More power to Jim’s arm. He has probably discovered the hard way that for a scientist, publishing in a journal is much less expensive than going through the legal system. I beg to differ that policy drove people like Rutherford, Bohr, Einstein, Born, Heisenberg, Chadwick et al to pursue high energy physics. Of course, once Albert had written his letter to FDR things changed, but political driving is on varying timescales subject to scientific hands on the steering wheel, e.g. the 1963 ban on atmospheric nuclear testing. How much damage will be done with climate change from fossil fuel burning before it is significantly reduced depends on how soon the ranters and deniers pass into political history. Judging by the continued election of the James Inhofes and Lamar Smiths to central positions in scientific policy it will be some time. One approach is to relax and enjoy it as comedy, science in the position of court jesters in the Mediaeval Age, licensed to speak truth to power - and to be ignored when the advice cut across the deeply held prejudices of those in power. Or worse, beheaded. Cutting off the messenger’s head was tried by the W administration after 2004 on NASA and NOAA; it didn’t work, just as it didn’t for mediaeval monarchs. But in the end, the great thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it. Even the Reagan and Bush41 administrations signed up to the incontrovertible evidence of the CFCs and the ozone hole, the Montreal Protocol, backed by the originally reluctant chemical industry, led by Dupont. Will the US Congress and the relevant industries follow suit with fossil fuels? The important question is how it will pan out as regards cutting emissions as a function of time. Fortunately, science is international, which was the rock on which W’s efforts foundered after 2004.
On 6 Oct 2016, at 07:10, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 about > 0.18°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 interglacial > 25 (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, > if it long remains at > this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and > consequences. The > growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) > increased over > 20% in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, > thus making it > increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to > 1.5°C or reducing > 30 atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require “negative > emissions”, i.e., extraction > of CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions > begins soon, most of > the 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 this > case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the > natural range of the > 35 current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate > impacts could be > minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current > generation would > place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 > extraction, if they are to > limit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with > carbon capture and > storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated costs of > 104-570 trillion dollars > 40 this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high > fossil fuel emissions > unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible > cleanup or growing > deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both > incentive and obligation > for 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. -- 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.
