Dear David and Michael (and et al.)‹I too think a formulation based on climate risk and the set of possible options make most sense, and David may recall that that was how I tried to frame the discussion in my introduction to the geoengineering symposium in Melbourne at the IUGG General Assembly. To sort of summarize the situation (and I use units of mass of C, not CO2), very roughly (others can do this all quantitatively with lost of scenarios, but this sort of sets the issue out a bit more simply, and I think is close):
1. Situation faced if trends continue (so roughly a central fossil fuel estimate with few controls on emissions; including ongoing deforestation adds a bit more): Per capita global emissions of CO2 rover the 21st century rise to the present European average and continue a bit after (more reliance on coal would mean less useful energy from emissions of given amount). So, say an average of 3 tons of C/capita for 9 billion people gives emissions over century of 2700 GtC by 2100. Divide by 4 (roughly) to get ppm increase in CO2 concentration (and uptake of CO2 could go down, so divisor would be less) and one ends up with atmospheric concentration at 1000 ppm and rising significantly after 2100. So, very significant temperature increase. 2. Aggressive mitigation (so collectively: conservation, efficiency, alternative sources of energy, ending deforestation, etc.): Keeping the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm in 2100 requires C emissions over the century be less than roughly (550-380 ppm) times 4, or about 640 GtC. Emissions in the year 2000 were roughly this, so keeping the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm (so CO2 doubling) means annual global emissions over the 21st century have to average about the emissions in the year 2000 when global per capita emissions were close to 1 ton of C per person per year, and then emissions have to be down 80+% or so after 2100. And this while the population is going from about 6.5B to 9-10B and the standard of living is rising. In addition, deforestation would need to be stopped. Achieving this would be quite an achievement‹but it still equates to a global temperature increase of, say 2.5C or so above preindustrial and more if one counts the other species contributions (which needs to be done as SO2 emissions, and so sulfate loading and its cooling influence, go down). And we would be far above the 450 ppm that is likely maximum to avoid serious impacts form ocean acidification. [I should note that it would be great if this could do better than keep the CO2 concentration from exceeding 550 ppm, but that should perhaps be the norm that we aim for and indicate if we are ahead or behind on this‹without this much effectiveness, it is hard to imagine that the other steps below could really make up for failing to do this, especially if post 2100 emissions are not really low.] 3. Reducing the concentrations of relatively short-lived gases (CH4, tropospheric ozone, HFCs, etc.) and of black carbon (to extent not offset by reductions in associated light colored aerosols) can perhaps reduce the temperature increase by up to say 0.5 C (see UNEP-WMO assessment). Very helpful, but the temperature increase is still likely over 2 C (so perhaps still significant chance of exceeding some thresholds, like permafrost thawing and Greenland ice sheet melting, etc.) and no real help on ocean acidification. 4. Adaptation‹There needs to be more exploration of where the limits are to adaptation without really significant impacts. Some say 2 C, others would say less, even 0.5 C if the 350 ppm CO2 value is the one to be aiming for. What is clear is that already at 0.8 C we are seeing some quite troubling trends and very serious consequences for those in particular regions (e.g., the Arctic). 5. Pulling C from atmosphere: There are some potentially inexpensive options, like reforestation and afforestation, perhaps iron fertilization, and maybe biochar that might be able to pull, say, as much as 200 GtC from the atmosphere, which ends up being 50 ppm equivalent, so maybe we are at 500 ppm (and if mitigation is less effective, we are higher). Whether industrial C removal (over and above capture at power plants) becomes practical at some reasonable level is still to be determined. Even if it matches the potential inexpensive options, the concentration is still at 450 ppm (and likely higher if mitigation can¹t be done). 6. Regional climate engineering: There may be some potential (all still to be determined) to moderate some regional impacts, like Arctic warming (with spillover potential net benefits to mid latitudes), limited shifts in storm tracks, etc. to help us get by at 450-500 ppm impacts. This also may include some regional ocean buffering, etc. Capacity here would very likely be limited and useful only to get through a hump in impacts if the other steps are effective. Some, but perhaps manageable governance complications. 7. Global SRM: There are two general classes of implementation: (a) wait until very significant changes are already underway and take actions for a significant global intervention to pull the climate back away from the brink (and it is not clear it is really possible to reverse major ice sheet loss of mass once that gets started, etc.); or (b) starting early and implementing at gradually increasing rate, seeking, for example, to limit further change and thus avoid the onset of rapid and dangerous change. Both options likely have very large governance and intergenerational aspects, to just name a few points. 8. Suffering (what happens to environment and society when everything else had been considered‹and one may do more of one and less of another, etc.