I think it's fine to send your letter, but I would keep Mike's advice in mind. Keep it short and simple. Five points is about right. Seriously-- people get the concept. Also, COP15 is an event, not an organization or even an individual. It doesn't make any sense to send it to COP15. If you can write a thoughtful, articulate, short note then you should really focus on who you want that message to go to. Honestly, Yvo de Boer is probably about the last person I would consider. He simply is politically constrained from acting on such information. Furthermore, he is well aware of the concept and the rationale for it already. He reads the paper just like you and I, and is *extremely* well informed on climate.
If you want to advocate, you should do so to representatives that are influential in terms of their control of research budgets, etc. Also, you really need to get a group of organizations behind you. A few concerned citizens doesn't really cut it... sorry. (I'm not discouraging you, just pointing out how to be more effective.) You should also be aware that there are at least three organizations, including the Royal Society and the Tyndall Center (I believe), among others, that already have requested formally to do side sessions on geoengineering. I think there will be several well conceived and highly credible sessions on this subject-- and those involved in coordinating such sessions have a high sensitivity to just exactly how they have to position the subject matter given that the issue of emissions reduction is what is on everyone's plate. Dan On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > This is terrific support. Yes, COP15 should be the aim. I, too, feel it > as a duty. We have to get a complete change of mindset among the people who > have pushing emissions reduction to the exclusion of geoengineering. We > need a wake up call to establish the urgency of the situation - to say it is > an emergency of global proportions is not an exaggeration. It is a logical > consequence of the scientific argument, which I believe is hard to dispute. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > > Sam Carana wrote: > > 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]> > <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
