John Do you have a physically based model that backs up these about "collapse" and quadrupling of warming rate?
If so, please let us see it. If not, please consider either retracting these claims or finding a way to make clear the level of uncertainty involved. We have a climate problem and a public relations problem. The first email I have from you in my archives is dated 2008 and suggests the complete disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice at the by 2013. This now seems highly unlikely. If the current claims about immanent collapse are also proved false (as I expect they will be) you will provide ammunition to those who argue against action. Reality is bad enough. David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:24 AM To: John Latham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; geoengineering; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON HUGHES; Albert Kallio Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news Dear John, How I wish we had the time. We should have been doing what you suggest immediately after the crash in sea ice extent of September 2007 - a wake-up call. We have just left it far too late, and have no option but to try anything that might reduce the chance of a collapse in sea ice extent this year. If you just look at the PIOMAS graph of sea ice volume which is down 75% in three decades and compare it with the sea ice extent which is down 40%, it is obvious that the sea ice extent cannot hold out much longer while the ice continues thinning. There must be a great deal of heat going into melting the ice - and much of this heat is from the heating of open water by the sun when the sea ice retreats - i.e. from the albedo flip effect. After a collapse such that there's little sea ice left in September, there will be a spurt in Arctic warming, perhaps to double the current rate of warming. And after we have a nearly sea ice free Arctic ocean for six months, the warming could increase to triple or quadruple the current rate. Meanwhile there is the methane to contend with. There are already signs of an escalation of methane emissions from shallow seas of the continental shelf. That by itself would be cause for concern, since the sea ice retreat is allowing the seabed to warm well above the thaw point for methane hydrates. So I have three questions for you: 1. Do you seriously recommend that nobody does anything for at least three years while there is more research into geoengineering? 2. How can you say that geoengineering is doomed to failure? Do you really lack confidence in your own modelling? 3. What do I tell my wife and children if nothing is done and the worst happens? Kind regards, John --- On 18/03/2012 15:29, John Latham wrote: > Hello John Nissen and All, > > John N says:- > > "Just before the hearing, the committee had received an email > [6] from some geoengineering experts recommending research but > suggesting that development and deployment of geoengineering > techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG position". > > I was one of the signatories that John alluded to. I believe that each > one of us feel it shameful and dangerous that that research into > promising SRM ideas has not been significantly financially supported. > The major stages of the required research involve modelling, > resolution of all technological questions, examination of - and > international agreement on - possible adverse consequences of > deployment, and the execution of (in the case of MCB, for example), of > a limited area field-testing experiment. If the required funding was > available now I think I think all the above goals could be achieved in 5 > years, perhaps even 3. > > At the moment these goals are far from being achieved. An attempt to > successfully deploy now any likely SRM technique would be doomed to > failure. The technological questions have not been fully resolved - so > it would not work - and there would be > - in my opinion - an international outcry against deployment. > > We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, I think, if we tried to > deploy now. If there was a major failure - which is likely - the > response could be such as to prohibit further SRM work for a long > time.We need to engage in crash programmes of research now, which > means that we need immediately to obtain the required funding. [How, I dont > know, I'm afraid]. > > All Best, John (Latham) > > John Latham > Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 > Email: [email protected] or [email protected] > Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 > or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 > http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] on behalf of John Nissen > [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: geoengineering; John Nissen; P. Wadhams; Stephen Salter; JON > HUGHES; Albert Kallio > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: We are top story on BBC environmental news > > Hi Josh, > > Before commenting on your question, I need to explain the recent activities > of AMEG, a group whose position Professor Salter supports. Professor Peter > Wadhams and I gave evidence, on behalf of AMEG, to the first of two hearings > of the Environment Audit Committee (AEC) inquiry "Protecting the Arctic" on > 21st February. We were given an opportunity to make a further presentation > of the AMEG case to the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) > on 13th March, i.e. last Tuesday, where we were joined by Professor Salter > and journalist, Jon Hughes. Richard Black, of the BBC, reported on the > APPCCG meeting [1]. The second hearing of EAC was on 14th March, at which > the Met Office gave oral evidence, reported by the Guardian [2] [3]. > > I am a great supporter of Stephen's cloud brightening approach, and we both > want it deployed as soon as possible. Stephen is a supporter of Peter > Wadhams and the AMEG position, that geoengineering is urgently needed to try > to save the sea ice. The sea ice is disappearing extraordinarily rapidly as > Richard Black reports from the APPCCG presentation [4] and you can see from > the graph of sea ice volume decline [5]. One can see from this graph that, > if we are unlucky and the sea ice volume declines this summer as much as it > did between the minimum in 2009 and 2010, i.e. ~2000 km-3, then it would > halve the sea ice left this September. Such a collapse in volume is likely > to be accompanied by a collapse in sea ice extent. With less heat flux going > into melting the ice, there could be a sudden spurt in Arctic warming, making > a reversal to restore the ice, by geoengineered cooling, extremely difficult > if not impossible. > > A point of no return could be reached this summer. Therefore we are in a > desperate situation. As I pointed out to the EAC, beggars can't be choosers, > so we have to use available means to try and cool the Arctic quickly, and > avoid any actions which could make this daunting task more difficult. Thus > for example, we urged EAC to recommend an immediate halting of Arctic > drilling because escape of methane (the main constituent of natural gas) > would have a warming effect on the Arctic. > > Stephen was not at the EAC hearing on 21st February, but afterwards made it > clear to the committee that he supported the AMEG position. Just before the > hearing, the committee had received an email [6] from some geoengineering > experts recommending research but suggesting that development and deployment > of geoengineering techniques was premature, thus undermining the AMEG > position. The signatories had apparently included Stephen Salter, but this > was a mistake - he had not agreed to the wording that was used. > > On the other hand the APPCCG meeting last week was an opportunity for Stephen > to trumpet the advantages of cloud brightening over what is seen as its main > rival. So I think you should take Stephen's strong statement as a warning > that, if used at the wrong time and place, stratospheric aerosols could be > counterproductive. I'll let him produce his detailed argument, which he > submitted as written evidence to the EAC hearing. We will no doubt have to > use a combination of techniques and measures to deal with the desperate > situation in the Arctic. > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 > > [2] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/14/oil-spill-arctic-explor > ation > > [3] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-se > a-ice-loss-winter > > [4] "Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice > thickness data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could > be ice-free within just a few years." > > [5] http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi > taken from > http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-re > cord-lower-still.html > > [6] Email from Hue Coe to members of the AEC, 21st Feb, forwarded to the > geoengineering group on 23rd by Andrew Lockley. > > --- > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Josh > Horton<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > "The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect > sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact > be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would > increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C." > > That's a pretty strong statement--what's the evidence for this? > > Josh Horton > > > > On Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:25:22 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804 > > Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane > > By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News > > An eminent UK engineer is suggesting building cloud-whitening towers in the > Faroe Islands as a "technical fix" for warming across the Arctic. > > Scientists told UK MPs this week that the possibility of a major methane > release triggered by melting Arctic ice constitutes a "planetary emergency". > > The Arctic could be sea-ice free each September within a few years. > > Wave energy pioneer Stephen Salter has shown that pumping seawater sprays > into the atmosphere could cool the planet. > > The Edinburgh University academic has previously suggested whitening clouds > using specially-built ships. > > At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group > (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that the situation in the Arctic was so serious > that ships might take too long. > > "I don't think there's time to do ships for the Arctic now," he said. > > "We'd need a bit of land, in clean air and the right distance north... where > you can cool water flowing into the Arctic." > > Favoured locations would be the Faroes and islands in the Bering Strait, he > said. > > Towers would be constructed, simplified versions of what has been planned for > ships. > > In summer, seawater would be pumped up to the top using some kind of > renewable energy, and out through the nozzles that are now being developed at > Edinburgh University, which achieve incredibly fine droplet size. > > In an idea first proposed by US physicist John Latham, the fine droplets of > seawater provide nuclei around which water vapour can condense. > > This makes the average droplet size in the clouds smaller, meaning they > appear whiter and reflect more of the Sun's incoming energy back into space, > cooling the Earth. > > On melting ice > > The area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice each summer has declined > significantly over the last few decades as air and sea temperatures have > risen. > > For each of the last four years, the September minimum has seen about > two-thirds of the average cover for the years 1979-2000, which is used a > baseline. The extent covered at other times of the year has also been > shrinking. > > What more concerns some scientists is the falling volume of ice. > > Analysis from the University of Washington, in Seattle, using ice thickness > data from submarines and satellites, suggests that Septembers could be > ice-free within just a few years. > > Data for September suggests the Arctic Ocean could be free of sea ice > in a few years > > > "In 2007, the water [off northern Siberia] warmed up to about 5C (41F) in > summer, and this extends down to the sea bed, melting the offshore > permafrost," said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge > University. > > Among the issues this raises is whether the ice-free conditions will quicken > release of methane currently trapped in the sea bed, especially in the > shallow waters along the northern coast of Siberia, Canada and Alaska. > > Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it > does not last as long in the atmosphere. > > Several teams of scientists trying to measure how much methane is actually > being released have reported seeing vast bubbles coming up through the water > - although analysing how much this matters is complicated by the absence of > similar measurements from previous decades. > > Nevertheless, Prof Wadhams told MPs, the release could be expected to get > stronger over time. > > "With 'business-as-usual' greenhouse gas emissions, we might have warming of > 9-10C in the Arctic. > > "That will cement in place the ice-free nature of the Arctic Ocean - it will > release methane from offshore, and a lot of the methane on land as well." > > This would - in turn - exacerbate warming, across the Arctic and the rest of > the world. > > Abrupt methane releases from frozen regions may have played a major role in > two events, 55 and 251 million years ago, that extinguished much of the life > then on Earth. > > Meteorologist Lord (Julian) Hunt, who chaired the meeting of the All Party > Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, clarified that an abrupt methane > release from the current warming was not inevitable, describing that as "an > issue for scientific debate". > > But he also said that some in the scientific community had been reluctant to > discuss the possibility. > > "There is quite a lot of suppression and non-discussion of issues that are > difficult, and one of those is in fact methane," he said, recalling a > reluctance on the part of at least one senior scientists involved in the > Arctic Climate Impact Assessment to discuss the impact that a methane release > might have. > > Reluctant solutions > > The field of implementing technical climate fixes, or geo-engineering, is > full of controversy, and even those involved in researching the issue see it > as a last-ditch option, a lot less desirable than constraining greenhouse gas > emissions. > > "Everybody working in geo-engineering hopes it won't be needed - but we fear > it will be," said Prof Salter. > > Adding to the controversy is that some of the techniques proposed could do > more harm than good. > > The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, > mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in fact be > disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing it would > increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C. > > And last year, the cloud-whitening idea was also criticised by scientists who > calculated that using the wrong droplet size could lead to warming - though > Prof Salter says this can be eliminated through experimentation. > > He has not so far embarked on a full costing of the land-based towers, but > suggests £200,000 as a ballpark figure. > > Depending on the size and location, Prof Salter said that in the order of 100 > towers would be needed to counteract Arctic warming. > > However, no funding is currently on the table for cloud-whitening. A proposal > to build a prototype ship for about £20m found no takers, and currently > development work is limited to the lab. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/rFScYjdiBSwJ. > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<mailto: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. -- 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.
