Hi Alvia,
I said: "we are now in a desperate situation calling for emergency action".
You dispute this. Thanks for your honest opinion about the gravity, or
otherwise, of the situation as you see it. But isn't your opinion
rather wishful thinking?
I have not predicted the end of the world each year (as you assert), but
the most likely date for disappearance of Arctic sea ice and the
consequences on methane release. This game is rather like Russian
roulette: the danger is still there even if the bullet didn't get you
one year, it could get you the next. Each year you have to make a fresh
estimate of what is going to happen based on the latest evidence. The
evidence from sea ice _extent_ suggested that one only needed perhaps
two years like 2007 to lose the sea ice. That is why you can view the
situation like Russian roulette. On the other hand, if you look at the
sea ice _volume_ as modelled by PIOMAS [1], you can see there is a
steady trend towards zero this decade; and if you also assume a curving
of the trend line due to positive feedback in the system, you can see a
trend towards around 2015 as the most likely date of zero or near-zero
ice at end summer. On top of that you've got the natural variability
(the Russian roulette aspect), which gives 2012 a significant
probability for zero or near-zero ice at end summer: a probability of a
few per cent perhaps.
Once the sea ice is gone at end summer, it is liable to disappear
earlier and earlier each summer. So the albedo feedback continues -
accelerating the warming of the Arctic. The permafrost will be melting
faster and faster. The East Siberian shallow sea will be warming faster
and faster. Inevitably the methane will be released in ever-increasing
quantities. And then this will become self-generating, as the local
greenhouse gas warming effect feeds back to heat the ground and sea.
There is an absolute inevitability about all this - although it may take
more than twenty years before the global warming effect of methane
swamps the effect of anthropogenic CO2.
The only way to stop this chain of events is by geoengineering. And the
sooner we do it, the more likely we are to succeed. That is common
sense, isn't it?
And if we delay our geoengineering now, we'll have to do much more
drastic geoengineering later. That is inevitable, isn't it?
With a significant chance of sea ice disappearance in summer 2012, and
pucker geoengineering techniques (like Stephen Salter's cloud
brightening) not ready for deployment for several years, we have much
less than 100% chance of success (i.e. saving humanity), even if we
geoengineer "with the intensity of the Manhattan project" as requested
to John Holdren last year [2].
So I am now seeking ideas for a "holding techniques", which can help to
slow the retreat while we get pucker techniques ready for deployment as
quickly as possible. This like dampening a fire, while you prepare
methods to put it out. Or like cooling the Fukushima reactor
containment vessels from outside while mending the cooling system as
quickly as possible.
Except we are talking about something far more serious than the
Fukushima disaster. The meltdown in the Arctic can release enough
methane to raise global temperature more than human civilisation could
survive, whereas the worst-case scenario at Fukushima would be unlikely
to lead to more deaths than there were from Chernobyl.
I don't want my children to suffer curtailed lives, because we failed to
act in time. I don't want anybody to suffer because we failed to act in
time. This is the danger that I see. That is why I think we should
consider this a "desperate situation calling for emergency action".
I don't know any other way to get people to listen to me, other than by
confronting them with the truth of the situation, as honestly as I can.
What would persuade _you_ to believe me?
Best wishes,
John
P.S. The copy of my email addressed to Mike MacCracken (see below)
bounced, so I hope he'll pick this up from the geoengineering list.
[1]
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
[2]
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/131d45be429d5be6/80c761cbec3b35b6
---
On 16/04/2011 18:33, Alvia Gaskill wrote:
1. [snip]
2. We are also not in a "desperate situation calling for emergency
action." That would apply to the Fukushima nuclear plant, not to
global warming. I saw myself on TV again this morning on the Best
Evidence program Chemical Contrails, this time on the Green Channel.
