2. The Earth system is showing signs of imbalance of radiative forces > resulting in a net warming of the planet (estimated at 1.6 Watts per square > metre). > > 3. This imbalance is not unexpected as there is a large excess of the > greenhouse gas, CO2, in the atmosphere (currently at about 385 ppm compared > to pre-industrial 280 ppm, not much exceeded for the previous 2 million > years as far as we know). > > 4. For the past 8000 years or so, the Earth system has been approximately > in balance, following at least 2 million years of temperature oscillation > (the Ice Ages) - and it has possibly been kept in balance as an inadvertent > result of human activities (forest clearance, methane from paddy fields, > etc.). > > 5. The result of this balance has been a relatively stable temperature and > sea level, as compared with the fluctuations of the previous 2 million > years. > > 6. The current imbalance is causing global warming that is amplified and > accelerated in polar regions due to positive feedback. > > 7. There is also growing positive feedback as carbon sinks (both oceanic > and terrestrial) begin to lose their effectiveness. > > 8. These feedbacks in the Earth's system must cause an underlying > acceleration in global warming, which can be considered as a tipping of the > whole system towards a hotter state (reached when forces are in balance > again). > > 9. There is possibility of parts of the system tipping rapidly, and > bringing the rest of the system with them. > > 10. The positive feedback, causing retreat of Arctic sea ice and general > Arctic warming, threatens a release of methane from frozen structures, > causing further warming (global warming which is again amplified) in a giant > feedback loop. > > 11. There could be enough methane in frozen structures to add as much > forcing to the Earth system as the current forcing from atmospheric CO2. > > 12. Warming of the Arctic is melting ice on the Greenland ice sheet, which > flows through moulins to the base of the glaciers, lubricating their > passage, and cause a rise in sea level. > > 13. The disappearance of Arctic sea ice could possibly cause > destabilisation of Greenland ice sheet, sufficient to result in several > metres of sea level rise this century. (This destabilisation could also be > caused by the offloading of ice mass from the ice dome - triggering > earthquakes along the rim as the weight is taken off the mantel.) > > 14. Disappearance of summer sea ice could possibly happen within a few > years, and is likely with a few decades. > > 15. The climate models which forecast sea ice retreat towards the end of > the century, cannot be relied upon, especially when there is so much > non-linearity in the system and so much natural variation (weather > conditions, etc.). > > 16. Cuts in CO2 emissions, however drastic, cannot and will not result in a > significant reduction in CO2 forcing over the next few decades, because of > existing CO2 excess in the atmosphere (a proportion of this excess > persisting for thousands of years). > > 17. Again, climate models which claim that reductions in CO2 could reduce > the climate forcing imbalance quickly, may not take sufficient account of > positive feedback - notoriously difficult to model - and so cannot be relied > upon. > > 18. The current trajectory of CO2 emissions would likely cause over 4 > degrees of global warming, on the basis of current models - possibly over 6 > degrees. > > 19. Even the most drastic cuts being considered would not guarantee to keep > global warming under 4 degrees. > > 20. But even 2 degrees of global warming can be considered dangerous > (especially if persisting for a number of decades), because of crop > failures, mass migration, great loss of biodiversity, etc. > > 21. 4 degrees of global warming could be traumatic enough to trigger nuclear > conflict. > > 22. 6 degrees of global warming might not be survivable by human > civilisation. > > and, regardless of above, > > 23. Further acidification of the oceans is an additional hazard, and could > jeopardise marine foodchains (corals being already under stress). > > 24. Further global warming will make it harder to feed a growing world > population. > > It is therefore proposed that: > > 1. All possible practical and reliable means should be deployed to rescue > the situation. > > 2. Geoengineering, and associated risks, should be considered in relation > to the magnitude of the problem to be addressed. > > 3. A crash research programme should examine these associated risks, and > see how they could be minimised by appropriate geoengineering deployment. > > 4. In parallel a crash programme should develop, experiment with, and then > start deployment of solar radiation management techniques (SRM), with a view > to halting Arctic warming as soon as possible. > > 5. A well-funded and global programme should develop and deploy means to > reduce atmospheric CO2, by removal and storage (CRS), e.g. using > afforestation and biochar techniques. > > 6. Efforts on CO2 emissions reduction should be redoubled. > > 7. Efforts to preserve rainforest should be redoubled. > > 8. Efforts to curb world population growth should be encouraged. [1] > > ---- > > I'd love to know who agrees with the considerata, and whether there is a > consensus for the above 8-point approach. On the other hand, if you think > geoengineering should only be deployed as a last resort, explain your > reasoning and what's wrong in my chain of argument. > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] Contrary to Monbiot's opinion: > http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
