John - Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I think I can speak for quite a few others in the "Biochar tribe" when I offer below some comments on what you have written. I do wholeheartedly agree with the thrust that we are not doing enough today.
John Nissen wrote: > > 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. *[RWL1: Although "largely" > > is correct, I think you opening statement should include all GHGs (and land > > disturbances - mainly because they all (??) have shorter lifetimes than > > CO2, and are probably mostly cheaper.]* > > > 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. *[RWL2: I'd > > change "could" to "will", and drop "effective" and "some of".* > > > > Therefore: > > 3. Drastic emissions reduction, even to zero overnight, cannot and will > > not stop the Arctic continuing to warm for decades. *[RWL3: I'd > > rephrase to read: "Even total elimination of all GHG emissions will not > > stop the Earth, and especially the polar regions, from continuing to warm > > for decades." (Emphasizing all causes of warming again - as in #1, and > > trying to show the bigger impacts at the poles (both). > >* > > Therefore: > > 4. The Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat, accelerating the warming > > due to the albedo effect. *[RWL4: Probably OK, but I worry as much about > > thinning (melting from below and above both due to temperature changes - > > not just albedo. Greenland and the Antarctic ice are disappearing for more > > than albedo reasons.]* > > > > 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 *[RWL5: I'd replace "potentially adding many degrees > > to" to "adding to"]* > > > > 6. The Greenland ice sheet will become increasingly unstable, > > potentially contributing to an eventual sea level rise of 7 metres. > > *[RWL6: I'd add Antarctica and be less specific on the exact level of sea > > rise; I'd drop "potentially".]* > > > > Therefore: > > 7. To avoid these two catastrophes, we need to cool the Arctic quickly > > enough to save the Arctic sea ice. *[RWL7: I'd continue talking about > > both poles. Don't think you need the last clause - this whole series is > > all about ice.* > > > > 8. Probably the only feasible way to do this is through solar radiation > > management (SRM) geoengineering. *[RWL8: My main negative reaction is > > on this sentence. "Probably" is weak. I personally believe***, as a > > Biochar supporter,*** that a more sure way to solve all our AGW problems is > > to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Albedo is hugely important, but I need > > to hear more about the exact "SRM" technique you are proposing. Albedo or > > reduced input? Mirrors or SO2? Reversible? Whose ox might get gored?)* > > > > 9. SRM is not to be left as a last resort; it is needed now to cool the > > Arctic. *[RWL: With some changes that included CO2 removal and was more > > specific on the exact SRM technique being proposed, I might be able to > > sign. I think I may be demonstrating why Alan Robock said what he did. > > Hope you see something useful above. Ron* > --- > > Cheers, > > John > > --- <snip rest> -- 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=.