--so whatever mix one wants to consider)‹meaning discomfort (like this summer in some regions), relocation/environmental refugees, disruption, major losses of life and environmental extinctions, etc. IPCC results cover this basically omitting steps 5-7 and with a lot of uncertainty about step 4, and suffering ends up being very significant, even if the baseline case is a bit overstated above‹even so, however, getting to step 2 is going to be a significant challenge without much more effort that is now being exerted by nations of the world. Basically, the notion of risk management is minimizing step 8 in an optimal manner, and what one might hope to keep track of is what is happening in each of the various steps along the way‹are the signs positive or negative. It might be interesting to figure out some sort of graphical indicator to show the relative level of effort on each of these steps and/or substeps (like the clock of the minutes before midnight originated, as I recall, by the Federation of Atomic Scientists). We do have the thermometer showing the likely temperature given current commitments to mitigation, but that is only one step along the process. Mike MacCracken On 8/10/11 1:11 AM, "David Mitchell" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Sorry to hear about your damaged computer and house. No problem regarding the > delay. > > I agree that Climate 101 seems like a good match for our needs. I'd be happy > to assist on the editorial board as time permits. I concur with the > guidelines proposed by Ken and yourself, which are repeated here: > "I think key would be being as centrist and reasonable as possible. Make as > few claims as possible as an organization. Make sure all such statements of > the organization are well-founded and board approved. Avoid any statements > that would make the organization seem outside the scientific or political > mainstream. > > Balance this with rapid response to developments in the news cycle to maximize > media exposure. Participate in NGO activities around meetings of the parties > of various conventions. > > There are real political and strategic questions: is it better to promote a > broad brush approach to reducing climate risk (including emission reduction, > adaptation etc) or narrowly focus on CDR and/or SRM? (My preference would be > the former.)" > In addition, there may be "critical consensus" in the recent scientific > literature (and soon-to-be published literature) such that the evidence can > speak for itself to a large extent, and one function we can have is to ask > critical questions in light of this evidence. > > Best wishes, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:01 > Subject: Re: website for climate science and engineering > To: David Mitchell <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], geoengineering > <[email protected]> > >> > Hi David, >> > >> > Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you. My computer was attacked >> and taken down. I am working behind a well maintained public firewall for the >> time being. Also, my house was significantly damaged by an accident which has >> taken a 24/7 effort to repair. >> > >> > Your site is very much what I had in mind and your offer is beyond >> generous. I do accept the offer if it is still open and will work on an >> opening effort for review by your group. The sponsors are as impressive as >> can be hoped for and the target audience is exactly who I had hoped to >> address. I figured that, if GE can be explained to that audience, getting the >> policy makers to understand the issues should not be that much more >> difficult. >> > >> > To all the other members who have been waiting for this issue to move >> forward, I thank you for your patience and apologize for the lack of >> communication. Working through the Climate 101 site is an opportunity to >> provide a voice of consensus which we have hoped for. Having a your >> cooperation on editing the material to be published is still important. >> > >> > We need a glossary of terms, dictionary of words and collection/indexing of >> information posted by the group members (and other contributors). >> > >> > Hiroshi, can we use your glossary of terms as a starting point? >> > >> > Nathan, I am sorry for keeping on the hook over the website issue and thank >> you personally for your patience. I hope you and Yousif track along with the >> Climate 101 effort and choose to be regular contributors. >> > >> > I have received a list of possible nominations for an editorial board and >> post them here for direct invitation to the editorial board. Sorry for the >> bluntness of this approach but I have limited time on the net for now. >> > >> > Mike MacCracken Ron Larson >> > Greg Rau >> > Emily Lewis-Brown >> > Sam Carana - runs the "Geoengineering" blog, >> http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/ >> > Nathan Currier, Yousif Masoud, David Mitchell >> > Joshua Horton >> > Holly Buck >> > Ken >> > any others interested!!! >> > >> > Thanks again for your patience. >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM, David Mitchell <[email protected] >> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> > wrote: >>> > Dear Michael, >>> > >>> > Unfortunately I'm ignorant when it comes to website construction, so I >>> spoke with my division director to see whether some support and talent from >>> our division could be applied to this proposed project. He suggested I >>> speak with Dr. Rajan Chakrabarty in our division, who is developing a >>> climate change educational website for the NSF and NASA (I just learned of >>> this today). The aims of the website are similar to what you