ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Caldeira
Oct 14, 2010, 10:40:19 AM10/14/10
to Climate Intervention
At the upcoming meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, the ETC group is engaged in efforts to try to ban research on ways to protect biodiversity.
Even with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic ecosystems are gravely threatened. Given the intertias in both the climate system and our energy infrastructure, climate engineering approaches may be the only practical way to protect the biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems.
Climate model results indicate that deflecting sunlight away from the Earth can diminish most of the climate change in most places most of the time. If global climate change is a threat to biodiversity, then it would appear to follow that there is at least a potential that well-crafted interventions in the climate system could diminish that threat and therefore help protect biodiversity.
We do not yet know the potential for climate engineering systems to diminish environmental risk, but there is at least some expectation that these approaches could become essential tools in preserving biodiversity. Thus, a ban on researching climate intervention systems represents a threat to biodiversity in that it is foreclosing possible paths to protecting that biodiversity.
We need to do the research to understand whether these approaches could indeed protect biodiversity. A ban on this research as proposed by ETC prevents us from developing tools that could be applied to protect biodiversity.
By being against research on systems that could protect biodiversity, the ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity.
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Even with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic ecosystems are gravely threatened. Given the intertias in both the climate system and our energy infrastructure, climate engineering approaches may be the only practical way to protect the biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems.
Climate model results indicate that deflecting sunlight away from the Earth can diminish most of the climate change in most places most of the time. If global climate change is a threat to biodiversity, then it would appear to follow that there is at least a potential that well-crafted interventions in the climate system could diminish that threat and therefore help protect biodiversity.
We do not yet know the potential for climate engineering systems to diminish environmental risk, but there is at least some expectation that these approaches could become essential tools in preserving biodiversity. Thus, a ban on researching climate intervention systems represents a threat to biodiversity in that it is foreclosing possible paths to protecting that biodiversity.
We need to do the research to understand whether these approaches could indeed protect biodiversity. A ban on this research as proposed by ETC prevents us from developing tools that could be applied to protect biodiversity.
By being against research on systems that could protect biodiversity, the ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity.
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Eugene I. Gordon
Oct 14, 2010, 11:22:09 AM10/14/10
to kcal...@gmail.com, Climate Intervention
Ken, I am not taking exception to your comments but you seem to miss the main point.
Independent of anthropogenic global warming the planet is getting warmer for its own geological reasons. It is currently in a trajectory that has occurred 6 times in the past 450 million years and once on that trajectory it has never failed to get to a global average temperature of 24 C and stay there for millions of years. Two special asteroid events pushed it slightly higher and caused major extinctions.
There is no doubt a current warming component related to CO2 emissions, but that is really in the noise (lots of noise). The planet will get much warmer with or without additional manmade CO2 emissions. See for example www.scotese.com for the geological history
Given the reality of my assertion geoengineering is an absolutely essential activity independent of the truth and extent of anthropogenic global warming. There is no room for equivocation. A solution must be found and I am totally confident that a solution, if not already known, will be found. I personally have been involved in solving critical problems for AT&T that all others said could not be solved. I am confident that with suitable support, confidence and will power it will happen. Mankind for all its failings has technological geniuses.
-gene
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.
Veli Albert Kallio
Oct 14, 2010, 3:13:05 PM10/14/10
to eugg...@comcast.net, kcal...@gmail.com, Climateintervention FIPC
International Research on 'Asteroid Hazard Management' is entirely comparable to our Geoengineering Aims
I agree with Gene's point of view on that geoengineering MUST have a right of existence (independent of any man-made global warming or climate change debate) for any environmental changes occurring that require introduction of a global corrective forcing on the earth's climate -- to preserve its biodiversity.
NASA tracks for the near-earth asteroids that can then be blown apart by nukes or driven off-course from their earth-collision-trajectory if an asteroid becomes too risky. So, we have same right and responsibility to "geoengineer" our climate using our intelligence when the global ecological and social stability gets greatly threatened (by man-made greenhouse gases, or, major changes in solar activity, or a nearby supernova explosion temporarily warming our planet - in addition to our sun - to extent where earth's balance can go off-course).
