*Hi John,* I have said that your train of logic is just what we would be needing today. Go for your *manifesto,* I am all for it !
We have been talking about long term solutions for too long, let's act on the immediate term solution from *John * -- this might even buy us time to come up with a set of really good long term solutions, too. All the best, *Raymond Law * On 11/21/09, 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=.
