Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Emily
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&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168>
A__'popular science' summary
<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&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
Ken Caldeira
That said, I think he is right about long-term climate sensitivity being higher than the century-scale sensitivity inferred from climate models and analysis of historical data.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
John Nissen
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
---
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
John Nissen
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
---
Ken Caldeira
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 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
Ken Caldeira
Values and norms do and must guide what questions we ask, but they cannot be allowed to influence our scientific answers.
Scientific papers should contain empirical statements and not value-based judgments.
Hi All -Forgive me for joining in - I am a newcomer on this list.Georges Canguilhem, who analyzed the French medical sciences, argued that the objectivity of medicine in fact requires its normative component. Research is not only motivated by goals like curing disease, but is organized toward those aims in all its detail. He shows that the positive agenda of a non-normative physiology, which sought to build up an understanding of normal functions in their totality, remained an allusive dream. But for Canguilhem this normative dimension hardly undermines medicine's claim to objectivity - on the contrary. The science of the normal body needs pathology in order to exist.It strikes me that ecological sciences also have an undeniable clinical aspect, at least in a great many research contexts. It is not only that we are motivated by goals of repairing the earth - or even just making policy-relevant conclusions - but that the research is actually organized in such a way. The normative dimension is inescapable, but this doesn't mean the methodological basis of research isn't robust. Like medicine, climate science implies intervention, and our understanding of climate would be hardly as developed were it not so.Incidentally, Canguilhem attributed this polarized condition of normative judgment as an essential element of life itself. Living bodies inherently are involved in polarized judgments - inside versus outside, up versus down, pain versus pleasure. If life is this normative activity, it means that disease is not a strictly objective condition (say, loss of funtionality), but also a 'subjective' judgment about that condition (that the loss of function is bad). This also helps clarify why people use medical sciences to manipulate their bodies in unconventional ways (augmentation, performance enhancing drugs). And of course these sciences are also organized around normative goals.Regards,Jerome WhitingtonDartmouth College / NUS
Eugene Gordon
Deploy has an ominous and fateful ring. What about some careful, well thought through, limited experiments in order to decide about the value and risk of deployment? I think that is entirely possible with stratospheric aerosols. I think this group is entirely capable if defining and proposing limited experiments.
Hawkins, Dave
Sent from my iPad
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
Rau, Greg
-Greg
________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave [dhaw...@nrdc.org]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:40 AM
To: kcal...@gmail.com
Cc: John Nissen; em...@lewis-brown.net; geo-engineering grp; John Nissen
Subject: [geo] Prescriptive statements in scientific papers
Hi Ken,
Your prescription that science papers should not include prescriptive statements raises interesting issues.
While I agree that it is important to avoid confusion between science-based findings and statements based on values, it seems to me that it is possible to avoid this confusion in a single paper by careful writing that clearly separates the findings components of the paper from any value-infused implications that the authors draw from the findings. To me it seems an unnecessary obstacle to communication to require that values-based statements appear only in a separate publication than the paper containing the science-based findings.
Regarding the Hansen paper, he would probably argue that as a technical matter his paper does not breach your rule though.
Certainly, the following sentence from the abstract could be interpreted as a prescriptive statement:
"Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed."
But it can also be read as a science-based statement; to wit, based on the paleo-climate information presented in the paper, the authors conclude that continued loadings from fossil fuel use are very likely to result in conditions that are outside the envelope of conditions prevalent during the rise of modern human civilizations.
One can argue whether the authors have provided adequate support for this statement but that is different than calling it a policy prescription.
In the body of the paper, the last page (pasted below) contains essentially all of the statements that veer into prescriptions. But on my inspection at least, the statements mostly boil down to the inclusion of terms that some (not me) might quarrel with: "disastrous," "devastating," "not safe or appropriate," "unwise," and "disaster scenario."
I would agree that "appropriate" and "unwise" are values-infused terms, as, arguably, is "safe.". But "disaster" and "devastating" are just as easily understood as descriptive of the changes the authors argue are likely, based on the paleo-climate science discussed in the paper.
In any event, the paper is an interesting illumination of the fuzzy nature of the line between science and prescriptive policy pronouncements.