In this analogy, the army is always there to back up our civil order - if the bad day suddenly comes out of the blue as the Pearl Harbour, or 9/11, and the country finds itself suddenly under attack. Likewise, the Prof. James Lovelock says: "Gaia Revenges". Be geoengineer!
Summer 2010 Melt in Arctic: a Proof of the System under the Sword of Damocles: the Ice Volume Tipping Point Reached
Our urgent need for geoengineering capability is proven by the fact that 99% of all practical preparations and discussions on the climate change address for the "gradual climate change" based on either linear projections from GHG load, combined with exponential curves of population, economic and - most importantly - consumption growth. Likewise, deforestation models extrapolate the current rates of forest felling. Not if the forest like the Amazon suddenly dries up for long enough (3 rainless years) to kill its tree cover, or it gets a major fire.
The abrupt natural climate changes threw off the ice age with little, if any, help from man just like any anthropogenic global warming denialists recite. A rapid change from the Pleistocene ice sheets led into thousands of years of Holocene stability. We must expect similar effects to come in very suddenly from: methane clathrates, melted permafrost, destabilised ice sheets, and from a little-spoken threat of wet solidus damage (dissolved water vapour, or its constituents parts, dissolved hydrogen and oxygen nucleates in a subglacial magma). Eyjafjallajokull eruption in April 2010 was correctly forecasted three years' ago by the University College London researchers as of this due to the ice cap melting extremely fast during the preceding years. The melting glaciers unload weight and pressure until the ground water in magma reservoirs starts nucleating gases, which then sprays molten rocks beneath glaciers. The Pine Island glacier and some areas of WAIS are ones which could enter soon into this Eyjafjallajokull style glacier melting induced leaking of molten rocks under ice.
I would like to draw attention to Cryosphere Today which showed the summer sea ice minimum at 3,072,000 km2 which was only 2.6% above the record minimum of 2007 at 2,992,000 km2. From April until June the thin sea ice cover melting peaked at 225,000 km2 per day. In July storm conditions came in and sunlight was masked by the clouds. Did it stop the loss of sea ice volume? No! The sea ice began break up and was scattered over far wider area. PIOMAS showed in the end of July ice volume down from the mean value by 4 standard deviations, a once-in-15,570-year melting event. FIPC always stated that the dynamic overturning processes in sea water column (plus increasingly migratory sea ice) will cause thermal inertia being captured more by the ice which travels. Also, when ice is pushed sideways to south, the water that displaces it is raised up to fill in all the gaps in the volume under the margin of the sea level.
The honeycombed sea ice breaks like oil slick into ever smaller constituent parts over ever wider area but with the same ice volume. Summer 2010 saw awful much of this kind of sea-ice-area retention, as the ice became "pulverised" into ever smaller and smaller fragments. There is nothing mystery in this: just fill a kettle with water and turn it upside down - while the area grows, volume doesn't. The larger area with plenty of open water in between ice floes transmits far more heat than concentrated area of packed ice.
2007, 2008 and 2010 each saw sea ice down to 3 million square kilometre. In 2010 this sea ice area was retained greatly by the sea ice scattering with the "pulverisation" of honeycombed soft ice that formed a huge "slick of broken ice". 2011 will be a total catastrophe and we need to prepare for it! It is amazing that people do not understand that the systems-at-tipping-points become inherently unstable. Bad ice conditions in April, May and June melted the ice, people welcomed the change of weather patterns in July as storms slowed the sunlight, heat and insolation. People think July 2010 was a good enough to prove that there is no worry. But alas, the clouds and storms induced the sea ice scattering and increased overturning of sea water due to the countless leads now having been created between the ice floes (that now break very easily due to thinness of sea ice and the larger waves forming over larger expanses of open water). The July 2010 trade-off for less sunlight was the escalating, volumetric sea ice loss through increased heat transfers from the sea water.
The lesson of summer of 2010 is that when one gives, the other takes. Tipping systems are systems with diminished escapes to self-correct. The operational window for effective geoengineering in adverse climate change conditions needs to be established to prevent false hopes and to give the therapies in a timely manner when their output is deemed effective to hold back our ship from turning over.
