John, In my experience, the best way to develop a broad sign-on letter is for someone to write a first draft, and then assemble a small core group to carefully hone the message, and then send it out to a broader group with a simple yes/no offer to sign on (unless some egregious or easily corrected error is found at a later date).
It is helpful to have in mind an audience and a purpose for the letter. There is no need to attempt a consensus among everyone. Best, Ken PS. As it stands, I think some of your statements might be stronger than can be supported by the scientific literature. For example, Tom Wigley's simulations indicate that cutting emissions to zero instantaneously will bring cooling within decades. (If I remember them correctly.) But is it relevant if there is no way that plausible emissions reductions could bring cooling this century? You might strengthen your case if you used words like "threatens" or "risks" rather than deterministic language. While we risk instability of the Greenland ice sheet, can we really affirm that it definitely will become unstable? While we risk methane fluxes from melting Siberian permafrost, can we predict the methane fluxes with confidence? ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected]; [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> 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.>> 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 <[email protected]> > <[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]<geoengineering%[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=.