David
excerpt from Hansen:
"Thus burning all or most fossil fuels guarantees tens of meters of sea level rise, as we have shown that the eventual sea level response is about 20 meters of sea level for each degree Celsius of global warming. We suggest that ice sheet disintegration will be a nonlinear process, spurred by an increasing forcing and by amplifying feedbacks, which is better characterized by a doubling time for the rate of mass disintegration, rather than a linear rate of mass change. If the doubling time is as short as a decade, multi-meter sea level rise could occur this century. Observations of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica are too brief for significant conclusions, but they are not inconsistent with a doubling time of a decade or less. The picture will become clearer as the measurement record lengthens. There are physical constraints and negative feedbacks that may limit nonlinear ice sheet mass loss. An ice sheet sitting primarily on land above sea level, such as most of Greenland, may be limited by the speed at which it can deliver ice to the ocean via outlet glaciers. But much of the West Antarctic ice sheet, resting on bedrock below sea level, is not so constrained. We recognize the negative feedback that comes into play as iceberg discharge reaches a rate that cools the regional ocean surface. But that negative feedback would be cold comfort. High latitude cooling and low latitude warming would drive more powerful mid-latitude cyclonic storms, including more frequent cases of hurricane force winds. Such storms, in combination with rising sea level, would be disastrous for many of the world's great cities and they would be devastating for the world's economic well-being and cultural heritage.
"5.3. How much warming is too much? The most substantial political effort to place a limit on global warming has been the European Union's target to keep global temperature from exceeding the preindustrial level by more than 2°C (European Union, 2008). This goal was later reaffirmed (European Union, 2010) and it was endorsed by a group of Nobel Laureates in the Stockholm Memo (2011). However, based on evidence presented in this paper a target of 2°C is not safe or appropriate. Global warming of 2°C would make Earth much warmer than in the Eemian, when sea level was 4-6 meters higher than today. Indeed, with global warming of 2°C Earth would be headed back toward Pliocene-like conditions. Conceivably a 2°C target is based partly on a perception of what is politically realistic, rather than a statement of pure science. In any event, our science analysis suggests that such a target is not only unwise, but likely a disaster scenario. Detailed consideration of targets is beyond the scope of this paper, but we note that our present study is consistent with the "target CO2" analysis of Hansen et al. (2008). Those authors argued that atmospheric CO2 should be rolled back from its present ~390 ppm at least to the level of approximately 350 ppm. With other climate forcings held fixed, CO2 at 350 ppm would restore the planet's energy balance and keep human-made global warming less than 1°C, as we and several colleagues discuss in two papers ("Earth's Energy Imbalance" and "The Case for Young People and Nature") in preparation."
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:03 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@gmail.com<mailto:kcal...@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
<mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu<mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
+1 650 704 7212
<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
Sent from a limited-typing keyboard
On Jul 22, 2011, at 16:38, John Nissen <<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnis...@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> <http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf
Abstract here:
<http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3><http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968v3
[2] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13002706
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
---
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Emily <<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net><mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net>em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto: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&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168><http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168>http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=fbefcc8464&e=60a7483168>
A__'popular science' summary
<<http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168><http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=d3b93e0894&e=60a7483168>http://columbia.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&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 <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> 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 <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com> geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> <http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en> 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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.
Jerome Whitington
Anthropology, UC Berkeley 2008
Climate Justice Research Project
Dartmouth College
+1 415 763 8605
John Nissen
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
---
John Nissen
Eugene Gordon
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: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:46 PM
To: kcal...@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
Andrew Lockley
Well I think that the scientific evidence is clear. Considering population effects, current social change (urbanization, industrialization) and technology/political lag, I say that we cannot avoid dangerous climate change of 2C or higher without geoengineering - specifically SRM. ( less than 5% chance) And that is without considering the chronic apathy of the worlds governments on the issue. Even 2C is probably not safe.
Prior work on the issue tends to underestimate feedbacks, societal lag times and current emissions trajectories. We have been conning ourselves for far too long.
Shoot me down if you can, but I'll put a hundred dollars on me being right.
And if I am right, we better have our ships and planes ready when it all kicks off, because otherwise we'll be the shepherds who should have cried wolf.
I get sick of all this pussy-footing. We need to be clear. We can already be highly confident that geoengineering is needed. We therefore need to be building knowledge and capacity right now.
Who will step up and challenge me? Etc group? Any other takers?
A
>
> 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>
John Nissen
Well spoken. I just want to add to the challenge of anybody who want to contradict you, with two points:
1. The evidence for the severity of our position now points to a much worse situation than it seemed to be only 12 months ago:
a) the sea-ice volume trend has emerged, indicating a likely date of 10% end-summer sea ice at around 2016 +/- 3 years;
b) a vast quantity of Arctic methane is in a critical condition such that it could be released into the Arctic atmosphere over the next decade or two, sufficient to cause more global warming than CO2;
c) the sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcing appears to be much great than previously thought - which emphasises the importance of retaining the sea ice and preventing a methane excursion.
2. If you take into account the threat of ocean acidification, then the CDR (carbon dioxide removal) is required as well as SRM.