The Sword of Damocles hangs now as the Arctic tips. Let's go for geoengineering, and soon !
kr, albert
From: eugg...@comcast.net
To: kcal...@gmail.com; climatein...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:22:09 -0400
I agree with Gene's point of view on that geoengineering MUST have a right of existence (independent of any man-made global warming or climate change debate) for any environmental changes occurring that require introduction of a global corrective forcing on the earth's climate -- to preserve its biodiversity.
NASA tracks for the near-earth asteroids that can then be blown apart by nukes or driven off-course from their earth-collision-trajectory if an asteroid becomes too risky. So, we have same right and responsibility to "geoengineer" our climate using our intelligence when the global ecological and social stability gets greatly threatened (by man-made greenhouse gases, or, major changes in solar activity, or a nearby supernova explosion temporarily warming our planet - in addition to our sun - to extent where earth's balance can go off-course).
In this analogy, the army is always there to back up our civil order - if the bad day suddenly comes out of the blue as the Pearl Harbour, or 9/11, and the country finds itself suddenly under attack. Likewise, the Prof. James Lovelock says: "Gaia Revenges". Be geoengineer!
Summer 2010 Melt in Arctic: a Proof of the System under the Sword of Damocles: the Ice Volume Tipping Point Reached
Our urgent need for geoengineering capability is proven by the fact that 99% of all practical preparations and discussions on the climate change address for the "gradual climate change" based on either linear projections from GHG load, combined with exponential curves of population, economic and - most importantly - consumption growth. Likewise, deforestation models extrapolate the current rates of forest felling. Not if the forest like the Amazon suddenly dries up for long enough (3 rainless years) to kill its tree cover, or it gets a major fire.
The abrupt natural climate changes threw off the ice age with little, if any, help from man just like any anthropogenic global warming denialists recite. A rapid change from the Pleistocene ice sheets led into thousands of years of Holocene stability. We must expect similar effects to come in very suddenly from: methane clathrates, melted permafrost, destabilised ice sheets, and from a little-spoken threat of wet solidus damage (dissolved water vapour, or its constituents parts, dissolved hydrogen and oxygen nucleates in a subglacial magma). Eyjafjallajokull eruption in April 2010 was correctly forecasted three years' ago by the University College London researchers as of this due to the ice cap melting extremely fast during the preceding years. The melting glaciers unload weight and pressure until the ground water in magma reservoirs starts nucleating gases, which then sprays molten rocks beneath glaciers. The Pine Island glacier and some areas of WAIS are ones which could enter soon into this Eyjafjallajokull style glacier melting induced leaking of molten rocks under ice.
I would like to draw attention to Cryosphere Today which showed the summer sea ice minimum at 3,072,000 km2 which was only 2.6% above the record minimum of 2007 at 2,992,000 km2. From April until June the thin sea ice cover melting peaked at 225,000 km2 per day. In July storm conditions came in and sunlight was masked by the clouds. Did it stop the loss of sea ice volume? No! The sea ice began break up and was scattered over far wider area. PIOMAS showed in the end of July ice volume down from the mean value by 4 standard deviations, a once-in-15,570-year melting event. FIPC always stated that the dynamic overturning processes in sea water column (plus increasingly migratory sea ice) will cause thermal inertia being captured more by the ice which travels. Also, when ice is pushed sideways to south, the water that displaces it is raised up to fill in all the gaps in the volume under the margin of the sea level.
The honeycombed sea ice breaks like oil slick into ever smaller constituent parts over ever wider area but with the same ice volume. Summer 2010 saw awful much of this kind of sea-ice-area retention, as the ice became "pulverised" into ever smaller and smaller fragments. There is nothing mystery in this: just fill a kettle with water and turn it upside down - while the area grows, volume doesn't. The larger area with plenty of open water in between ice floes transmits far more heat than concentrated area of packed ice.
2007, 2008 and 2010 each saw sea ice down to 3 million square kilometre. In 2010 this sea ice area was retained greatly by the sea ice scattering with the "pulverisation" of honeycombed soft ice that formed a huge "slick of broken ice". 2011 will be a total catastrophe and we need to prepare for it! It is amazing that people do not understand that the systems-at-tipping-points become inherently unstable. Bad ice conditions in April, May and June melted the ice, people welcomed the change of weather patterns in July as storms slowed the sunlight, heat and insolation. People think July 2010 was a good enough to prove that there is no worry. But alas, the clouds and storms induced the sea ice scattering and increased overturning of sea water due to the countless leads now having been created between the ice floes (that now break very easily due to thinness of sea ice and the larger waves forming over larger expanses of open water). The July 2010 trade-off for less sunlight was the escalating, volumetric sea ice loss through increased heat transfers from the sea water.
