John, Gene, Sam and all How do we send an open letter to COP!5? OK address it to Yves de Boer, but he will have a lot of things on his mind.
THIS IS A BUNFIGHT WITH THOUSANDS [YES, THOUSANDS] OF PEOPLE MILLING ABOUT, MAINLY THERE FOR NETWORKING. IF YOU WANTED A PLATFORM YOU HAD TO APPLY FOR A SIDE EVENT MONTHS AGO, AND WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN ASKED TO HANG IN WITH A BETTER KNOWN GROUP WHO MIGHT GIVE YOU TEN MINUTES IF YOU ARE VERY LUCKY SO I think an open letter needs to be posted on a site and then advertised on the Climate-L list. [do we have a geoengineering list doc's site with URL's that can be accessed by non-list people ??] If we are going to go that way, there is no hurry as a message posted now will be forgotten then. I think we should draft it very carefully with the scientific argument [for precautionary urgency] separated from the policy implication [what to do, how to avoid treading on the toes of the vast majority there who believe the emissions reductions gospel]. That is unless someone who is going is willing to traipse around the various side shows getting permission to 'lay it on the table' and get a 2 minute intervention to explain what it is, then all you can do with a hard copy message is to leave it lying strategically around. Maybe as many of us who are going [anybody?] can take a few hundred each and coordinate to get to different side events. Maybe, if very lucky, get some media coverage. There is no chance of getting through to the delegations who are all busy negotiating and whom the secretariat protect from unsolicited mails by guarding their mailboxes and removing unsolicited junk-mail. But the sideshows are where the good ideas emerge. And they get reported by journo's from sheer boredom with the negotiating process. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "'geoengineering'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 12:33 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Open Letter to COP15 I had sent this to John yesterday. John, I don’t disagree but you have ignored some important points. Increased global warming will drive population toward the poles and to higher elevations. Domed villages will emerge and people can stay put especially if fusion power comes into being. No doubt global population will have to decrease. Some countries will prefer increased warming such as Russia and Canada so the politics will become fierce and there will be no easy consensus. Nevertheless part of the scientific community would agree with your 24 points, another part would strongly disagree. The 24 points might prevail but not easily. In about 8000 years the Malinkovitch cycle will end and the CO2 concentration will drop significant (the norm is 180 ppm and it had been at 280 ppm due to the Malinkovitch cycle). There will be significant cooling. I think you will get some flak from others but not much from this group. Eugene I. Gordon (908) 233 4677 [email protected] www.germgardlighting.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Carana Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 6:25 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Open Letter to COP15 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2411 - Release Date: 10/03/09 06:20:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
