Here is a recent post on this topic from my blog, that might be of interest to some of you ...
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/environmental-audit-committee-hearing.html Saturday, February 25, 2012 Environmental Audit Committee Hearing in the UK Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a hearing on "Protecting the Arctic" (available for viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane, Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near- term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending climate catastrophe. After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that "I don't think the alarmist story adds up in what I've seen" (15:20:33). Lenton was hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive demands put forward by AMEG.) On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately, AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing geoengineering in the process. In addition, here is a link to a post by Matt Watson (head of SPICE), who uses my piece as a starting point to articulate his own views on the subject: http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/ameg.html Josh Horton [email protected] http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Feb 24, 1:34 pm, Douglas Spence <[email protected]> wrote: > arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/protecting-arctic.html > > Is that the right link? (assuming it remains available, I find it ever > harder to remain informed on these matters) > > Frankly I think if you expect a meaningful and productive response from > governments (or people en masse) you are grossly misjudging human behaviour. > > I listened to the video there, and for what it's worth I agree with John > Nissen, assuming I correctly understood him to be saying that civilisation > is on a path to absolute failure within the near future (coming years, not > decades). > > I do not agree that it is possible or probable that we can prevent this. > > I also probably can't contribute to discussions in this group as I'm not a > scientist and my focus is very much on that complete failure scenario (and > has been for some years). > > On that note, if anyone has anything to better help me understand the > regional consequences of abrupt release of large volumes of methane I'd > like to know. For example a few of my questions: > - is hydrogen sulphide a concern and if so, on what timescales and in what > general regions? > - is methane outgassing likely to reach levels where it can form large > scale explosive mixtures with the atmosphere? > - if hydrogen sulphide is produced, is there a risk to the ozone layer and > over what timescale? > > I appreciate it's a long shot, since established science seemed to be > saying only a few years ago that the sea ice would last until the end of > the century... > > Regards, > Douglas > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Lockley > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I went. Lenton and Wadhams gave evidence, as well as Nissen. It was > > surprisingly moderate. > > > The MPs seemed semi-well-informed, but seemingly more concerned with > > decadal effects than serious long term problems. > > > Zak Goldsmith was very anti, seeming not to recognise fully the dangers of > > warming. > > > Frighteningly, the MPs even asked whether arctic sea ice loss was really > > happening. They seemed surprised that all the witnesses agreed it was, and > > would have serious consequences for the climate. Seemingly Deniers are more > > influential than we like to believe. > > > If anyone finds a link, please post it. > > > A > > On Feb 24, 2012 12:34 PM, "Josh Horton" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> This letter is heartening to see, as many of us are very uncomfortable > >> with the notion of near-term deployment in the Arctic. Did anyone > >> attend this hearing? I know John Nissen was scheduled to be a > >> witness. Is this available for viewing online? > > >> Josh Horton > > >> On Feb 23, 11:20 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > As sent to UK environmental audit committee..... > > >> > > From: Hugh Coe <[email protected]> > >> > > Date: 21 February 2012 02:59:50 GMT > >> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> [email protected]" > >> > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > >> > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > >> > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > >> " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, > >> "Lenton, > >> > Timothy" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > >> > [email protected]>, John Latham <[email protected]>, " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > >> > [email protected]>, Brian Launder <[email protected]>, > >> " > >> > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > > >> > > Subject: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members > > >> > > Dear Members of the the Environmental Audit Inquiry > >> > > We understand that you will be considering an evidence session titled > >> > > "Protecting the Arctic" on Tuesday 21st February. > > >> > > There is a mounting evidence that significant changes are occurring in > >> > > the Arctic and we are pleased that your Committee is considering this > >> in > >> > > detail. However, we would like to stress that whilst such indicators > >> of > >> > > rapid change are a major cause for concern, implementing any > >> > > geoengineering approach to adjust an Arctic warming on the basis of > >> its > >> > > undemonstrated, causal effects on rapid Arctic change should not be > >> > > considered at this time. Any such scheme needs to have its concepts > >> > > rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing > >> > > and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place. > >> > > Systematic, deliberate modification of climate is, itself, likely to > >> > > have effects on global weather systems, including large scale changes > >> to > >> > > regional rainfall. Such changes have been shown to occur in climate > >> > > model simulations but as the key processes remain poorly understood at > >> > > the present time, the climate models, our only predictive tools, are > >> at > >> > > present unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the > >> magnitude > >> > > of the changes that may occur. Until this can be done and the balance > >> > > of risks be well understood we strongly urge that a geoengineering > >> > > solution of any kind is not to taken forward to address changing > >> Arctic > >> > > temperatures. > > >> > > Nevertheless, the increased evidence that such major changes may occur > >> > > and the lack of progress in mitigating CO2 induced climate change > >> means > >> > > that investing in research into the viability of geoengineering is > >> both > >> > > very important and timely. Furthermore, it is important that > >> Government > >> > > does support the area, as the evidence base needs to be considered > >> free > >> > > from vested interests. > > >> > > We thankyou for your considerating our short note > >> > > yours sincerely > > >> > > Professor John Latham, UCAR, Boulder, USA > >> > > Professor Tom Choularton, University of Manchester > >> > > Professor Brian Launder, FRS, University of Manchester > >> > > Professor Hugh Coe, University of Manchester > >> > > Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh > >> > > Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> -- > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