The lesson of summer of 2010 is that when one gives, the other takes. Tipping systems are systems with diminished escapes to self-correct. The operational window for effective geoengineering in adverse climate change conditions needs to be established to prevent false hopes and to give the therapies in a timely manner when their output is deemed effective to hold back our ship from turning over.
The Sword of Damocles hangs now as the Arctic tips. Let's go for geoengineering, and soon !
kr, albert
From: eugg...@comcast.net
To: kcal...@gmail.com; climatein...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:22:09 -0400
Josh Horton
Oct 14, 2010, 10:46:20 PM10/14/10
to Climate Intervention
This is what ETC Group and others are pushing the CBD to adopt:
[(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean
fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance
with the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geo-
engineering activities take place until there is an adequate
scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate
consideration of the associated risks for the environment and
biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts;]
Adoption would be important in terms of symbolism, precedent, and
global norms, but it would likely have negligible practical effects as
the convention is largely aspirational and lacks significant
obligations or commitments.
Josh Horton
On Oct 14, 3:13 pm, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> read more »
[(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean
fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance
with the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geo-
engineering activities take place until there is an adequate
scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate
consideration of the associated risks for the environment and
biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts;]
Adoption would be important in terms of symbolism, precedent, and
global norms, but it would likely have negligible practical effects as
the convention is largely aspirational and lacks significant
obligations or commitments.
Josh Horton
On Oct 14, 3:13 pm, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> International Research on 'Asteroid Hazard Management' is entirely comparable to our Geoengineering Aims
>
> I agree with Gene's point of view on that geoengineering MUST have a right of existence (independent of any man-made global warming or climate change debate) for any environmental changes occurring that require introduction of a global corrective forcing on the earth's climate -- to preserve its biodiversity.
>
> NASA tracks for the near-earth asteroids that can then be blown apart by nukes or driven off-course from their earth-collision-trajectory if an asteroid becomes too risky. So, we have same right and responsibility to "geoengineer" our climate using our intelligence when the global ecological and social stability gets greatly threatened (by man-made greenhouse gases, or, major changes in solar activity, or a nearby supernova explosion temporarily warming our planet - in addition to our sun - to extent where earth's balance can go off-course).
>
> In this analogy, the army is always there to back up our civil order - if the bad day suddenly comes out of the blue as the Pearl Harbour, or 9/11, and the country finds itself suddenly under attack. Likewise, the Prof. James Lovelock says: "Gaia Revenges". Be geoengineer!
>
> Summer 2010 Melt in Arctic: a Proof of the System under the Sword of Damocles: the Ice Volume Tipping Point Reached
>
> Our urgent need for geoengineering capability is proven by the fact that 99% of all practical preparations and discussions on the climate change address for the "gradual climate change" based on either linear projections from GHG load, combined with exponential curves of population, economic and - most importantly - consumption growth. Likewise, deforestation models extrapolate the current rates of forest felling. Not if the forest like the Amazon suddenly dries up for long enough (3 rainless years) to kill its tree cover, or it gets a major fire.
>
> The abrupt natural climate changes threw off the ice age with little, if any, help from man just like any anthropogenic global warming denialists recite. A rapid change from the Pleistocene ice sheets led into thousands of years of Holocene stability. We must expect similar effects to come in very suddenly from: methane clathrates, melted permafrost, destabilised ice sheets, and from a little-spoken threat of wet solidus damage (dissolved water vapour, or its constituents parts, dissolved hydrogen and oxygen nucleates in a subglacial magma). Eyjafjallajokull eruption in April 2010 was correctly forecasted three years' ago by the University College London researchers as of this due to the ice cap melting extremely fast during the preceding years. The melting glaciers unload weight and pressure until the ground water in magma reservoirs starts nucleating gases, which then sprays molten rocks beneath glaciers. The Pine Island glacier and some areas of WAIS are ones which could enter soon into this Eyjafjallajokull style glacier melting induced leaking of molten rocks under ice.