Cheers,
John
---
Fulkerson, William
Veli Albert Kallio
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Cryosphere Today has reported a phenomenal North Pole melting:
North Pole's Ice Cap currently melts away at a phenomenal weekly rate of: 14.9%.
Melting figures of the Arctic Ocean for the last 7 days are:
17.07.2011: ice area 5,456,000 km2 - melting 98,000 km2
18.07.2011: ice area 5,383,000 km2 - melting 73,000 km2
19.07.2011: ice area 5,283,000 km2 - melting 100,000 km2
20.07.2011: ice area 5,083,000 km2 - melting 200,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 3.93%
21.07.2011: ice area 4,931,000 km2 - melting 152,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 3.08%
22.07.2011: ice area 4,843,000 km2 - melting 88,000 km2
23.07.2011: ice area 4,726,000 km2 - melting 117,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 2.48%
At the start of the week, 16.07.2011 the ice area was 5,554,000 km2.
A daily sea ice melting rate 77,000 km2 could melt all ice from the North Pole by the autumn equinox. The current rate of disappearing sea ice is much higher. This suggests that the open seas are increasing solar energy absorption at higher rates than the shortening of daylight hours are reducing the sunlight supply. A return of cold weather and clouds can break this vicious circle.
The fact that the North Pole Sea Ice Cap is able to lose 10.5% of its size in just over the last 4 days is a matter of immense concern to me as our train may have already lost its breaks...
WattsUpWithThat.com suggests the sun has entered a more intense phase in its sun-spot cycle and the sea ice is now melts. They now say the sea ice melting intensifies over the next few years until solar activity peaks, after that the sunspots disappear and the Arctic Oceans sea ice cover recovers. The concern over melting sea ice is alarmism as it is all due to a recent change in solar weather, the increasing radiation drives global warming and, therefore, North Pole's sea ice is now melting.
However, this contradicts their own sea ice area outlook projection: http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/july_panarctic_fig1.png
In June WattsUpWithThat.com forecasted the second largest sea ice area in September with ice area recovery to 5,100,000 km2. WattsUpWithThat.com forecasting logic apparently expects the Arctic Ocean to be freezing 374,000 km2 by September.
We should change our Googlrgroup's name to: Geoengineering Now!
Kind regards,
Albert
Subject: Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Eugene Gordon
The world is full of economic experts. Little good it is doing; the economies of most countries are disasters. It is easy to take a swing at economists. My choice for bums of the year are the politicians.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fulkerson, William
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:06 PM
To: <kcal...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Nissen; em...@lewis-brown.net; geo-engineering grp; John Nissen
Subject: Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Dear Ken:
Eugene Gordon
Albert:
No! Geoengineering Yesterday. In any case it is interesting that sunspots are now getting attention. Most climate scientists have ignored sunspots despite excellent perfect correlation back to the year 1500. So much for the science!
-gene
Mike MacCracken
The variation over solar cycles is really quite small compared to the magnitude of the greenhouse forcing. Asserting that the accelerating melting back of Arctic sea ice is due to the sunspot cycle is, given that the relative magnitude of the GHG induced changes, is thus really unsubstantiated wishful thinking.
Mike MacCracken
PS to Gene—Excellent correlation of what—and how accurate are each of the records. Suggesting something is “perfect” would really mean no room for any volcanic effects or anything else—just not a scientific statement.
On 7/24/11 4:33 PM, "eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
Albert:
No! Geoengineering Yesterday. In any case it is interesting that sunspots are now getting attention. Most climate scientists have ignored sunspots despite excellent perfect correlation back to the year 1500. So much for the science!
-gene
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Veli Albert Kallio
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 4:23 PM
To: wf...@utk.edu; kcal...@gmail.com
Cc: John Nissen; em...@lewis-brown.net; Geoengineering FIPC; John Nissen; Peter Wadhams
Subject: RE: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Have you been wondering, why the North Pole's sea ice is looking like this today?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png <http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png>
Cryosphere Today has reported a phenomenal North Pole melting:
North Pole's Ice Cap currently melts away at a phenomenal weekly rate of:
14.9%.
Melting figures of the Arctic Ocean for the last 7 days are:
17.07.2011: ice area 5,456,000 km2 - melting 98,000 km2
18.07.2011: ice area 5,383,000 km2 - melting 73,000 km2
19.07.2011: ice area 5,283,000 km2 - melting 100,000 km2
20.07.2011: ice area 5,083,000 km2 - melting 200,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 3.93%
21.07.2011: ice area 4,931,000 km2 - melting 152,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 3.08%
22.07.2011: ice area 4,843,000 km2 - melting 88,000 km2
23.07.2011: ice area 4,726,000 km2 - melting 117,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area reduction: 2.48%
At the start of the week, 16.07.2011 the ice area was 5,554,000 km2.
