John If it is to impact on policy -- I guess policy-makers are the intended audience but how to get the message to them is another question -- it is important to realise there are quite likely a fair number of deniers out there. It is no good just saying [or implying] they are wrong since confrontation is not good conflict resolution. I think the "simple argument" should be put in terms of risk managemnent. We may be wrong but the cost of failing to act, if we are right, is catastrophic whereas the cost of being needlessly prepared, if we are wrong, is trivial. e.g. a.. Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the stratosphere b.. Designing and testing delivery systems c.. Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of them d.. Training pilots or rocket engineers e.. Other things that experts can doubtless think of f.. And building and testing a few Salter ships All peanuts.
Risk management also bears on how scientifically certain we are. We should aim to achieve policy-maker recognition of the Art 3.3 commitment to cost-effective precautionary action in the absence of full scientific certainty. So we don't need to be certain that the ice-sheet will definitely become unstable. And Kyoto style emissions reductions are not only ineffective but also high cost compared with many carbon removals options. The only way to get scaleable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the fuel and then prograssively substitute biomass for fossil fuel. Yes, there are low hanging fruit in the efficiency and ambient energy directions but they don't scale up because of the intermittant nature of the supply or the difficulty of persuading busy people to think about complicated technologies that impact on a small portion of the household budget. Defossilization is easy (low cost) and can be done in a few decades, decarbonization is hard (costly) and would take a century, replacing most of the existing energy sector capital stock. If you want it, I would be happy to contribute to the honed message that Ken proposes Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Caldeira To: [email protected] Cc: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [geo] A simple argument for SRM geoengineering, again. 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]> 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=. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.75/2516 - Release Date: 11/20/09 19:43:00 -- 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=.