>
> I would like to draw attention to Cryosphere Today which showed the summer sea ice minimum at 3,072,000 km2 which was only 2.6% above the record minimum of 2007 at 2,992,000 km2. From April until June the thin sea ice cover melting peaked at 225,000 km2 per day. In July storm conditions came in and sunlight was masked by the clouds. Did it stop the loss of sea ice volume? No! The sea ice began break up and was scattered over far wider area. PIOMAS showed in the end of July ice volume down from the mean value by 4 standard deviations, a once-in-15,570-year melting event. FIPC always stated that the dynamic overturning processes in sea water column (plus increasingly migratory sea ice) will cause thermal inertia being captured more by the ice which travels. Also, when ice is pushed sideways to south, the water that displaces it is raised up to fill in all the gaps in the volume under the margin of the sea level.
> The honeycombed sea ice breaks like oil slick into ever smaller constituent parts over ever wider area but with the same ice volume. Summer 2010 saw awful much of this kind of sea-ice-area retention, as the ice became "pulverised" into ever smaller and smaller fragments. There is nothing mystery in this: just fill a kettle with water and turn it upside down - while the area grows, volume doesn't. The larger area with plenty of open water in between ice floes transmits far more heat than concentrated area of packed ice.
>
> 2007, 2008 and 2010 each saw sea ice down to 3 million square kilometre. In 2010 this sea ice area was retained greatly by the sea ice scattering with the "pulverisation" of honeycombed soft ice that formed a huge "slick of broken ice". 2011 will be a total catastrophe and we need to prepare for it! It is amazing that people do not understand that the systems-at-tipping-points become inherently unstable. Bad ice conditions in April, May and June melted the ice, people welcomed the change of weather patterns in July as storms slowed the sunlight, heat and insolation. People think July 2010 was a good enough to prove that there is no worry. But alas, the clouds and storms induced the sea ice scattering and increased overturning of sea water due to the countless leads now having been created between the ice floes (that now break very easily due to thinness of sea ice and the larger waves forming over larger expanses of open water). The July 2010 trade-off for less sunlight was the escalating, volumetric sea ice loss through increased heat transfers from the sea water.
>
> The lesson of summer of 2010 is that when one gives, the other takes. Tipping systems are systems with diminished escapes to self-correct. The operational window for effective geoengineering in adverse climate change conditions needs to be established to prevent false hopes and to give the therapies in a timely manner when their output is deemed effective to hold back our ship from turning over.
>
> The Sword of Damocles hangs now as the Arctic tips. Let's go for geoengineering, and soon !
>
> kr, albert
>
>
> I agree with Gene's point of view on that geoengineering MUST have a right of existence (independent of any man-made global warming or climate change debate) for any environmental changes occurring that require introduction of a global corrective forcing on the earth's climate -- to preserve its biodiversity.
>
> NASA tracks for the near-earth asteroids that can then be blown apart by nukes or driven off-course from their earth-collision-trajectory if an asteroid becomes too risky. So, we have same right and responsibility to "geoengineer" our climate using our intelligence when the global ecological and social stability gets greatly threatened (by man-made greenhouse gases, or, major changes in solar activity, or a nearby supernova explosion temporarily warming our planet - in addition to our sun - to extent where earth's balance can go off-course).
>
> In this analogy, the army is always there to back up our civil order - if the bad day suddenly comes out of the blue as the Pearl Harbour, or 9/11, and the country finds itself suddenly under attack. Likewise, the Prof. James Lovelock says: "Gaia Revenges". Be geoengineer!
>
> Summer 2010 Melt in Arctic: a Proof of the System under the Sword of Damocles: the Ice Volume Tipping Point Reached
>
> Our urgent need for geoengineering capability is proven by the fact that 99% of all practical preparations and discussions on the climate change address for the "gradual climate change" based on either linear projections from GHG load, combined with exponential curves of population, economic and - most importantly - consumption growth. Likewise, deforestation models extrapolate the current rates of forest felling. Not if the forest like the Amazon suddenly dries up for long enough (3 rainless years) to kill its tree cover, or it gets a major fire.
