What is the risk of catastrophe? Many will argue that, even if the best proposals currently being negotiated in Copenhagen would be implemented, it's virtually certain that we're facing catastrophic droughts, wildfires, flooding, extinction of species, etc. Most worrying is the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect.
Let there be no doubt that scientists acknowledge the risks. As far back as at least 1991, the possibility of runaway greenhouse effect was recognized by climatologists. In December 1991, Greenpeace asked 400 climate scientists if they thought the greenhouse effect might reach the point of no return in the near future. Of the 113 scientists who returned their questionnaires, almost half thought a runaway greenhouse effect is possible, and 13 per cent thought it probable. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318081.600 Extensive research has been done by James Hansen, who said in an AGU lecture on December 17, 2008: Now the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. Given the solar constant that we have today, how large a forcing must be maintained to cause runaway global warming? Our model blows up before the oceans boil, but it suggests that perhaps runaway conditions could occur with added forcing as small as 10-20 W/m2. There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time. What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor. There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record. In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty. http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf In conclusion, there is significant scientific warning that the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect shouldn't be ignored. What is lacking is the political resolve to accept that - as a minimum - research is required into ways to act on the dangers ahead. Such research should not only focus on the technical aspects of reducing greenhouse gases and reflecting more sunlight, but should also look at political issues, the preparation of an action plan, escalation procedures, etc. . I would like to see research that differs from most previous research in that it: - focuses on the effectiveness of action, rather than on questioning whether climate change was taking place; - takes a multi-disciplinary approach, rather than to approach issues from a single specialism; - takes into account wide impacts and context, as opposed to research done in ivory towers with isolated lab conditions; - is open, to allow the public insight in progress, as opposed to research that is hidden to secure economic gain; - can take on board issues as they come along, as opposed to predetermined research that focuses on a single outcome. Cheers, Sam Carana On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:08 AM, William Fulkerson <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear John Nissen: > How important is it to avoid loosing summer sea ice in the Arctic? The bads > from it include: positive feedback on warming due to albedo lowering and > increased input of GHG emissions from permafrost melting and hydrate > decomposition causing some acceleration of the impact of warming on the > Greenland ice sheet, damage to ecosystems (including iconic species) and > social systems, possible harmful impact on northern latitude weather > patterns, and perhaps others that I don’t know about. There are some goods > to like the Northwest passage I suppose. To your knowledge has anyone or > any group tried to quantify these bads or do a rough cost/benefit analysis. > One important part of your arguments, with which I am in agreement, is that > the bads are pretty bad, and, therefore, there is an urgency to do > something. If that can be shown unequivocally, then it argues for finding > out if some form of SRM can reduce the bads; i.e. Initiating an urgent, > focused and comprehensive RD&D program. Perhaps the first step in the > program is to do the cost/benefit as best it can be done. > With best regards, > Bill > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > [email protected] > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 > - > > > On 12/11/09 11:18 AM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > I'll deal first with John's case from the "back of the envelope" > calculation, and then with the scientific reticence. > > The case is even stronger than John Gorman has put it. Even if emissions > were stopped overnight, the mean annual temperature in the Arctic would > continue to rise, and with an acceleration, due to the positive feedback of > the sea ice - as ice (with high albedo) melts it gives way to open water > (with low albedo) which absorbs most of the sunlight. This albedo effect is > thought to be part of the basic mechanism of polar amplification. > > Now for the scientific reticence. > > It's not quite the entire scientific community who are reticent. There are > some good folks on this list who have stood out for geoengineering, David > Keith for one. He gave an excellent presentation on geoengineering, at the > Royal Geographical Society, here in London. He pointed out the ginormous > quantity of CO2 mankind had dumped in the atmosphere, and he pointed out > that some of this CO2 would last thousands of years - worse than nuclear > waste! It was quite clear that the associated global warming would last a > time longer than the Arctic sea ice. > > The fear that academics have of their own peers is quite understandable. > Paul Crutzen had enormous difficulty in publishing his seminal paper on > geoengineering with stratospheric sulphate - and then received a lot of > flack from colleagues after it was published - so much flack that he seems > to have retired from the scene. > > The other fear, which is more forgiveable, is that academics, and scientific > advisers generally, didn't want to disrupt the Copenhagen process. They have > strained every ounce of intellect to persuade the politicians to get the > best possible deal at Copenhagen. This has meant that government advisers > (like ex-IPCC Bob Watson in the UK) who perfectly understand the dangers of > Arctic sea ice, have been telling the government that cutting emissions is > the top priority. What the advisers have not acknowledged is the speed of > retreat of the sea ice - that is until their "Copenhagen Diagnosis" report > [1]. The sea ice summer extent has been 40% below the IPCC models > predictions for three years in a row! So the summer sea ice is now expected > disappear by 2040 - and there is the possibility of it disappearing end > summer within a few years, especially because of the natural variability of > Arctic weather. The sea ice is indeed the "elephant in the room". > > However now that the politicians seem committed to obtaining good Copenhagen > results, we could see everything change, and scientists will point out that, > not only do we have to reduce emissions, but we have to do other things to > save the planet. It is already accepted by some leading climate scientists, > such as Jim Hansen, that geoengineering will be required to suck CO2 out of > the atmosphere. It must also be accepted that SRM geoengineering is needed > to save the Arctic sea ice - since nobody can dispute the argument. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > [1] http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/ > > --- > > Hawkins, Dave wrote: > > Come on folks. There is no reason to dismiss the entire scientific > community as afraid to publish a paper due to concerns about political > correctness or impact on careers. I don't buy this slur on an entire > profession. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Gorman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:33 AM > To: Hawkins, Dave; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but > geoengineering? > > this is a case where the correct answer is that "there isnt any peer > reviewed reference because it wouldnt be politically correct to say it > and to do so would be to risk ones career" > However the back of an envelope calculation is simple; The area of sea > ice has halved in little more than a decade. Whatever scenario one > takes it will be gone in 30,40,50 years. Even with no further emissions > from today the CO2 will stay at 380 and the temperature in the arctic > will stay at 3 or 4 deg C above 50 years ago. The sea ice will continue > to melt. With any conceivable emissions limitation scenario it will be > gone much sooner. > > This is partly why I included that quote from Schumaker in my submission > to the parliamentary committee. All this talk of tree rings, computers, > models etc is just stopping us from recognising the obvious. > Vick Pope would say " can you prove that this will happen?" no of course > i cant. Its in the future. > > john Gorman > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> ; > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but > geoengineering? > > > Hi John, > In your note you say, "The undisputed fact that emissions reduction > cannot save the Arctic sea ice, at its current rate of retreat..." > Can you provide a reference or two that reaches this conclusion? > (I'm not asking to dispute what you say but would like to see what you > have in mind as support for the proposition.) > Thanks > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > > > > <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Thu Dec 10 16:46:31 2009 > Subject: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? > > > Hi all, > > Two excellent programmes on the environment and mankind's impact: > > David Attenborough: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_ > People_Can_Live_on_Planet_Earth/ > > Iain Stewart: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jf6md/Hot_Planet/ > > Unfortunately, although Iain had sympathetic mention of Klaus > Lackner's > artificial trees, solar radiation management was represented by > sulphur > being fired into the stratosphere by guns - mention of ozone > disruption > - and the programme ended with punch line "geoengineering is too > expensive and too dangerous". This was an unwarranted dismissal of > the > technology with probably the best chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. > The undisputed fact that emissions reduction cannot save the Arctic > sea > ice, at its current rate of retreat, was not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > John -- 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.