A daily sea ice melting rate 77,000 km2 could melt all ice from the North Pole by the autumn equinox. The current rate of disappearing sea ice is much higher. This suggests that the open seas are increasing solar energy absorption at higher rates than the shortening of daylight hours are reducing the sunlight supply. A return of cold weather and clouds can break this vicious circle.
The fact that the North Pole Sea Ice Cap is able to lose 10.5% of its size in just over the last 4 days is a matter of immense concern to me as our train may have already lost its breaks...
WattsUpWithThat.com suggests the sun has entered a more intense phase in its sun-spot cycle and the sea ice is now melts. They now say the sea ice melting intensifies over the next few years until solar activity peaks, after that the sunspots disappear and the Arctic Oceans sea ice cover recovers. The concern over melting sea ice is alarmism as it is all due to a recent change in solar weather, the increasing radiation drives global warming and, therefore, North Pole's sea ice is now melting.
However, this contradicts their own sea ice area outlook projection: http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/july_panarctic_fig1.png <http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/july_panarctic_fig1.png>
Geoengineering Now!
Kind regards,
Albert
Nathan Currier
Hansen’s article and referred to its discussion of sea level. Ken said
that he didn’t like its mixing of policy prescription with scientific
observation. Clearly, Hansen has published hundreds of academic
articles over the decades which do not engage in any sort of “mixing”,
so it should be obvious that his approach is quite intentional.
So why’s he doing it? I would guess that Hansen, who has been around
the block a time or two within climate-politics, has been changing his
style lately out of a combination of frustration, anger, outrage,
feeling of urgency, his own creativity, etc. The introductory
sentence, calling climate
“the predominant scientific, economic, political and moral
issue of the 21st century.” (p1)
sets the tone and justification for his idiosyncratic departure from
academic discourse. And just his general use of language should have
made it quite explicit that he was intentionally trying to access a
mixed audience, embracing academics and non-academics all at once:
“Ice and snow increased the albedo (literally, the
'whiteness') of that continent.” (p2)
He is doing this in order to circumvent the ordinary chain of
communication, because of the fact that the conventional approaches
have not really worked. Ken is not dealing with the relationship
between the content of what Hansen is describing about sea level (for
example), and the non-objective tone of his discourse that he
disapproves of. Subsequent postings here have discussed the clear
divide, perhaps even antagonism, between “descriptive” science and
“prescriptive” policymaking. But what about the more subtle nature of
“proscriptive” metrics that creep into how scientists observe things,
which can then hide simple truths?
For example: why is it that discussing ‘climate commitment’ is
commonplace and part of the conventional rhetoric of climate
discourse, but discussing ‘sea level commitment’ – a phrase that I've
perhaps coined just now, to mean what Hansen names ‘eventual sea level
rise’ or ‘equilibrium sea level’ in this paper – is almost never
mentioned before the wider public? It is very clear, if the scientists
just do their “describing”, and let themselves get led around into
boxes of what to describe, that the right things will not get said or
understood. Did everyone here read the long article on page one of the
New York Times about sea level rise earlier this year? I’m sure the
Times’ editors saw it as a big risqué exposé, but really it was the
end result of poor scientific focus and its final translation into
inappropriate public messaging. The public is duped into forgetting
that 2100 is not the end of anything, and they are made to think that
sea level might rise 1-3 meters. “Really, wow, that would be
terrible!”, most readers think. But clearly, if you told people that
current climate policy unequivocally consigns all the world’s coastal
cities to go under water sometime a few centuries from now, I suspect
that almost all readers polled on it would say that was an utterly
unacceptable policy. And yet this metric, ‘sea level commitment,’
could probably be ascertained with far greater accuracy than 21st
century rise. So why isn’t it? You can’t blame the scientists, they’re
just “doing their jobs”, describing things, and being as accurate as
they can be! I hate to say that it reminds me of certain others, some
seven decades ago, just “doing their jobs,” and the implications of
all that. The thing with Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’ idea applied to
the climate today is this: the more utterly banal something is, the
more widespread it can become, finally creating bigger and bigger evil
consequences. Thus, it’s surely no sin to “do one’s job” in science,
but our time urgently calls out for something new to escape the
creeping problems of science communication and miscommunication. “Aux
grands maux, les grands remedes,” say the French, and I’d say I agree
with what Hansen did in this paper, and other recent ones he’s
written, in that our situation calls out for new stylistic approaches,
and the need to break down some of the boundaries imposed by academic
conventions.