>
> The abrupt natural climate changes threw off the ice age with little, if any, help from man just like any anthropogenic global warming denialists recite. A rapid change from the Pleistocene ice sheets led into thousands of years of Holocene stability. We must expect similar effects to come in very suddenly from: methane clathrates, melted permafrost, destabilised ice sheets, and from a little-spoken threat of wet solidus damage (dissolved water vapour, or its constituents parts, dissolved hydrogen and oxygen nucleates in a subglacial magma). Eyjafjallajokull eruption in April 2010 was correctly forecasted three years' ago by the University College London researchers as of this due to the ice cap melting extremely fast during the preceding years. The melting glaciers unload weight and pressure until the ground water in magma reservoirs starts nucleating gases, which then sprays molten rocks beneath glaciers. The Pine Island glacier and some areas of WAIS are ones which could enter soon into this Eyjafjallajokull style glacier melting induced leaking of molten rocks under ice.
>
> I would like to draw attention to Cryosphere Today which showed the summer sea ice minimum at 3,072,000 km2 which was only 2.6% above the record minimum of 2007 at 2,992,000 km2. From April until June the thin sea ice cover melting peaked at 225,000 km2 per day. In July storm conditions came in and sunlight was masked by the clouds. Did it stop the loss of sea ice volume? No! The sea ice began break up and was scattered over far wider area. PIOMAS showed in the end of July ice volume down from the mean value by 4 standard deviations, a once-in-15,570-year melting event. FIPC always stated that the dynamic overturning processes in sea water column (plus increasingly migratory sea ice) will cause thermal inertia being captured more by the ice which travels. Also, when ice is pushed sideways to south, the water that displaces it is raised up to fill in all the gaps in the volume under the margin of the sea level.
> The honeycombed sea ice breaks like oil slick into ever smaller constituent parts over ever wider area but with the same ice volume. Summer 2010 saw awful much of this kind of sea-ice-area retention, as the ice became "pulverised" into ever smaller and smaller fragments. There is nothing mystery in this: just fill a kettle with water and turn it upside down - while the area grows, volume doesn't. The larger area with plenty of open water in between ice floes transmits far more heat than concentrated area of packed ice.
>
> 2007, 2008 and 2010 each saw sea ice down to 3 million square kilometre. In 2010 this sea ice area was retained greatly by the sea ice scattering with the "pulverisation" of honeycombed soft ice that formed a huge "slick of broken ice". 2011 will be a total catastrophe and we need to prepare for it! It is amazing that people do not understand that the systems-at-tipping-points become inherently unstable. Bad ice conditions in April, May and June melted the ice, people welcomed the change of weather patterns in July as storms slowed the sunlight, heat and insolation. People think July 2010 was a good enough to prove that there is no worry. But alas, the clouds and storms induced the sea ice scattering and increased overturning of sea water due to the countless leads now having been created between the ice floes (that now break very easily due to thinness of sea ice and the larger waves forming over larger expanses of open water). The July 2010 trade-off for less sunlight was the escalating, volumetric sea ice loss through increased heat transfers from the sea water.
>
> The lesson of summer of 2010 is that when one gives, the other takes. Tipping systems are systems with diminished escapes to self-correct. The operational window for effective geoengineering in adverse climate change conditions needs to be established to prevent false hopes and to give the therapies in a timely manner when their output is deemed effective to hold back our ship from turning over.
>
> The Sword of Damocles hangs now as the Arctic tips. Let's go for geoengineering, and soon !
>
> kr, albert
>
> From: euggor...@comcast.net
> To: kcalde...@gmail.com; climatein...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:22:09 -0400
>
> Ken, I am not taking exception to your comments but you seem to miss the main point.
>
> Independent of anthropogenic global warming the planet is getting warmer for its own geological reasons. It is currently in a trajectory that has occurred 6 times in the past 450 million years and once on that trajectory it has never failed to get to a global average temperature of 24 C and stay there for millions of years. Two special asteroid events pushed it slightly higher and caused major extinctions.
>
> There is no doubt a current warming component related to CO2 emissions, but that is really in the noise (lots of noise). The planet will get much warmer with or without additional manmade CO2 emissions. See for examplewww.scotese.com for the geological history
> To: kcalde...@gmail.com; climatein...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:22:09 -0400
>
> Ken, I am not taking exception to your comments but you seem to miss the main point.
