Re: [geo] Re: A simple argument for SRM geoengineering, again.

[John Nissen]

Hi all, I am afraid that we have lost one of the wisest of members of our group.  I am copying two of Peter Read's last postings before he died.  I think he was as concerned as anybody for the future of the planet, although he knew he was leaving it soon.  Here he is suggesting some practical things to do immediately for the Arctic, especially to protect the Greenland ice sheet. --- [quote 1] 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 management.  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. Stocking sulphur at places where it can be lifted to the stratosphere Designing and testing delivery systems Sorting the logistics for mass producing rockets or aircraft or whatever is to be used; and building an initial fleet of them Training pilots or rocket engineers Other things that experts can doubtless think of 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 scalable low cost emissions reductions is the grow the fuel and then progressively 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 intermittent 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 --- [quote 2] I used sulphate as an example because my understanding is that this is the only SRM technology that we are confident would work.  I think your interesting recent paper confirms that view, although it mentions a number of other technologies that look very interesting.   I much prefer Salter's ships but we don't yet know if they work - or if they would work better as bubble machines not spray machines   But if there are any proven non-sulphate technologies available I would like to see the preparations for deployment in hand with supply logistics etc sorted out   And I would like to see some vessels out there NOW putting down a few square miles of plastic to float on the surface and see whether the icepack that forms on top of it this winter lasts longer come summer.  The Alaskan Inuits would welcome it I suspect.  Or maybe the ice forms by freezing the ocean surface, and not by accumulated snowfall, so the plastic would result in less ice not more.  Maybe wait for the ice to form and then inject plastic through the ice to spread out underneath.  We need to suck it and see. If Russia and Canada want navigation channels it should not be difficult to keep them open in summer given the warmer ocean waters.  Just put the plastic down where you want the sea ice, and not where you don't.    But these speculations should not detract from the risk management perspective that reveals an urgent need to be able to deploy a proven technology quickly, if/when the situation calls for it   Peter   [end quote] Does anybody disagree with any of this?  Can we use it as a basis for a plan for immediate action? John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.