described in >>> your email. I spoke with Rajan about our google geo-engineering group and >>> our need to disseminate some of the important developments that come up, >>> such as new journal articles and breaking news on climate engineering. >>> Rajan was very receptive to incorporating a climate engineering section on >>> this website that would be prominently featured on the homepage. Note that >>> this is primarily intended to as an educational tool for climate science >>> (and that the idea was peer-reviewed and funded by the NSF and NASA). You >>> can access the website at the following URL: http://www.climate101.org/ >>> <http://www.climate101.org/> >>> > >>> > Rajan and his team have been developing this site for about one month now, >>> with only ~ 1/3 of it finished. There are mistakes in places and it is not >>> ready for prime-time obviously, but since it is in its formative stage, now >>> is an ideal time for someone like yourself to enter the process should it >>> serve the needs of our group. So rather than develop a website from >>> scratch, the invitation is to piggy-back onto an existing climate education >>> website under development and to play a leading role in its development. >>> That is, you could be in charge of the climate engineering section, with >>> complete freedom to post to that section of the website. That would >>> probably serve the interest of NSF and NASA as well, since climate >>> engineering is a rapidly expanding field and will be with us for a long time >>> it appears. I've copied Ken Caldeira since he has provided input on this >>> process. >>> > >>> > Best wishes, >>> > David Mitchell >>> > Associate Research Professor >>> > Desert Research Institute >>> > 2215 Raggio Parkway >>> > Reno, Nevada 89512-1095 >>> > USA >>> > Phone: 775-674-7039 <tel:775-674-7039> >>> > E-mail: [email protected] <javascript:main.compose('new', >>> '[email protected]')> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 7/28/2011 8:31 PM, Michael Hayes wrote: >>> Thanks David, >>>> > >>>> > I will circulate a prototype website soon so the interested folks can >>>> have input. The start up will be bare as the funds are limited, but the I >>>> believe it is important to just get it started so the development can >>>> begin. The editorial board is going to give the field a voice of consensus >>>> which is very much needed. >>>> > >>>> > Any help in designing, building and maintaining the effort is welcomed. >>>> This can not be a one man show.....just too much work. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks again and I hope this effort meets your expectations. >>>> > >>>> > Michael >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM, David Mitchell <[email protected] >>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> > wrote: >>>>> > Dear Michael, >>>>> > >>>>> > I also missed your original email. I agee with you that "The need for >>>>> innovative educational outreach on this issue has been largely ignored", >>>>> and that the geo-engineering website is an idea whose time has come. Let >>>>> it become the global website for climate engineering, manifesting the >>>>> highest standards. The press is interested in this topic and they could >>>>> educate themselves regarding the question "Why should we consider climate >>>>> engineering?" Links to recent papers like David Wasdell's (recently >>>>> circulated) could be featured to show the latest science on the topic, >>>>> which the press could promote should they feel inspired. Since there is >>>>> public interest on this, the website could be powerful in raising public >>>>> awareness about climate science as well as climate engineering. I'd be >>>>> happy to contribute to this cause. >>>>> > Wishing you (and us) the greatest success! >>>>> > David Mitchell >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: Nathan Currier [email protected] >>>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> >>>>> > Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:17 >>>>> > Subject: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise >>>>> > To: geoengineering <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> > >>>>> > Cc: [email protected] <javascript:main.compose('new', >>>>> '[email protected]')> >>>>> > >>>>>> > > Hi, Michael - >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > That's great. Thanks for offering that...... >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Sorry, I don't believe I ever saw your previous posts about >>>>>> > > starting a >>>>>> > > website - I don't always get to look at the geoengineering group >>>>>> daily >>>>>> > > and then end up missing things. About a year back (late >>>>>> > > last July), >>>>>> > > something I proposed was to start a Wiki for geoengineering. Mike >>>>>> > > MacCracken agreed it might be a good idea for helping with the spirit >>>>>> > > of openness so needed for the larger debate about geoengineering and >>>>>> > > its wider acceptance. Ron Larsen said he'd be able to help some with >>>>>> > > the biochar side of things. No one offered, though, to help with the >>>>>> > > SRM side of things, and it would be a VERY big job for me to >>>>>> > > keep it >>>>>> > > up and manage the content of that - and an indispensable part of it, >>>>>> > > really, if it was intended to be a real compilation of knowledge of >>>>>> > > the topic - a kind of Wikipedia of geoengineering. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > I did take out a domain, and Yousif Masoud did then help set one up. >>>>>> > > He was saying at one point he wanted to do some more structural work >>>>>> > > on it last fall, and then with fear of how to start the entries by >>>>>> > > myself for the "biggies" - the aerosol SRM & the CDR entries, it has >>>>>> > > been sitting there dormant ever since. I think Yousif said that it's >>>>>> > > actually functional already and just waiting to be used, isn't that >>>>>> > > right, Yousif? