FW: [Fwd: NERC public dialogue on geoengineering]
Jim Woolridge
> Subject: [Fwd: NERC public dialogue on geoengineering]
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: NERC public dialogue on geoengineering
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:17 +0000
> From: Geoengineering Geoengineering <Geoengi...@nerc.ac.uk>
> To: Geoengineering Geoengineering <Geoengi...@nerc.ac.uk>
>
>
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
>
>
> As you may be aware, NERC is planning to run a public dialogue on
> geoengineering in early 2010. The dialogue will seek to assess public
> opinion on the future of geoengineering research. Further details are
> provided in the attached information leaflet.
>
>
>
> Before the dialogue begins, we would like to hear your views on the
> question highlighted in the attached leaflet. You should send your
> comments to geoengi...@nerc.ac.uk <mailto:geoengi...@nerc.ac.uk>
> by the 15th January, and we will take them into account when we design
> the dialogue process.
>
>
>
> Please pass this message on to any colleagues who may be interested.
>
>
>
> We plan to send out occassional e-mail updates about the dialogue over
> the next few months. If you don't want to receive these please let us
> know and we can take you off the distribution list.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Faith Culshaw | Team Leader, Partnerships and Liaison
>
> Mr Peter Hurrell | Stakeholder Liaison Officer
>
>
>
> Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
>
> www.nerc.ac.uk <http://www.nerc.ac.uk>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
Andrew Lockley
- Do you believe that global warming is real?
- Do you believe that it is largely or wholly man-made?
- Do you believe that AGW poses a severe and strategic threat to our country or the world in general by any or all of the following means: Drought, famine, flooding, war, disease
- Do you believe that current efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be sufficient to control AGW to safe levels?
- Do you believe the the UK is doing enough to control GHG emissions?
- Do you believe that the steps needed to control GHG emissions will have a severe and detrimental effect on your standard of living?
- Do you believe that the cost of reducing GHG emissions are or should be a major barrier to such reductions?
- Are you aware that 2007 represented the lowest-ever recorded level of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean?
- Are you aware that CO2 level in the air are now higher than they have been for millions of years?
- Do you think that AGW has already become so serious that major and detrimental impacts are now inevitable?
- Do you believe the the effects of AGW are certain to become more serious over time?
- Do you believe that AGW will or may represent a catastrophic threat to human civilisation?
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS - Have you heard of geoengineering?
- What do you think the term geoengineering means?
- Have you heard of Solar Radiation Management?
- What do you think that SRM means?
- Have you heard of carbon dioxide air capture or carbon sequestration?
- What do you think the terms mean?
- Some scientists, notably the head of the IPCC, argue that we should develop technology to remove CO2 from the air. Do you agree with this?
- Do you believe that scientists know how to safely store CO2 which is removed from the air?
- Do you support research into capturing CO2 from the air, and storing it?
- Scientists generally agree that volcanoes can cause short-term global cooling by adding microscopic, sulphur-containing particles to the upper atmosphere. Were you aware of this?
- Would you support research into the use of these sulphur particles in laboratories and using computers, to better understand how they may affect the global climate?
- Would you support research in the atmosphere, using small quantities of these particles, to better understand their behaviour in the real world?
- Would you support large-scale research into using sulfur particles, even if this research started to have measurable effects on the climate?
- How important do you think that research into geoengineering is?
- Do you think that public funding should found for geoengineering research?
- If scientists believed that geoengineering was relatively safe, would you support its use to alter the global climate?
- If scientists thought that severe and/or irreversible effects from AGW were inevitable, would you support its use?
- Would you support the use of geoengineering if it meant that you could continue to fly, drive, eat meat and continue with other activities which may otherwise have to be controlled or stopped to reduce GHG emissions?
A
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
John Nissen
Hi Andrew,
In the Nathan Myrhvold interview video [1] he claims that stratospheric aerosols, deployed at high latitudes in both hemispheres, could not only cool the polar regions but halt global warming. Moreover he claims weather would not be adversely affected. This is according to his modelling - for which he uses conventional models.
(a) Could such deployment save the Arctic sea ice?
(b) Could such deployment halt global warming?
(c) Could such deployment halt sea level rise?
(d) Is the technology as benign as he says?
If the answers to any of these questions is "possibly yes", then we should add to your questions for the NERC team. For example:
(i) Do you believe governments should act on the precautionary principle?
(ii) Are you aware of the polar amplification of global warming?
(iii) Did you know that models suggest 4 degrees average global warming would result in up to 16 degrees warming in the Arctic?
(iv) Are you aware of dangers of methane release from permafrost if Arctic regions continue to warm a few degrees?
(v) Are you aware of potential sea level rise of 6 to 7 metres if the Greenland ice sheet melts?
(vi) Would you support a means to quickly halt warming in the Arctic, on the precautionary principle, if it were not too expensive?
(vii) Do you accept that global warming is having dangerous effects already, e.g. causing droughts in some countries, and sea level rise for others?
(vii) If global warming could be halted, with low risk of significant adverse effects on weather or economic growth, would you support this?
