To All:
It is perhaps worthwhile to be reminded that the history of the Earth's average temperature is known from geological and proxy studies going back 450 million years. A good reference is the www.scotese.com website. In all cases an ice age was followed by an increase to about 25C which lasted for many millions of years. The current increase from an ice age at about 12 C started 10,000 years ago, long before AGHG emissions and can be counted on to increase to about 25 C. There are local in time perturbations from a monotonic increase that occur every few hundred years; for example the warming from 1000 to 1400, the Little Ice age from about 1500 to 1750 and the ongoing warming thereafter, currently enhanced and accelerated by AGHG. Thousands of such short cycles are recorded in ice core data. In not too long a time the climate will force mankind to move toward the poles or to build domed cities energized by something like thermonuclear fusion. I personally believe only geoengineering will positively impact this dire prospect. So not only could we influence the current warming using geoengineering, the experience will play an important role in developing the technology that will ultimately be implemented out of absolute necessity. I add that AGHG emissions will be ended in a few centuries simply because we run out of fossil fuels, or find substitutes, yet the warming will continue. On a personal level I am stunned that this perspective is ignored and we focus only on the current warming. -gene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Mitchell Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:14 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise Dear Emily et al., Yes, I agree that the perceived polarisation here is relatively minor. I've been following the discussion for days and it appears that our hearts and minds are largely unified with some differences in approach, which is healthy. These discussions are educational on many levels. Regarding your query about how do we move from discussion to helpful action, that process has already started if some in our group benefit from these discussions and can translate that increased awareness into action such as various writing opportunities we may be engaged with on the topic of climate engineering and/or climate change. Attitudes about climate change are severely polarized, and even within the scientific community there appears to be a lack of awareness in that even the most optimistic (and unrealistic) GHG reduction rates will probably not save us from crossing the "2 deg. C threshold" and all that implies. If that single message could become the mainstream scientific viewpoint, many things might change. Sincerely, David Mitchell Desert Research Institute Reno, Nevada USA ----- Original Message ----- From: Emily <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, July 24, 2011 15:14 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise To: [email protected] > Dear fellow listers - sorry, I had no intention of causing a stir. > > as it happens, my sense is that the perceived polarisation here > is less in reality than some might consider. I think there is a > large amount of common ground. > > I'd really benefit from a risk v benefit analysis too on each of > the possible geo engineering technologies. And fast. Due to CBD, > I think we need a good EIA before any geo-eng can take place > anyway. It's a shame this didn't happen before we accidentally > engineered (and continue to engineer) the climate in the wrong > direction... but that's another battle. > > Are risk analyses under way, or is this a new activity that > people on this group might be able to and interested in undertaking? > > It seems agreed that we face grave danger and that the time > frame is very short - and that the Earth system may have some > more surprises. > The right course of action, as ever, still seems disputed. How > to we overcome this and move from discussion and research to > scaling up field trials and helpful action? > > best wishes, > > Emily. > > > -- > 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] 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. -- 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.