So, now let’s move to the issue of how much urgency there is (well,
the heat index was 126 in my part of Manhattan a couple of days ago!),
and thus how much need for geoengineering there is right now, which is
where this thread gradually drifted. In that area, another harmful
academic boundary – one that I feel urgently needs to get shot down,
which I try to do periodically with this group – underlies many of
the postings here, I feel. Let me attempt this yet again. Let me start
by saying that there is really no firm boundary, and rather just an
artificial construct coming from ‘group think’, between what
constitutes geoengineering and what doesn’t. Based on the NAS
definition of geoengineering, it entails –
options that would involve large-scale engineering of our
environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in
atmospheric chemistry
– and so we have been engaging in geoengineering for more than 30
years now: the catalytic converter in your exhaust system is one
example, the scrubber on your nearest coal plant another. These are
not climate geoengineering, of course, and the irony is that while all
three geoengineering programs thus far enacted (cars’ CO/NOx; coal
plants’ SO2; and the invention of replacements for CFCs) have been
successful, they have each slightly exacerbated warming, since they
were not designed to address it.
In this group, CCS is generally considered geoengineering, and
acknowledged to be one of the more likely forms to come into actual
practice, for better or for worse. Yet, what I’ve dubbed CCU – “carbon
capture and use” – is never considered geoengineering, although it is
no less so than CCS, much easier to do, doesn't cost much, and is 100%
safe. I mean the trapping of fugitive methane all over the world, some
of which can generate profit and potentially support the costs of the
rest, and has a line-up of thousands of shovel-ready projects all over
the world. The things preventing these projects from happening are
NOT the same as those impeding CO2 emissions controls. A business
model to deal with methane emissions has been developed recently by
GMI – but please study all its details. If they can leverage their
fund (which they don’t have yet) some 37 times, they can still only
achieve less than 1/2 of what is easily practical over the next
decade, which is simply not enough. So something else has to happen.
I certainly hope that everyone here read the recent UNEP/WMO
Assessment that Mike MacCracken posted a link to a few months back.
There is simply no way that CO2 emissions sources can bring any near-
term climate relief – none before 2040s, even with quite stringent
controls. ALL near-term climate relief through emissions controls can
only come from non-CO2 sources, something I’ve been trying to
emphasize for a while. Methane is by far the largest chunk where we
can claim any certainty about the effect of our actions. SO, if you
really believe that the arctic is spiraling away, the ONLY thing that
is surely ready to help right now is rapid methane controls. This I
take to be an absolute and unequivocal fact.
I’ve been greatly impressed with the creativity of people in this
group, as well as with their passionate intensity, and their
convictions regarding the urgency of our problem. Just as Hansen has
been trying to break down boundaries, mixing up his Ghandian NVDA and
getting arrested with giving Congressional testimony, mixing up his
policy directives in the middle of his climate papers, etc, I hope
that I can convince those of you most active in this group to mix it
all up a little bit yourselves – just because you’re in a
'geoengineering group' doesn’t mean that it’s only acceptable to keep
“doing your job” here, in this case coming up with fresh engineering
technologies. Consider putting your creativity and your passion more
globally towards what we have practically at hand at this time to
address the critical situation that you correctly observe.
As the UNEP paper suggests, some 2/3rds of increased arctic warming
until 2040s can be avoided through methane/BC measures, much like
those I’ve posted about here before. It would reduce arctic warming
by about 0.7˚C in 2040. That might well not be enough to keep the
arctic alive until the mid-century, and almost certainly won’t be
enough to solve the “arctic crisis” indefinitely, and thus I am quite
passionate about all geoengineering research. And of course, as Hansen
has aptly put it, if we’re not planning to get off of fossil fuels
quickly and before using the more “exotic” ones, we’re going to need
to look for another planet.
But just as Pacala called it “barbaric” here recently to engage in
direct air capture before point-source capture for stationary sources
(i.e. CCS), it would be equally barbaric to engage in potentially
dangerous and costly geoengineering before doing the 100% safe and
free geoengineering that we already have (i.e. methane programs, if
the right financial instruments were created, could pay for themselves
almost entirely over three decades, through the profit streams
generated from the energy-productive portions of the trapped
emissions). Clearly, ‘climate business-as-usual’ will not get the job
done. The literature of the EPA M2M, GMF and now the GMI strongly
suggest that we will need creativity – political, scientific,
technological, economic, communications – to get this job done right.
If we want to reverse or at least suspend arctic destruction, we need
to bring down methane emissions by ~1/3rd, as quickly as possible. It
is doable, the practical sources have been identified, etc. But we
need YOU to help think up creative ways of getting this done!
