The rest of the
story:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years
"The paper, submitted as a discussion paper to the Earth System Dynamics
journal, is a departure from the usual scientific process as it has yet to be
peer reviewed and has been launched to support a legal case waged by a group of
young people against the US government.
Last year, 21 youths aged between 8 and 19 years old filed a constitutional
lawsuit against the Obama administration for failing to do enough to slow
climate change. Hansen and his granddaughter are parties to legal challenge,
which was filed in Oregon and asserts that the government has violated young
people’s rights to life, liberty and property.
Hansen, who has become increasingly outspoken on climate change since retiring
from Nasa [sic] in 2013, said he recognized some scientists might object to
publicizing the paper so soon but that “we are running out of time on this
climate issue.”The courts need to step in to force governments to act on
climate change because they are largely free of the corrupting influence of
special interests, Hansen said. He repeated his call for a global tax to be
placed upon carbon emissions and said that fossil fuel companies should be
forced to pay for emissions extraction in the same way the tobacco industry has
been sued over the health impact of cigarettes."
….
"Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist at Penn State University, agreed that
CO2 removal will be required if the world was to avoid 1.5C warming although
the 2C limit “could likely be achieved without negative emissions, but it would
require urgent action, as I have argued myself is necessary.”.
Mann added that Hansen’s paper is “interesting” but tackles a huge range of
topics and is unconventional in its use as a tool to support a legal case.
“Along with the paper being publicized prior to peer review, this will
certainly raise eyebrows about whether or not this breaches the firewall many
feel should exist wherein policy agenda should not influence the way that
science is done,” Mann told the Guardian via email."
GR Hmmm… I'm no lawyer, but if Hansen et al want to submit legal evidence or
opinion for a case, isn't this done via sworn testimony, affidavit, or by
filing a brief? I'm also curious about the stated firewall between policy and
science, since some of the greatest science efforts/achievements (high energy
physics, disease eradication, modern agriculture, etc. ) have been driven by
policy. Policy may not dictate how science is done, but it certainly can
dictate what science is (or isn't) done. There is currently a policy vacuum re
effective CO2 management R&D despite the best scientific evidence demanding
otherwise. Firewall indeed, and if scientists can't/won't breach it, who will?
Perhaps Hansen is on to something, again...
From: Greg Rau <[email protected]>
To: Geoengineering <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 8:46 AM
Subject: [geo] Saving the World the Hard Way: $104-570T, J. Hansen et al.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/esd-2016-42.pdf
Abstract"The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues
at a mean rate of about0.18°C/decade, with the current annual temperature
exceeding +1.25°C relative to 1880-1920.Global temperature has just reached a
level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial25 (Eemian) period,
when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains
atthis level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and
consequences. Thegrowth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse
gases (GHGs) increased over20% in the past decade mainly due to resurging
growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making itincreasingly difficult to achieve
targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5°C or reducing30 atmospheric CO2
below 350 ppm. Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e.,
extractionof CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel
emissions begins soon, most ofthe necessary CO2 extraction can take place via
improved agricultural and forestry practices,including reforestation and steps
to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content. In thiscase, the
magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range
of the35 current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible
climate impacts could beminimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel
emissions by the current generation wouldplace a burden on young people to
undertake massive technological CO2 extraction, if they are tolimit climate
change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture
andstorage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated costs of
104-570 trillion dollars40 this century, with large risks and uncertain
feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissionsunarguably sentences young
people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growingdeleterious
climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both incentive and
obligationfor governments to alter energy policies without further delay."
GR A)$104-570 could prove to be a bargain or B) maybe with a serious search
for and practice of "technological" CDR options we can drive the cost and risk
down and the feasibility up, just as we did with the first $7000 light bulb and
the first multi $M computer. And why is risk and uncertain feasibility
"unarguably" constrained to "technological" solutions when increasing the
terrestrial biosphere CO2 sink (why ignore the ocean biosphere?) doesn't appear
to be any non-technological walk in the park either??? Anyway, given our track
record on emissions reduction, do we really have the option of not seriously
pursuing CDR, whatever the "burden" might look like at this early stage of
development?
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