(viii) Do you accept scientific observations that the sea level is rising faster over the past decade than in previous decades?
(ix) Do you accept that sea level rise, from global warming, is threatening low-lying countries and islands?
(x) Would you be happy for sea level rise to be halted, if this could be done at reasonable cost and safety?
Cheers,
John
[1] http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn
---
jim woolridge
a bit more from me:
“What questions should we ask people about the future of
geoengineering research? What issues and options should be
considered?”
1. To what extent should research and development be nationally/
internationally conducted?
Does it make sense for the UK to do RD&D on schemes/inventions which
have already had a major UK input and in which there is major UK
expertise, e.g. the Salter/Latham 'cloud ships'?
2. To what extent should environmental considerations be allowed to
determine the kind of geoengineering which is done?
Should geoengineering be confined primarily to amplifying or
diminishing only existing biosphere processes as in (again, but not
exclusively) the Salter/Latham cloud ships? (The reasoning here being
that such processes are already part of biosphere feedback &
homeostasis processes and hence do not introduce a radically new
element to those biosphere processes; therefore cutting down, if not
entirely eliminating, the risk of unexpected knock-on effects.)
3. Should geoengineering be confined to processes over which we have a
stop-start facility?
For example: if large amounts of iron filings are poured into the
ocean it would not be possible to get them out again. So if the
introduction of such iron filings had obviously deleterious effects
those effects would have to 'play out'--we could not stop them.
Contrariwise, to continue with the oceanic theme, if ocean pipes a la
Kithil/Lovelock/Rapley/Atmocean were found e.g. to be causing unwanted
effects on deep sea clathrates (as has been suggested as a possible
outcome of their use) their use could simply be discontinued by
hauling them out of the water. This element of control could be vital.
4. Should geoengineering be confined to non-polluting processes?
An example of a non-polluting process would be wrapping parts of
glaciers in reflective material, as has been done for some years now
in Austria (& NB the glaciers can be unwrapped, i.e. the process can
be reversed/stopped.)
An example of a polluting process would be the introduction of
sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere (again, once in the
stratosphere any unfortunate effects would simply have to play out;
there again, if there were such effects we could simply stop putting
the sulphates into the stratosphere.) Although we can stop either
process there is a striking difference between them in that one, the
reflective wrapping, is not in itself polluting but the other, the
aerosol introduction, is.
5. Should efforts to remove CO2 and other GHGs, from the atmosphere be
given a different status from efforts to lower temperatures by other
means (so-called Solar Radiation Management techniques such as the
'cloud ships') on the grounds that actually reducing GHG levels in the
atmosphere is the only long-term hope of returning climate to the
'normal' conditions of the last 10-12,000 years?
If, for instance, as sometimes happens I am cooking and burn something
on the stove not only do I stop the emissions by removing the burning/
smouldering item but I also deploy extractor fans, opened windows,
even the flapping towel in order to restore the atmosphere to its
'normal' condition. There is a sense in which the planetary
atmosphere can be thought of as analogous to the atmosphere in my
kitchen--both systems are, in a sense, 'closed' though one is rather
more complex than the other. The point of interest is whether it makes
any more sense to leave pollutants in the global atmosphere than it
would to leave them in the atmosphere of one's kitchen. (& what sense
would it make to leave the burning/smouldering item to continue
emitting?)
BTW: much kudos to NERC for conducting this process!
On Dec 30 2009, 7:56 pm, Jim Woolridge <jimwoolri...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> This should be of interest to UK people; the NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) is a UK government agency.
>
>
>
> > Subject: [Fwd: NERC public dialogue on geoengineering]
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: NERC public dialogue on geoengineering
> > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:17:17 +0000
> > From: Geoengineering Geoengineering <Geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk>
> > To: Geoengineering Geoengineering <Geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk>
>
> > Dear Colleague,
>
> > As you may be aware, NERC is planning to run a public dialogue on
> > geoengineering in early 2010. The dialogue will seek to assess public
> > opinion on the future of geoengineering research. Further details are
> > provided in the attached information leaflet.
>
> > Before the dialogue begins, we would like to hear your views on the
> > question highlighted in the attached leaflet. You should send your
> > comments to geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk <mailto:geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk>
> > by the 15th January, and we will take them into account when we design
> > the dialogue process.
>
> > Please pass this message on to any colleagues who may be interested.
>
> > We plan to send out occassional e-mail updates about the dialogue over
> > the next few months. If you don't want to receive these please let us
> > know and we can take you off the distribution list.
>
> > Kind Regards,
>
> > Dr Faith Culshaw | Team Leader, Partnerships and Liaison
>
> > Mr Peter Hurrell | Stakeholder Liaison Officer
>
> > Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
>
> >www.nerc.ac.uk<http://www.nerc.ac.uk>
>
> > --
> > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
> > is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
> > of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
> > it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
> > NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.http://windows.microsoft.com/shop
>
> Geoengineering Flyer.doc
> 192KViewDownload