Rather cynically, I'd suggest that a 'climate emergency' exists only when the outcome of the next election hinges on it.
Perhaps someone can express that in maths and squiggles to make it look more 'sciencey'. A On 19 May 2010 19:41, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Ken. > > Others might like to read bios here: > http://americasclimatechoices.org/scienceslate.shtml > > Is there any new perspective on geoengineering in the report? There is no > mention of SRM to save the Arctic sea ice! But there is a small section > discussing what constitutes an emergency: > > [quote] > *Develop metrics and methods for informing discussions and decisions > related to “climate emergencies”*. There are at least two components to > this research need. For use of SRM as a potential "back-stop option” in the > case of an emerging “climate emergency ", improved observations and > understanding of climate system thresholds, reversibility, and abrupt > changes (see Chapter 6)—for example, observations to let us know when an ice > sheet or methane hydrate field may become unstable (e.g., Khvorostyanov et > al., 2008; Shakhova et al., 2010)—could inform societal debate and decision > making about needs for deployment of a climate intervention system. Second, > there is no consensus on what constitutes a "climate emergency", nor is > there a consensus regarding when an SRM deployment might be warranted. The > notion of an "emergency" is not simply a scientific concept, but one that > involves both scientific facts and human values—quite similar to discussions > about “dangerous interference in the climate system” (e.g., Dessai et al., > 2004; Gupta and van Asselt, 2006; Hansen, 2005; Lorenzoni et al., 2005; > Oppenheimer, 2005; Smith et al., 2009). To some people, losing Arctic > ecosystems constitutes a climate emergency, whereas to others the > declaration of an “emergency” might require widespread loss of human life. > Therefore, to inform a broader discussion of how society wants to address > issues of risk, climate intervention cannot be studied in isolation but must > be placed in a broader context considering, for example, drivers of climate > change, climate consequences, socio-political systems, and human values. > > [end quote] > > So, Ken, what do you think constitutes a climate emergency to justify SRM? > How much loss of Arctic sea ice? How much risk from methane release? How > much risk of sea level rise from Greenland ice sheet disintegration? Can > SRM ever be justified on the precautionary principle - and if not why not? > What is proper risk management? What calculations are needed to justify > geoengineering rather than further delay? > > 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]<geoengineering%[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.