Cheers, Nathan
Nathan Currier
108 Ellwood Street, #43
New York, NY 10040
401-954-3402
Emily
as it happens, my sense is that the perceived polarisation here is less
in reality than some might consider. I think there is a large amount of
common ground.
I'd really benefit from a risk v benefit analysis too on each of the
possible geo engineering technologies. And fast. Due to CBD, I think we
need a good EIA before any geo-eng can take place anyway. It's a shame
this didn't happen before we accidentally engineered (and continue to
engineer) the climate in the wrong direction... but that's another battle.
Are risk analyses under way, or is this a new activity that people on
this group might be able to and interested in undertaking?
It seems agreed that we face grave danger and that the time frame is
very short - and that the Earth system may have some more surprises.
The right course of action, as ever, still seems disputed. How to we
overcome this and move from discussion and research to scaling up field
trials and helpful action?
best wishes,
Emily.
David Mitchell
> 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
Eugene Gordon
To All:
It is perhaps worthwhile to be reminded that the history of the Earth’s average temperature is known from geological and proxy studies going back 450 million years. A good reference is the www.scotese.com website. In all cases an ice age was followed by an increase to about 25C which lasted for many millions of years. The current increase from an ice age at about 12 C started 10,000 years ago, long before AGHG emissions and can be counted on to increase to about 25 C. There are local in time perturbations from a monotonic increase that occur every few hundred years; for example the warming from 1000 to 1400, the Little Ice age from about 1500 to 1750 and the ongoing warming thereafter, currently enhanced and accelerated by AGHG. Thousands of such short cycles are recorded in ice core data. In not too long a time the climate will force mankind to move toward the poles or to build domed cities energized by something like thermonuclear fusion. I personally believe only geoengineering will positively impact this dire prospect. So not only could we influence the current warming using geoengineering, the experience will play an important role in developing the technology that will ultimately be implemented out of absolute necessity. I add that AGHG emissions will be ended in a few centuries simply because we run out of fossil fuels, or find substitutes, yet the warming will continue. On a personal level I am stunned that this perspective is ignored and we focus only on the current warming.
-gene
Andrew Lockley
Comment in SciAm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existing-fossil-fuel-infrastructure
Paper in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5997/1330.abstract
"Slowing climate change requires overcoming inertia in political,
technological, and geophysical systems. Of these, only geophysical
warming commitment has been quantified. We estimated the commitment to
future emissions and warming represented by existing carbon
dioxide–emitting devices. We calculated cumulative future emissions of
496 (282 to 701 in lower- and upper-bounding scenarios) gigatonnes of
CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels by existing infrastructure between
2010 and 2060, forcing mean warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the
pre-industrial era and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 less than 430
parts per million. Because these conditions would likely avoid many
key impacts of climate change, we conclude that sources of the most
threatening emissions have yet to be built. However, CO2-emitting
infrastructure will expand unless extraordinary efforts are undertaken
to develop alternatives."
The authors note the pending expansion of infrastructure. I can't
access the paper, so I can't see the assumptions used. However, I
strongly suspect that it won't include Schaeffer's methane estimates
(see summary comment on Climate Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/).
I also suspect that it won't be using the carbon cycle feedback and
consequential sensitivity estimates recently exchanged on this list.
Even so, it comes out at just under 1.5C warming. The sociological
and secondary committed technology is also critical. Half built
plants need to be counted, as does the industrial output of carbon
guzzling factories which are build, being built, or committed in the
planning process. You can't only count the cars on the road, but also
the ones that you can be reasonably sure will be built.
If you consider the following graph
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf (figure 3,
P12) you can see that even with methane and black carbon controls,
we're still set on exceeding 1.5C, (and that is without assumptions on
methane release and other advanced carbon-cycle feedback work being
incorporated, I suspect). There's also the bunker fuel sulphur
controls, which have yet to feed properly into ANY climate modelling
which I'm aware of.
I've also looked at the Hare paper, which is already the best part of
a decade out of date, and thus doesn't consider most of the new work
on feedbacks, or the alarming rise in emissions. In fact, it's based
on models which are in many cases considerably older than the paper
itself. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/publications/pikreports/.files/pr93.pdf
I can't express any confidence in this at the present time, for the
reasons above. Furthermore, as there has been a history of
underestimating emissions, I'd suggest that a mid-level emissions
trajectory would be a 'best case' scenario. Even with all the above
missing, I still note that the warming graphed in their 'feasible'
scenario again exceeds the 1.5C danger level.