I said that I though we had perhaps 20 years before global warming's
worst impacts began to be noticed by most everyone. That was in
2007. I'll stick to that forecast for the time being. But I would
agree that some rapid changes in the Arctic either on land or in the
ocean would require a re-thinking of the timetable. I do agree that
we should emply these technologies as soon as they can be effectively
used to limit warming and the potential of a disaster. Your problem
(Nissen) is that you predict the end of the world every year and then
when it doesn't happen, you predict the end of the world the next
year, etc. If you do this for a long enough period of time, you may
eventually be proven correct. But short term, that's not a good way
to get people to listen to you.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* John Nissen <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Mike MacCracken <mailto:%[email protected]>
*Cc:* John Gorman <mailto:[email protected]> ; Alvia Gaskill
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Colin Baglin
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Mark Massmann
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Sam Carana
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Emily <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:47
*Subject:* Fwd: geoengineering in the current emergency
Hi Mike,
I received this from Colin Baglin on Thursday. It seems to be one
of many proposals along similar lines, capable of rapid
implementation as a short term measure.
We are now in a desperate situation calling for emergency action.
In view of the speed of retreat of sea ice - with most likely date
for little or no ice at end summer now around 2015 (if you
extrapolate graph in [1] as a downward curve), and 2012 probably
within the 95% confidence interval [2] - we do have to be thinking
of geoengineering "emergency holding measures" to try and slow the
retreat while we prepare to deploy techniques like cloud
brightening which could halt the retreat.
Was there anything out of the Asilomar conference which would be a
suitable measure for implementation within weeks or months, to
start having an effect in the Arctic this year? I know John
Gorman has a proposal for aircraft dispersal which doesn't involve
sulphur compounds. Another idea is to use liquid air (LAIR), from
Mark Massmann et al, but I don't think there has been any
experimentation yet.
Cheers,
John
[1]
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
(BTW, I have argued that we should be taking a lognormal
distribution, which would make 2012 more likely since the
distribution is skewed towards the nearer dates.)
---
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: geoengineering
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:18:14 +0000
From: colin john baglin <[email protected]>
To: john nissen <[email protected]>
Hi John,
There are, I believe, a number of constraints preventing
governments (especially ours) taking geoeng. seriously. To effect
a shift in policy it will be necessary to remove, or at least
weaken, all of them. A short list might be:
1. They believe that emissions reduction will do the trick [1].
2. They do not believe that methane release is an urgent problem.
The Hadley centre do not expect an ice free Arctic at the end
of Summer until beyond mid century [2].
3. They have been conditioned to view geoeng., and especially
adding sulphate to the atmosphere, as the "big fix" to be used
only when a 2ºC temp rise is imminent [3,4].
4. They see geoeng. as detracting from emission reduction [5].
5. As a result of 3 and 4 above they claim that geoeg. presents
a serious risk of adversely affecting weather patterns and will
result in a sudden and large temperature increase if the system
should fail [3,4].
6. They will not move without substantial international agreement.
7. Reports on geoeng. to date have been at a concept level. To be
convinced of the need, practicality, safety, benefit, timescale.
tec. they would need to see concrete engineering proposals.
8. It will be necessary to rebut the predictions of Hadley and the
objections likely to come from iagp [6,7].
Perhaps there will be little hope of changing minds in the near
future without substantial authoritative arguments addressing all
of these.
The letter to Chris Huhne addresses 2 above, and by implication 1
above.
I have recently scribbled an outline design requirements spec for
sulphate dosing which addresses 7 above and, in part, 5 above. It
is however incomplete and too sketchy. See attachment. It needs
the weight of some substantial figures in the engineering world.
[1]. www.unep.org/publicaions/emissionsgapreport
<http://www.unep.org/publicaions/emissionsgapreport> - chapt. 5
[2]. Letter from P. Tucker, DECC to me 8 Aprill 2011.
[3]. The Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate. Sept. 2009.
[4]. DECC. Geoengineering Options for MItigating Climate Change.
April 2009.
[5]. Letter from defra to me 17 Aug. 2009.
[6]. ".....observed Arctic sea ice decline is consistent with the
projections of the Hadley Centre Climate Model. Disappearance of
Summertime Arctic sea ice is unlikely until around mid century on
current projections." - statement from [2] above.
[7]. www.iagp.ac.uk <http://www.iagp.ac.uk/>
--
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.
