"Shouldn't CO2 reduction technologies be given a chance?" That is laughable. Who is going to give CO2 reduction technologies a chance? Where will the money come from to implement new technology on the scale needed to make a difference. Where will the consensus come from? Russia and Canada will give it lip service because they want the Arctic seaways open and they sell fossil fuels.
In any case the cries of doom and gloom from the global warming advocates especially in the absence of any credible science relating warming to CO2 levels is not going anywhere. This thing will drag on and on and Nero fiddles while the world burns. -gene -----Original Message----- From: Glyn Roberts [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:17 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Geoengineering; Oliver Tickell Subject: Re: [geo] Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering I largely agree with your logical train of arguments. Except I'm not convinced on #9 (NOW!). Given the well known risks (and unknown ones!) of SRM, shouldn't CO2 reduction technologies be given a chance? What's your evidence that applying SRM a decade from now will not be sufficient to prevent a climate catastrophe? In a decade from now SRMs may have matured & safer (on paper). best regards, Glyn On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:51 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is incredible. It is so obvious. > > 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the > concentration above its pre-industrial level; and > > 2. After emissions are stopped it could take millenia for the > concentration to fall back to that level, because the effective lifetime > of some of that excess CO2 is many thousands of years. > > Therefore: > 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will > not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. > > Therefore: > 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming > due to the albedo effect. > > Therefore: > 5. The permafrost will continue to thaw releasing increasing quantities > of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, potentially adding many degrees to > global warming; and > > 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. > > Therefore: > 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly > enough to save the Arctic sea ice; and > > 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation > management (SRM) geoengineering. > > 9. SRM is not a last resort, it is needed now to cool the Arctic. > > It is incredible that people do not seem to follow this train of logic - > it is so obvious. > > Yet when I challenged a panel of geoengineering experts to refute this > argument, the response was that geoengineering (even just to cool the > Arctic) was too dangerous - not that the argument was false! [1] > > So we continue to hear politicians and their advisers claiming that > emissions reduction alone can be sufficient to keep the planet safe. [2] > > And we continue to hear geoengineering experts saying that > geoengineering should only be used as a last resort. [3] > > How can this mindset be changed quickly, to avoid leaving geoengineering > too late? > > John > > P.S. Apologies to those who have heard this all before and accept the > logic as self-evident. > > [1] This challenge was put to the panel at the launch of the Royal > Society geoengineering report, on September 1st, with response from the > team leader and panel chairman, Professor John Shepherd. > > [2] For example at the geoengineering hearing at the House of Commons, > November 2008. > > [3] For example at the congressional hearing on geoengineering, November > 2009. > > -- > > 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=. > > > -- 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=. -- 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=.