Overall, I find it very frustrating that there is such a sense of
'playing catchup' in this field. The modelling of emissions controls
needed seems to be a generation behind the earth system science. The
world is therefore looking at a political landscape based on science
which is largely out of date. Notably, AR4 contained very little of
the non-linear change work. I'm looking forward to AR5, but it can't
come soon enough. If the process of previous years is repeated, it
will again be based on science that is essentially obsolete, even on
the day of it's released. There's necessarily a lag process, but we
aren't talking about tweaks, here - these are huge chasms between the
state of the science for politicians and that for earth scientists.
The arctic thaw is an example of the consequences of this. We've badly
messed up the predictions.
I maintain that with CO2 controls only, we have no possible way of
preventing dangerous climate change without geoengineering. Either
people agree, or maybe they don't read my posts or don't trust me with
100USD.
A
rongre...@comcast.net
Andrew - I have re-read the paper you have cited below and decided to try to put the numbers there into the context of the paper by Dr. David Wasdell that you alerted us to on the 20th - which I also. found fascinating. For others, I am referring to a large body of work on climate feedbacks that can be found at http://www.apollo-gaia.org/. The specfic one of most pertinence to this discussion and comparison to the Davis-Caldeira Science article (that you cite below) is at:
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Climate%20Sensitivity.pdf
Using the numbers from the recent (Science-Davis-Caldeira) cite, I find (from the right hand sides of their figure 1 C (for ppm CO2) and figure 1d - for temperature rise, presumably above the 280 ppm level), those three points fall slightly below the straight line that Dr. Wasdell terms the "Charney sensitivity". Dr. Hansen would be about 2.5 times higher in predicted temperature and Dr. Wasdell about 3 times higher (both including positive feedbacks that I believe all would agree are not included in the Davis-Caldeira pape)r.
This is not meant to be a criticism of theDavis Caldeira paper - as they clearly stated which model they were employing to come to their conclusions - and there are many valuable conclusions there. But I do think it important in the current discussion (see the thread title) on Hansen to point out this factor of 2.5 - which (by Dr.Wasdell) could be a factor of 3. Everyone seems convinced that the current breed of models is leaving out a lot - and apparently mostly of the positive freedback character. I don't believe that message is being heard at all clearly by the general population (which is what Andrew is betting his $100 on).
For those who have not read the Wasdell analysis, his higher curve is justified by experimental (not theoretical) results attributed to three publications of other investigators besides Dr. Hansen - namely (in shorthand) Engelbeen (Vostok), Pagani (Paleo), and Kiehl (100 Ma history). They together validate (amazingly closely) his climate senstivity proposal of 7.8 degrees at 560 ppm (doubling). Davis-Caldeira are at about 2.5; Hansen at 6 degrees.
Also need to point out that Dr. Hansen sees about a 50 ppm drop from "geoengineering" only with 100 Gt C of new forests -which can be amplified a good bit when combined with Biochar.
I include John Nissen as a cc - as this "Wasdell" approach strongly supports his proposal to move faster generally because of the positive feedback that is surely not being considered in the Davis-Caldeira model - but is so apparent already in the Arctic. ANd is the reason for this thread.
I hope someone closer to this than myself can explain how slow the missing feedbacks might be - and why. From what I have read there have been some pretty dramatic quick "flips" in the past.
Ron
From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
To: "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: "geo-engineering grp" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:49:48 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Michael Hayes
This thread has many aspects which point to the need for a full fledged website dedicated to the full spectrum of GE issues. Hansen et al. is showing a willingness to stretch the norms in scientific writing to maybe express the severity of the situation in terms that the general public (media) may be willing to listen to. The need for innovative educational outreach on this issue has been largely ignored. That lack of an organized media outreach effort is profoundly counter productive.
I once AGAIN call for the creation of a website to provide the coordinated educational outreach effort, provide a more robust stage for debate and provided a unified voice for the field of Geoengineering.
On the 15th of August, I will go public with a website which will provide the bare bones structure for "The Journal of Geoengineering Studies". I pledge $300 towards the start up costs and volunteer to look after the "back room IT" details. Other contributions are welcomed.
An editorial board comprised of seasoned members of this forum is needed. Future board members can be voted in by the original board. Volunteers and nominations for the editorial board are need to be pulled together before the 15th. The Editor in Chief should be put in place by the original board.
This proposed website has been discussed on in this forum and I have had no comments against it. Some members have volunteered to make regular contributions of related content. I will spend the needed cash to organize the basic startup effort, however what happens after that is up to this group.
Michael
--
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.
--
Nathan Currier
That's great. Thanks for offering that......
