Hi Neil,
Thanks for your support. I think such a research foundation would be
welcome. But, as I've said on a thread started by Ken, research is not
enough. Time is running out for deployment of SRM to save the Arctic.
There still seems to be some lingering doubt about the severity of the
situation. I'm just been reading "The Copenhagen Diagnosis" [1], an
update of IPCC on the "latest climate science", prior to Copenhagen.
This report does not even mention geoengineering or climate
intervention. However it does discuss the situation in the Arctic.
METHANE
"Few studies with AR4-type climate models have been undertaken. One
systematic study used the Community Climate System Model, version 3
(CCSM3) with explicit treatment of frozen soil processes. The simulated
reduction in permafrost reached 40% by ~2030 irrespective of emission
scenario (a reduction from ~10 million km2 to 6 million km2). By 2050,
this reduces to 4 million km2 (under B1 emissions) and 3.5 million km2
(under A2 emissions). Permafrost declines to ~1 million km2 by 2100
under A2. In each case, the simulations did not include additional
feedbacks triggered by the collapse of permafrost including out-gassing
of methane, a northward expansion of shrubs and forests and the
activation of the soil carbon pool. These would each further amplify
warming."
So the melting of permafrost is not affected by emissions reduction.
Surprise, surprise. The feedbacks they ignore rather invalidates the
40% reduction in permafrost - itself quite a danger. Have they taken
into account Arctic warming, if the sea ice disappears? David
Lawrence, an expert on permafrost, considers that the permafrost will
inevitably melt away if the sea ice disappears. So I am not reassured
at all by what they say. And their conclusion is very suspect, even
contradictory (as 40% reduction in permafrost would surely release
methane):
❏ A separate and significant source of methane exists as hydrates
beneath the deep ocean floor and in permafrost. It has recently been
concluded that release of this type of methane is very unlikely to
occur this century.
GREENLAND ICE SHEET
Note the astonishing melt in 2007, which coincided with flooding in the
UK. I wonder whether this is happening again! We've just had the
highest rainfall ever recorded in Cumbria.
Also note the low melt in 1992, which coincided with Mount Pinato
eruption and sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. This bodes well for
SRM geoengineering to work successfully, so long as we don't leave it
too late.
Again I suspect that they haven't taken into account the possibility of
sea ice disappearance. Their conclusion is hardly reassuring.
"Although it is unlikely that total sea level rise by 2100 will be as
high as 2 meters (Pfeffer et al. 2008), the probable upper limit of a
contribution from the ice sheets remains uncertain."
ARCTIC SEA ICE
Their conclusion is staggering, considering that only recently they
were saying that emissions reductions could save the Arctic sea ice.
❏ The warming commitment associated with existing atmospheric
greenhouse gas levels means it is very likely that in the coming
decades the summer Arctic Ocean will become ice-free, although the
precise timing of this remains uncertain.
They accept the first part of my "simple argument for SRM
geoengineering" (that emissions reductions alone cannot save the Arctic
sea ice), but choose to ignore the consequences of sea ice
disappearance. Surely these consequences are so dangerous that we've
got to save the Arctic sea ice at any cost. That is the conclusion of
my argument, that nobody has yet disputed!
Cheers,
John
[1] http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/download/default.html
---
Neil Farbstein wrote:
I agree you have made an excellent case to research geoengineering
methods. I'm still planning to start a nonprofit research foundation
devoted to find strategies for dealing with climate change and to find
ways to modify the climate so as to mitigate greenhouse warming and to
stop a runaway greenhouse effect.
On Nov 24, 12:47 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jim,
The essential conclusion from the "simple argument", is that geoengineering is urgently needed to cool the Arctic and save the Arctic sea ice. I have had no counter argument against this conclusion, from any of the experts on this list. I'm still waiting! THE CHALLENGE REMAINS.
In my view, the greatest danger to us all (and I mean all of us) is leaving the geoengineering deployment too late. Positive feedbacks are building up in the Arctic. The sea ice could suddenly melt away one summer. There is no certainty about effectiveness of the various techniques, given the lack of engineering and field experimentation. Therefore delaying tactics could be absolutely fatal. We've delayed too long already.
