[geo] A simple argument for SRM geoengineering, again.

[John Nissen]

Hi Jim, I want to follow up on your email of 15th November. So far, nobody has challenged the logic of my argument.  So we all seem to be in agreement!  It's not what we'd like to believe, but the conclusion is clear. Why are most academics among us so reticent?  Jim Hansen has noticed this too.  When the outlook is bad, nobody wants to be the messenger.  So why don't we have a manifesto, which people can sign up to?  When I originally suggested this, Alan Robock flatly rejected the idea that we had any agreement in the group. So I put out the challenge again.  Does anybody disagree with my simple argument for SRM geoengineering?  I'll repeat it: --- > 1. Global warming is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 according to the > concentration above its pre-industrial level. > > 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. > > 8.  Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation > management (SRM) geoengineering. > > 9.  SRM is not to be left as a last resort; it is needed now to cool the Arctic. --- Cheers, John --- jim woolridge wrote: Nice one, John; the train of argument is clear (of limpid clarity, in fact!) The problem is that the people and institutions addressed are in the business of politics, the art of the possible, rather than in the business of logical evaluation. They hear what you are saying and must see the validity of it. But politically what is true and what is doable do not always coincide, as we all know from as many examples as one cares to ennumerate. We have to keep hammering away at the arguments, to the point at which they are generally understood and accepted, and also keep on politicking in the sure and certain hope that eventually the acceptance of the arguments and the cowardice/caution/horse sense/ opportunistic careerism of the politicos will achieve the right kind of intersection. In the next year or so (& wouldn't it be a great help to have the environmental NGOs on board.) On Nov 12, 10:51 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.