I support John Nissen’s view with some slight modification of the wording, but not the theme. I like his use of the expression, ‘appears to be likely happening’ and want to amplify that. I don’t like Ken’s use of ‘I am confident’. As scientists we can express conviction but not certainty until it has been achieved following the Scientific Method. The current climate observations are highly suggestive of a continuing pattern that will have increasingly disastrous effects. I emphasize there is no certainty. However, if what we are observing is mostly caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions then it is probably too late to rely on reducing such emissions. Yes, we must no doubt do it out of respect for the current understanding and for potential future benefits, but reducing CO2 emissions will probably not save the day. In parallel, and with comparable conviction, we espouse various geoengineering means for halting the perceived, impending disaster. It is highly likely we can design and put in place limited experiments to test the ability to mitigate or delay. Why do we talk about full implementation rather than careful, limited, experimental tests with minimal risk? Implementation is a threat to some. Careful, limited testing is far more benign.
-gene From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:46 PM To: kcalde...@stanford.edu Cc: em...@lewis-brown.net; geo-engineering grp; John Nissen Subject: Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise reference [1] http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1355.php On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:43 PM, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: Ken, We all like to be optimistic - it is a human characteristic. But if you accept what is happening to the Earth System, as being discovered by people like Hansen, Wadhams and Shakhova (on climate sensitivity, sea ice retreat and Arctic methane respectively), then the situation is dire for every human on this planet. This is not a question of perspective, but an appreciation of what appears to be very likely happening, as argued by scientists working in the field, looking at the data - and not clouding their judgement by wishful thinking. None of us wants to see this. It is very difficult to believe that it's happening to us. You look out at our beautiful planet, and enjoy the fruits (mulberries today!), and it's almost impossible to believe that this could all change - if we do not act very quickly and effectively, on several fronts. As for geoengineering perhaps not working as well as expected, this is all the more reason for starting sooner, and starting on several different methods in parallel. Any of the methods being proposed can easily be stopped, if it's not having the required effect - or an adverse effect is too great. The greatest danger is being too late - and then who we have to blame but ourselves - us, who have seen the facts of the situation. Most importantly we must inform our political leaders. If the situation is acknowledged by any country as the emergency, even without 100% scientific certainty, then they are obliged to take action for the sake of their own citizens, according the UNFCCC Article 3 [1]. It's our duty, as people who understand what is happening to the Earth System, not to shelter under misplaced optimism, but come into the open and declare the emergency - if that's the conclusion from what is being discovered. John --- On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote: John, I have no doubt that, from the perspective of many extant species and less-fortunate humans, we are indeed in dire straits. If I were convinced that stratospheric aerosols would work as advertised and that there would be no unforeseen or unanticipated repercussions, and that some sort of democratic process could be devised to give the overall effort political legitimacy, then I would be in favor of early deployment of such schemes. However, I am confident that were such systems deployed, there would be surprises. Maybe the surprise would be how well it works and how everyone the world over greets the project with such a high degree of appreciation. On the other hand, the surprise could be that things go rather wrong, exacerbating international friction, leading to economic disruption, wars, etc. Before such systems would be deployed, I would hope that the risk-benefit balance would be very clearly tipped in the direction of benefit. I just do not think we are there yet. Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Ken, You take a fundamentally different view of the Earth System and geoengineering. I see the Earth System as in an extremely precarious state and geoengineering as absolutely necessary to nudge the system back into a state that allows continued habitation of the planet by ourselves and our offspring. Do you really think that we can survive the century simply by reducing carbon emissions? If we wait for some dramatic event, like disappearance of Arctic sea ice, as an "emergency" sufficient to justify geoengineering, don't we risk leaving geoengineering too late? For me, geoengineering is like chemotherapy when a vital organ has cancer, or like fire-fighting when parts of the burning building contain explosives. You start tackling the problem as quickly as you possibly can, concentrating on the critical parts. John --- On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com> wrote: Two points: I am not opposed to scientists making prescriptive statements in their roles as citizens. However, I am opposed to prescriptive statements (statements about what we should do) in peer-reviewed scientific papers. I think science is about establishing objective facts about the world. As citizens, we take these facts and our values and make judgments about what we should do. I am 100% in favor of Jim Hansen making prescriptive statements. I would just prefer that he not do it in the context of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Science cannot tell us what to do. It can give us information which we can use to make decisions. If the science gets mixed up with politics in peer-reviewed scientific publications, I think it ends up weakening the credibility of the entire scientific publication process (since statements whose truth value cannot be empirically established are obviously getting past reviewers). I should say that the worst in this respect are the economists, who insist that they should be regarded as a science while simultaneously trying to tell us what we should be doing. --- On deployment of some sort of solar reflection system: all of our model results indicate that a high co2 world with deflection of some sunlight would be more similar to a low co2 world than is a high co2 world without deflection of sunlight. So, do I think that direct environmental damage from greenhouse gases could be diminished by deploying such a system? Yes, probably although I am not 100% certain of this. Do I think near-term deployment will reduce overall risk and improve long-term well-being? Of this I am less certain, as it is hard to predict the various sociopolitical, as well as environmental, repercussions that might occur. Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 <tel:1%20650%20704%207212> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Jul 22, 2011, at 16:38, John Nissen <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ken, I've already looked at this interesting paper [1], from Jim Hansen and Mikiko Sato - but I'd not read before of his conjecture about rate of ice mass loss doubling per decade, producing many metres of sea level rise this century. But the implication is that the situation can be saved simply by reducing fossil fuel emissions! Is that the prescription that you are complaining about? Wouldn't a well-considered prescription be welcome from somebody as eminent as Prof Hansen? Geoengineering for example! I don't see a way out of our predicament without it. Do you, Ken? Does Hansen accept that 90% sea ice could be gone as soon as at end summer 2016? (BTW, I've another reference to this date we've been arguing about [2].) Hansen seems to dismiss methane as always producing less forcing than CO2: "This sensitivity has the merit that CO2 is the principal GHG forcing and perhaps the only one with good prospects for quantification of its long-term changes." (page 15) However the paper is relevant to the methane issue in several ways. One argument, which I've heard from Jeff Ridley, is that there is no sign of a methane excursion at previous interglacials* such as end-Eemian, when it was hotter, so we don't need to worry about having an excursion now. Hansen shows that it was never hotter than it is now (in Holocene) by more than one degree. Elsewhere Hansen points out that the current rate of global warming is much higher than it has been for millions of years. Andrew Lockley suggests it's higher than even it was at the PETM some 55.8 million years ago, when temperatures rose about 6 C [3]. That rate of change is important, because of methane's short lifetime. The increasing speed of change implied by Hansen's climate sensitivity is thus relevant to methane. A further way that the paper is relevant to methane is because of climate sensitivity to radiative forcing. The paper suggests various alternative values that could be taken - see [1] table 1. If we get over 2 W/m-2 from methane, then that certainly takes us over the danger line of 2 degrees global warming, using his argument. Cheers, John * During the past 800,000 years, methane never rose much above 700 ppb until recently, see [1] figure 2 [1] Full paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf Abstract here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum --- On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Emily <em...@lewis-brown.net> wrote: Hi, here is a recent paper from Jim Hansen,including some figures I've read before, which stunned me: "In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher." best wishes, Emily. *Paleoclimate Implications: Accepted Paper and 'Popular Science'* "Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change" has been reviewed, revised in response to the referee's suggestions, and accepted for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (Eds. A. Berger, F. Mesinger and D Šijački), Springer. This final version has also been published in arXiv:1105.0968v3 [physics.ao-ph] <http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1 <http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168> &id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168> A__'popular science' summary <http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1 <http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168> &id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168> of the paper, intended for lay audience, is available. Thanks especially to reviewer Dana Royer for helpful comments, foundations and NASA program managers for research support, and a number of people for comments on an early draft of the paper, as delineated in the acknowledgements. Jim Hansen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