Cheers,
John
---
jim woolridge wrote:Granted, it is the key takeaway and of course more research is needed-- am assuming 'research' here includes 'demonstration and development' and that all three categories include the caveat a.s.a.p. ('as soon as possible' in case initials not known.) As we know unauthorised research was carried out recently with regard to ocean iron fertilisation, it is crucially important that a proper international framework is put in place so that the necessary next steps can be taken in a coherent and transparent fashion--and, of course, it looks as though the US and UK are making the right kind of moves in that direction. But our real area of disagreement is not over the necessity for further research but rather over the urgency of that need. It is only to be expected that there will be a variance of views on what is, after all, a matter of judgement. For me the sooner we get beyond funding and research courtesy of the Discovery Channel the better--and major thanks t
o Discovery, BTW--without them were would we be? On Nov 23, 9:02 pm, Dan Whaley<[email protected]>wrote:Jim-- I think this is the key takeaway from Kelly's note, which seems patently obvious to me. "Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high- risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge." Dan On Nov 23, 12:30 pm, jim woolridge<[email protected]>wrote:'...at some point within the next few decades...': Kelly, we have had a scant 2 decades of major concern and political activism re climate change; in that time things have moved rather more rapidly than anyon
e anticipated and show no signs of slowing down. The concern that many of us have is that we no longer have the luxury of decades in which to ruminate about 'will we or won't we?' Could you be more specific about the premises which are not confirmed and in what way the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them?On Nov 23, 1:41 am, Kelly Wanser<[email protected]>wrote:The premises of the simple argument for SRM geoengineering are not all confirmed, and the conclusions drawn do not clearly result from them. Your case for when to geoengineer (e.g. now), what type of geoengineering to do (e.g. stratospheric particles) and whether the benefits outweigh the risks is based on a number of assumptions and, where evidence is scant, is likely to give rise to (justifiable) skepticism and controversy.An alternative way to think about it is that climate change has a risk curve that we are
traversing (and still trying to project accurately) and geoengineering (here referring to SRM) has a risk curve about which we know relatively little, including very little for specific methods.Our hypothesis today might be that, given what we know about the risk forecast for overall climate change, at some point, the curves will intersect where the risk of geoengineering may become lower than the risk of not doing so. To determine when, and to influence both curves, we require extensive research. We need research both to understand the relative risks, and to reduce them. We need research to know if, when and how we would ever use geoengineering, including knowing whether there may be no circumstances under which we would do so. We need research to know whether and how we may already be inadvertently geoengineering, and how to know if anyone, anywhere is geoengineering actively. And, if it is possible that the perceived or actual risk of climate change could exce
ed the perceived or actual risk of geoengineering at a point in the near future, this research becomes rather urgent.A simple case for geoengineering research can be soundly drawn from the facts of our situation. Research is required to understand whether we would ever use geoengineering, when the benefits would outweigh the risks of doing so and what methods and approaches to geoengineering may ever be viable components of managing climate change (even temporarily). Such research is the pre-cursor to any effort to geoengineer anyway, so it is both a solid argument and a reasonable way to advance to the next relevant set of activities without damaging credibility or raising alarm bells associated with advocating an exceptionally high-risk activity in the absence of a strong foundation of knowledge.A Simple Case for Geoengineering Research:1. Climate change incurs substantial risk of future loss of life, property, ecosystems, population centers, industries and human well
being.2. Evidence strongly suggests that this risk is increasing, and may accelerate rapidly at various points in the future, toward catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of many parts of the world.3. There is a possibility that some forms of geoengineering, used independently or jointly, may reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change.4. Every form of geoengineering has risks, about which we know relatively little, and, based on what we do know, some of those risks may be very large.5. We have inadequate knowledge about the feasibility, risks and benefits of any form of geoengineering: - We do not know whether any methods or combination of methods can feasibly reduce overall climate risk - We do not know their risks, benefits and optimum method of utilization - We do not currently have the technology, or know how to implement, monitor or manage them6. We hypothesize that, as climate change proceeds as currently forecast, at some point within the next few decades the
risks of geoengineering may be perceived by some to be lower than the risks of not doing so, and a country, group or other party may attempt to geoengineer the climate.7. We can say with some degree of certainty that research lowers the risks of geoengineering, so that if any party were ever to geoengineer at some point in the future, research would be an extremely sound investment to understand and reduce this risk.8. Independently of any case for actively geoengineering in an attempt to reduce catastrophic outcomes, research in geoengineering requires both granular understanding of climate phenomena that we lack currently, and yields understanding of the unintentional geoengineering (man-made effects) that we are currently producing...
read more »
--
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=en.
--
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=en.
|
