Dear John, And just because I ignore you does not mean I agree with you.
Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock Ken Caldeira wrote: > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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]> >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto: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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto: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=.
