Dear Prof Hansen, You note that the planet is currently warming at a rate 0.18C per decade, with a temperature rise of over 1.25C relative to 1880-1920. This makes the COP21 ambition to keep anthropogenic global warming (AGW) below 2 degrees seem absolutely impossible. Going further to reverse climate change and restore the planet to some kind of safe, hospitable and sustainable state for our grandchildren, as everyone would like, seems more than impossible - a pipe dream.
However I am determined not to give up hope. Here are four things to be done, targeted for 2030: 1. It would be unreasonable to expect society to abandon fossil fuels completely, but it would be conceivable to get a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030, using clean energy and burning oil and gas only for high value purposes such as aviation. 2. It is conceivable that we could ramp up our most carbon-retentive forestry, agriculture and aquaculture practices such that, by 2030, they are, between them, removing CO2 twice as fast as it is being emitted. 3. It is also conceivable that total global emissions of short-lived climate forcing agents, principally methane, could be halved by 2030, leading to a halving of the forcing they produce. 4. And it is conceivable that, if we act quickly to cool the Arctic, we can save the Arctic sea ice, and restore 50% of the lost Arctic albedo by 2030. Thus, with the necessary political will, it is conceivable that we could halve climate forcing by around 2030: with atmospheric CO2 at 340 ppm, methane emissions at 300 Mt per annum and Arctic albedo restored to what it was 10-15 years ago. This would reduce AGW to around 0.9C per decade, enabling AGW to be kept below the <2C target this century. Such a programme of maximum ambition would, if successful, minimise the risks from ocean acidification, sea level rise and extreme weather events. By 2050 the ocean and Arctic could be restored to benign states, as of 30+ years ago. And our grand-children would be safe from climate change. I have tried to show the logic of my argument on a diagram, see attached. One last thought. Adrian Tuck notes that action on the ozone hole was only achieved with help from the chemicals industry. Should we not ask for help from the fossil fuel industry, who are responsible for taking carbon out of the ground in the first place? After all, their leaders may have grand-children, and they can see the evidence of what is happening to the planet, if they have eyes. Kind regards, John *P.S. Note that the Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. Prompt intervention to cool the Arctic could halt this downward spiral. Otherwise there is a huge risk of the Arctic becoming locked into a seasonally sea-ice-free state within a decade or two. The Arctic would then be warming at over 2C per decade because of lost albedo. This in turn risks disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, methane feedback to global warming, and abrupt change to Northern Hemisphere climate through disruption of jet stream behaviour. I have warned of some of these things in response to your Eemian paper, if you remember, though sea level rise might come from Antarctica rather than Greenland, as you pointed out in a response to my comments. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Greg--Having also done declarations in this and other lawsuits. > Basically, the declarations are explaining the findings of the scientific > community in the context of the particular case. This can sometimes mean > explaining the significance of particular amounts of emissions in context > of what is said to be the allowable emissions before one would get to 2 C, > the implied amount of sea level rise by scaling, the difference between the > near- and long-term equilibrium responses, etc. So, it is not really new > science, just a contextual explanation of the science and putting together > science from different sources that have not been combined or explained > concisely, etc. Having read Jim's various briefs, I'd say he has been done > very clearly. Where opinion is included, that is made clear. > > Basically, someone has to be doing this, making the selections, etc. For > example, in the declaration that I did on standing in Mass. vs EPA (2007) > that Justice Stevens cited in his majority opinion, what was done was to > pick out the most clear cut findings and explain what they would do to > affect the plaintiffs. So, the lead impact was sea level rise and that this > would be taking land away from Massachusetts, etc. For Justice Stevens > argument it did not matter exactly how much land would be taken--is there > really a difference between an inch and a mile (so uncertainties could be > stated, etc.)?. That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts turned over the > responsibility for protection of its land to the Federal Government was > enough to grant the states standing to file a case for consideration of how > EPA was interpreting the Clean Air Act. That sea level will go up due to > climate change is, of course, among the most solid projected impacts, and > all was interpretation. In another case it was the rise in the snowline in > the western mountains that would be affecting the water resources of the > key plaintiff cities that led to standing being granted. > > If not the experts explaining the science, who would be doing so. Given we > are involved in studying such a real and potentially serious socially > relevant issue, there would seem to be an obligation to be available to > explain the science via legal declarations. And so, having now done it in > about a dozen cases, sometimes supporting filings against the government > (e.g., responses to the filings against the EPA coal fired power plant > regulations by correcting the scientific statements of those fighting the > regulations even though they are a very modest step) and sometimes in cases > against the government (e.g., the implications of continuing to lease very > large tracts for mining of coal, etc), I'd suggest it is a responsibility > that scientists really can't say no to when asked. > > In my view, I think Jim has done a really great job in explaining the > science, sometimes presenting the science in ways that also then presenting > the statements to the scientific community can illustrate how what we has > learned can be effectively explained to the public. > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > PS--And my first try took a couple of dozen drafts to be clear enough and > relevant enough in answering the questions of the lawyers filing the case > to be accepted for filing (and it was more drafts than for a typical > science paper ). The statements are one's own, but, just as when one speaks > to the public, questions come up and so one learns over time how to explain > the science in ways that are sufficiently clear in the public forum. > > On 10/6/16 5:07 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > > Relatedly: > http://www.nature.com/news/the-maximum-climate-ambition- > needs-a-firm-research-backing > <http://www.nature.com/news/the-maximum-climate-ambition-needs-a-firm-research-backing-1.20687> > > "As it stands, there is minimal evidence that humanity will commit to its > maximum climate ambition, but that could change as the impacts of global > warming come into better focus. New technologies could also make it > easier — and cheaper — to increase commitments. Scientists can help to > provide a better basis for aggressive action when and if that happens." > > GR Yes, science and technology could make it easier and cheaper, but only > if policies and incentives are in place to solicit and encourage the R&D > required. Otherwise, are we going to entrust the development of cheaper and > easier global CO2 management to what is currently treated as a cottage > industry (as opposed to a Manhattan Project or the War on Cancer)? If > scientists are expected to ride to the rescue, you are likely to get a > better outcome by suppling them horses rather than burros. > > On Oct 6, 2016, at 2:12 AM, Steve Rayner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Greg > > You are absolutely right that “some of the greatest science > efforts/achievements are driven by policy”. Anyone who doubts it should > read Dan Sarewitz’s excellent piece in the latest issue of “The New > Atlantis” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science. Not > only does Sarewitz argue that this is the case, he makes a compelling > argument as to why it should be the case. > > The idea of a “firewall” between science and policy is simply part of an > obsolete mythology that sees science as a uniquely asocial human activity. > > Steve > > Steve Rayner > James Martin Professor of Science & Civilisation > Director, Institute for Science, Innovation & Society > Professorial Fellow, Keble College > University of Oxford > 64 Banbury Road > Oxford, OX2 6PN > T: +44 (0)1865 288938 > E: [email protected] > > <07F4D7A7-B430-4679-BA3F-3B8E6BB4B0F6[20].jpg> > > > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Greg Rau < > [email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, 6 October 2016 at 07:10 > To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, MICHAEL MANN <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geo] Saving the World the Hard Way: $104-570T, J. Hansen et > al. > > 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. > > > -- > 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.
Earth system restoration v6.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