>
> Independent of anthropogenic global warming the planet is getting warmer for its own geological reasons. It is currently in a trajectory that has occurred 6 times in the past 450 million years and once on that trajectory it has never failed to get to a global average temperature of 24 C and stay there for millions of years. Two special asteroid events pushed it slightly higher and caused major extinctions.
>
>
> Given the reality of my assertion geoengineering is an absolutely essential activity independent of the truth and extent of anthropogenic global warming. There is no room for equivocation. A solution must be found and I am totally confident that a solution, if not already known, will be found. I personally have been involved in solving critical problems for AT&T that all others said could not be solved. I am confident that with suitable support, confidence and will power it will happen. Mankind for all its failings has technological geniuses.
>
> -gene
>
> From: climatein...@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:40 AM
> To: Climate Intervention
> Subject: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
>
> At the upcoming meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, the ETC group is engaged in efforts to try to ban research on ways to protect biodiversity.
>
> Even with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic ecosystems are gravely threatened. Given the intertias in both the climate system and our energy infrastructure, climate engineering approaches may be the only practical way to protect the biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems.
>
> Climate model results indicate that deflecting sunlight away from the Earth can diminish most of the climate change in most places most of the time. If global climate change is a threat to biodiversity, then it would appear to follow that there is at least a potential that well-crafted interventions in the climate system could diminish that threat and therefore help protect biodiversity.
>
> We do not yet know the potential for climate engineering systems to diminish environmental risk, but there is at least some expectation that these approaches could become essential tools in preserving biodiversity. Thus, a ban on researching climate intervention systems represents a threat to biodiversity in that it is foreclosing possible paths to protecting that biodiversity.
>
> We need to do the research to understand whether these approaches could indeed protect biodiversity. A ban on this research as proposed by ETC prevents us from developing tools that could be applied to protect biodiversity.
>
> By being against research on systems that could protect biodiversity, the ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
> Given the reality of my assertion geoengineering is an absolutely essential activity independent of the truth and extent of anthropogenic global warming. There is no room for equivocation. A solution must be found and I am totally confident that a solution, if not already known, will be found. I personally have been involved in solving critical problems for AT&T that all others said could not be solved. I am confident that with suitable support, confidence and will power it will happen. Mankind for all its failings has technological geniuses.
>
> -gene
>
> From: climatein...@googlegroups.com [mailto:climatein...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:40 AM
> To: Climate Intervention
> Subject: [clim] ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity
>
> At the upcoming meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, the ETC group is engaged in efforts to try to ban research on ways to protect biodiversity.
>
> Even with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Arctic ecosystems are gravely threatened. Given the intertias in both the climate system and our energy infrastructure, climate engineering approaches may be the only practical way to protect the biodiversity of Arctic ecosystems.
>
> Climate model results indicate that deflecting sunlight away from the Earth can diminish most of the climate change in most places most of the time. If global climate change is a threat to biodiversity, then it would appear to follow that there is at least a potential that well-crafted interventions in the climate system could diminish that threat and therefore help protect biodiversity.
>
> We do not yet know the potential for climate engineering systems to diminish environmental risk, but there is at least some expectation that these approaches could become essential tools in preserving biodiversity. Thus, a ban on researching climate intervention systems represents a threat to biodiversity in that it is foreclosing possible paths to protecting that biodiversity.
>
> We need to do the research to understand whether these approaches could indeed protect biodiversity. A ban on this research as proposed by ETC prevents us from developing tools that could be applied to protect biodiversity.
>
> By being against research on systems that could protect biodiversity, the ETC group threatens Arctic biodiversity.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
> To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at ...
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
> To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
>
> read more »
Stephen Salter
Oct 16, 2010, 6:31:40 AM10/16/10
to climatein...@googlegroups.com
Hi All
Vehicle emissions and human over-population are great threats to bio-diversity. Can we get the ETC group to support a clause to prohibit brakes and steering wheels?
Stephen
Vehicle emissions and human over-population are great threats to bio-diversity. Can we get the ETC group to support a clause to prohibit brakes and steering wheels?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages