Lou Grinzo has hit the nail on the head: "There's a world of difference between merely saying that humanity is having an effect on the global climate and recognizing that the cumulative effect has become so great and is such a threat that we have no choice but to try to actively control the climate to avoid some horrific outcomes."
When many distinguished climate scientists reckon we are heading for a lethal global warming of 6 degrees C or more, and there's no likelihood of a change in world order to suddenly stop emissions of greenhouse gases (including methane, whose level has been rising 5% annually since 2006), what is the alternative to some kind of geoengineering to complement emissions reduction? Where does the precautionary principle take us - is it really more dangerous to try to restore the Earth System than to let it change to a state in which civilisation might not survive? And what about the Arctic? This is heading towards meltdown, so is it sensible to wait for it to get further along the slippery slope? Or is it better to see if there's a way we could cool the Arctic to break what appears from observation to be a vicious cycle of warming and melting as sea ice retreats and the ocean absorbs more and more solar energy each year? Is it safe to ignore the exponential downward trend in September sea ice volume - down 75% in thirty years and heading for zero in 2016? What is the sensible thing to do? Can we change our attitude to geoengineering, to see it in a positive light - as a vital tool which we, as humans, have been given the intelligence to use in the emergency which we do appear to be facing? Many people seem confident that there is no existential threat from climate change, globally or in the Arctic - yet these people provide absolutely no concrete evidence for a natural rebound of the Earth System from its current course. And the effect of emissions reduction is limited: the lifetime of CO2 is hundreds of years, so even cutting CO2 emissions to zero overnight would neither stop global warming nor slow Arctic warming. Observations of global warming in the past suggest that IPCC has grossly underestimated climate sensitivity to GHGs; and IPCC persists in using the GWP of methane over 100 years when GWP over 20 years is more relevant.. Thus the carbon budget may already be bust. There's no way of keeping below 2 degrees C without CDR. And observations on sea ice decline in 2007 and again in 2012 seem to be wake-up calls for a recognition that now we have no choice but to actively control the climate in the Arctic, essentially by cooling it using SRM. Governance issues should be seen in this context: CDR to reduce CO2 level, and SRM to cool the Arctic. Can we risk *not* geoengineering? Isn't geoengineering the moral thing to try, if it might save billions of lives? I'm sorry, it just seems common sense to me. If it doesn't to you, please show evidence to prove me wrong on the science. Cheers, John On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:18 PM, 'Salif KONE' via geoengineering < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > In my opinion to get to the so-called "Metricene" era, Geokillers will > replace geoEngineers to accelerate humanity pathway toward World War III > and settle a worldwide dictatorship controlling the Climate System, then > humanity will have to buy his daily oxygen bottle to respire. Why would you > need to control the world climate system? Would you succeed or would you > going to completely disorganise climate patterns? What would be the SRM's > community responses just after injecting a huge amount of sulphate in > atmosphere a volcano eruption occurred and inject the same amount of > sulphate? > > Activities that have big incomes like mining didn't succeed to restore the > environments they destroyed, do you think SRM will succeed to repair > potentials damages caused to societies and environments? > > What makes SRM more conscientious than other technologies? > > Salif Kone, > Malian National School of Engineers ENI-ABT > http://www.researcherid.com/rid/N-6622-2013 > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com?.src=iOS> > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Lou Grinzo <[email protected]>; > * To: * <[email protected]>; > * Cc: * <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < > [email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > * Subject: * Re: [geo] Re: Enough of govern-nonsense > * Sent: * Sat, Aug 9, 2014 1:11:50 PM > > This very large jump, from doing no harm to actively controlling the > climate, is exactly where I think we're headed, whether we like it or not, > and it's why I've been trying for years to make the case that saying we're > in the Anthropocene understates the situation. > > There's a world of difference between merely saying that humanity is > having an effect on the global climate and recognizing that the cumulative > effect has become so great and is such a threat that we have no choice but > to try to actively control the climate to avoid some horrific outcomes. > I've tried to push the meme that we need a new name for this state, which > I've called the Metricene, a time of "living measured lives on a managed > planet". > > Like so much else regarding climate change, I think we will come around to > this line of thinking in time, but it will happen late enough that it will > be more difficult and expensive, and there will be more human suffering > than there "should be" to prod us to take action. > > On Friday, August 8, 2014 1:53:04 PM UTC-4, Mike MacCracken wrote: >> >> I’d like to suggest that one reason that working through both the >> governance and the science of SRM will be so challenging is the very large >> jump being proposed, namely from doing no intentional climate engineering >> to taking control of the global climate. That is a huge leap, necessary as >> it may be to contemplate for some time in the decades ahead if negotiations >> prove as fruitless as they have so far. >> >> It seems to me that discussions might prove more practical and possible >> if the discussion was about some interim types of efforts that might be >> explored. For example, there have been suggestions about how to potentially >> moderate the increased intensification of hurricanes/tropical cyclones, >> which are suggested to be one of the adverse consequences of climate >> change. One approach suggested was to position barges in the track of >> storms and vertically mix ocean waters to cool the surface waters and >> reduce the ability of the storm to draw heat from the ocean; another >> approach proposed has been to use cloud brightening over an extended time >> to cool the waters that such storms typically pass over, so reducing the >> statistical likelihood of very severe storms rather than trying to limit >> the intensification of a particular storm. For those living, for example, >> in the southeastern US and Caribbean basin, or in the Philippines, >> Indonesia, Japan and East Asia, research to figure out if such a moderation >> could be be done (and there was once an indication that the Department of >> Homeland Security might be supporting such research) and to consider the >> many social science and governance issues might make for a much more >> focused and hopefully productive discussion. >> >> Similar discussions might focus on a number of additional specific >> interventions that might or might not be technically feasible and might or >> might not be conceivable in terms of governance and societal implications. >> Examples that might be considered might include seeking to cool the >> Arctic/slow permafrost thawing/slow loss of mass from ice sheets, seeking >> to modify storm tracks in order to moderate areas of intense drought, >> seeking to offset the loss of sulfate cooling that will come from closing >> down coal-fired power plants, and there are surely other ideas. Each of >> these proposals has a quite specific goal in mind as opposed to reversing >> the increase in global average temperature. Some would mainly affect (in >> terms of beneficial and/or harmful influences) far fewer numbers than the >> full global population. >> >> It just seems to me that exploring the potential issues (in terms of the >> physical and socio-political-ethical aspects) would make for a much more >> focused and manageable discussion that would help to provide insights for >> moving on to the possible need for a full global intervention (and it is >> for this reason my recent papers have focused on such possibilities). I >> don’t really know if any could actually be made to work in a scientific >> sense (yes, doing something in one spot affects everywhere, but is the >> effect noticeable everywhere and how would such an effect compare to the >> ongoing changes that are occurring—so there are issues of relative >> importance of an effect, etc.), and I don’t know if regional governance >> (e.g., as might be most relevant in the case of offsetting Arctic warming >> or moderating tropical cyclone intensification) would make the discussion >> of societal and ethical aspects any easier, but it does seem to me that >> there is the potential for more insightful, productive, and even relevant >> discussion if the jump from doing no climate engineering were to potential >> quite focused interventions than to taking full global control. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> On 8/8/14 12:33 PM, "Cush Ngonzo Luwesi" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello guys, cool down. Governance is for your own good. The latin people >> say "Science without conscience is lethal for the soul". This is all about >> governance. It is about restricting our freedom so that we may not overstep >> the right of other people to life. If the NASA would take the risk of >> accepting volunteers as treatment in its experiments, than we would lost >> the principle of sacredness of life, especially human life. We shall not >> present CE has opposed to life rather than a means of sustenance to life. >> Let social scientists and governing institutions scrutinize CE motives, >> goals and targets while we are deepening the modelling part for the better >> living in our global society. >> >> Cheers!!! >> >> *Dr Cush* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD) Lecturer Department of Geography, Office G2B >> Kenyatta University Main Campus, Thika Road P.O. Box 43844 - 00100 Nairobi >> Tel +254 710 149 676 Corporate Email: [email protected] >> <http://[email protected]> Profile: (1) http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/ >> humanities/faculty/faculty- profiles/87-faculty/293-dr- cush-ngonzo-luwesi >> <http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293-dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi> >> (2) http://kenyatta.academia.edu/ CushNgonzoLuwesi >> <http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi> (3) >> www.researchgate.net/profile/C ush_Ngonzo_Luwesi (4) >> http://scholar.google.com/ citations?user=eHKAx0cAAAAJ& hl=en >> <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cAAAAJ&hl=en> * >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