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > SO, I have felt very badly about it, and of course I've been paying >>>>>> > > the monthly upkeep and wondering what to do about it - so now perhaps >>>>>> > > it could be combined with your idea? I'll cc Yousif on this.....Could >>>>>> > > your idea of a new website just use the domain I already have? Or >>>>>> > > could the wiki become part of a larger site? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Maybe the Wiki wouldn't seem like such a daunting thing to get going >>>>>> > > if it were simply seen more as a "sketch pad" for new ideas (which >>>>>> > > then could be subsequently developed there, too)? Obviously, >>>>>> > > with CDR >>>>>> > > there's also the added problem with the proprietary nature of the >>>>>> > > technologies already developed (Keith, Lackner, etc - who probably >>>>>> > > wouldn't be delighted by the prospect of theirs ideas being written >>>>>> > > about) , and with aerosol SRM I haven't felt my own expertise is >>>>>> great >>>>>> > > enough, and, honestly, my hope in getting involved is really to >>>>>> > > uncover many smaller, less invasive and potentially dangerous ideas >>>>>> > > that might be able replace large scale aerosol SRM as the >>>>>> > > "method of >>>>>> > > choice" to technologically avoid catastrophe - in short, to help >>>>>> > > promote a Socolow-Pacala-like wedge approach as applied to >>>>>> > > geoengineering. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > My basic thought was to try to circulate knowledge of the Wiki widely >>>>>> > > around university departments - there are so many young people out >>>>>> > > there with so much knowledge that is not being harnessed towards >>>>>> > > this!..... >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > So, what do you think? >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > cheers, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Nathan >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Jul 25, 6:53 pm, Michael Hayes <[email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> > wrote: >>>>>>> > > > Hi Folks, >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > This thread has many aspects which point to the need for a >>>>>> > > full fledged >>>>>>> > > > website dedicated to the full spectrum of GE issues. Hansen et >>>>>> > > al. is >>>>>>> > > > showing a willingness to stretch the norms in scientific >>>>>> > > writing to maybe >>>>>>> > > > express the severity of the situation in terms that the >>>>>> > > general public >>>>>>> > > > (media) may be willing to listen to. The need for innovative >>>>>> > > educational> outreach on this issue has been largely ignored. >>>>>> > > That lack of an organized >>>>>>> > > > media outreach effort is profoundly counter productive. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > I once AGAIN call for the creation of a website to provide the >>>>>> > > coordinated> educational outreach effort, provide a more robust >>>>>> > > stage for debate and >>>>>>> > > > provided a unified voice for the field of Geoengineering. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > On the 15th of August, I will go public with a website which >>>>>> > > will provide >>>>>>> > > > the bare bones structure for "The Journal of Geoengineering >>>>>> > > Studies". I >>>>>>> > > > pledge $300 towards the start up costs and volunteer to look >>>>>> > > after the "back >>>>>>> > > > room IT" details. Other contributions are welcomed. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > An editorial board comprised of seasoned members of this forum >>>>>> > > is needed. >>>>>>> > > > Future board members can be voted in by the original board. >>>>>> > > Volunteers and >>>>>>> > > > nominations for the editorial board are need to be pulled >>>>>> > > together before >>>>>>> > > > the 15th. The Editor in Chief should be put in place by the >>>>>> > > original board. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > This proposed website has been discussed on in this forum and >>>>>> > > I have had no >>>>>>> > > > comments against it. Some members have volunteered to make regular >>>>>>> > > > contributions of related content. I will spend the needed cash >>>>>> > > to organize >>>>>>> > > > the basic startup effort, however what happens after that is >>>>>> > > up to this >>>>>>> > > > group. >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > Michael >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Nathan Currier >>>>>> > > <[email protected] <javascript:main.compose('new', >>>>>> '[email protected]')> >wrote: >>>>>> > > -- >>>>>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>> > > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>>>> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', '[email protected]')> . >>>>>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> > > [email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:main.compose('new', >>>>>> '[email protected]')> more options, >>>>>> > > visit this group at >>>>>> > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Michael Hayes >>>> > 360-708-4976 <tel:360-708-4976> >>>> > http://www.voglerlake.com <http://www.voglerlake.com/> >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Hayes >> > 360-708-4976 <tel:360-708-4976> >> > http://www.voglerlake.com <http://www.voglerlake.com/> >> > >> > -- 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.
