Just so you don't fool yourself into thinking there is a consensus, I think it is premature to start deploying a climate intervention system at scale.
I think there is potential for risk reduction through climate intervention, but it is not obvious to me that such interventions will actually reduce overall risk, especially when complex socio-political feedbacks are taken into consideration. That said, be my guest, go ahead with your sign-on letter. I think there is room for a diversity of views. Consensus is unnecessary. We are large and contain multitudes. *Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) * *-- Walt Whitman (1855) * ___________________________________________________ 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 Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Raymond, > > Thanks for your support. So far I've not had a single person arguing > against my reasoning for SRM geoengineering. So I'm beginning to think > there might be consensus - marking a tipping point in scientific thinking on > geoengineering. I'm really surprised that Alan Robock hasn't commented, > since has been so against doing anything in the immediate term. He must be > able to counter my argument - if he's convinced that it's wrong. > > BTW, I agree we should also be looking into long term solutions, so we can > see the SRM geoengineering in context, and add in the CO2 capture side as > well as all the other things that have to be done. Have you looked at > Kyoto2 from Oliver Tickell [1], or Plan B from Lester R Brown [2]? > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] http://www.kyoto2.org/ > > [2] http://www.earth-policy.org/ > > --- > > > Raymond Law wrote: > > *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]<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=.