Sorry, I don't believe I ever saw your previous posts about starting a
website - I don't always get to look at the geoengineering group daily
and then end up missing things. About a year back (late last July),
something I proposed was to start a Wiki for geoengineering. Mike
MacCracken agreed it might be a good idea for helping with the spirit
of openness so needed for the larger debate about geoengineering and
its wider acceptance. Ron Larsen said he'd be able to help some with
the biochar side of things. No one offered, though, to help with the
SRM side of things, and it would be a VERY big job for me to keep it
up and manage the content of that - and an indispensable part of it,
really, if it was intended to be a real compilation of knowledge of
the topic - a kind of Wikipedia of geoengineering.
I did take out a domain, and Yousif Masoud did then help set one up.
He was saying at one point he wanted to do some more structural work
on it last fall, and then with fear of how to start the entries by
myself for the "biggies" - the aerosol SRM & the CDR entries, it has
been sitting there dormant ever since. I think Yousif said that it's
actually functional already and just waiting to be used, isn't that
right, Yousif?
SO, I have felt very badly about it, and of course I've been paying
the monthly upkeep and wondering what to do about it - so now perhaps
it could be combined with your idea? I'll cc Yousif on this.....Could
your idea of a new website just use the domain I already have? Or
could the wiki become part of a larger site?
Maybe the Wiki wouldn't seem like such a daunting thing to get going
if it were simply seen more as a "sketch pad" for new ideas (which
then could be subsequently developed there, too)? Obviously, with CDR
there's also the added problem with the proprietary nature of the
technologies already developed (Keith, Lackner, etc - who probably
wouldn't be delighted by the prospect of theirs ideas being written
about) , and with aerosol SRM I haven't felt my own expertise is great
enough, and, honestly, my hope in getting involved is really to
uncover many smaller, less invasive and potentially dangerous ideas
that might be able replace large scale aerosol SRM as the "method of
choice" to technologically avoid catastrophe - in short, to help
promote a Socolow-Pacala-like wedge approach as applied to
geoengineering.
My basic thought was to try to circulate knowledge of the Wiki widely
around university departments - there are so many young people out
there with so much knowledge that is not being harnessed towards
this!.....
So, what do you think?
cheers,
Nathan
David Mitchell
> 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
Nathan Currier
website at the same domain we already have. So, I'd like to invite
you to do this: I'll keep the domain going, try to revive my wiki
idea, and you can start the website there and be the chief
administrator of it. Andrew, in terms of just having used Wikipedia
for the wiki, I think the desire to control the architecture was part
of that decision (i.e., the desire for more of a tree structure, since
ideas become subsets of other ones, and they almost all boil down to
being part of SRM & CRD in the end), and, in any case, now if there'll
be a website, too, I certainly feel it will be very worthwhile, from
my perspective, keeping the domain and trying to make a real go of
this......
Michael, let me know what you think: I think it's going to be time to
renew the domain pretty soon......
Cheers,
Nathan
On Jul 28, 2:21 pm, David Mitchell <David.Mitch...@dri.edu> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> I also missed your original email. I agee with you that "The need for innovative educational outreach on this issue has been largely ignored", and that the geo-engineering website is an idea whose time has come. Let it become the global website for climate engineering, manifesting the highest standards. The press is interested in this topic and they could educate themselves regarding the question "Why should we consider climate engineering?" Links to recent papers like David Wasdell's (recently circulated) could be featured to show the latest science on the topic, which the press could promote should they feel inspired. Since there is public interest on this, the website could be powerful in raising public awareness about climate science as well as climate engineering. I'd be happy to contribute to this cause.
>
> Wishing you (and us) the greatest success!
> David Mitchell
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com
> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:17
> Subject: [geo] Re: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
> To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>
Andrew Lockley
There is already substantial public traffic to Wikipedia on this subject. It's a valuable resource, so please do edit it.
Serious scientific analysis reports are run on a fairly regular basis, such as by the Royal Society. I don't think that awareness is a problem, and if anything, coverage has been disproportionately great. (It has also been biased to wacky techniques and hyperbole)
In my view the gap is in the provision of an 'Institute of Geoengineering', which could act as a neutral umbrella group for those interested in the field. The idea has been mooted on this list, but never advanced.
A
hiroshi mizutani
Nathan Currier
Thanks - I've just been waiting to hear back from Michael, and would
be happy to help. I already have a domain, as I mentioned....
best, Nathan
On Aug 6, 10:22 am, hiroshi mizutani <mizutani49...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> I wonder if any advance is taking place concerning the website start-up.
>
> Today, I made officially open a website named Geoengineering Net
> Forum (http://geoeng.brs.nihon-u.ac.jp), which Michael kindly mentioned
> earlier.
>
> The aim of the site is in perfect accordance with the one discussed in this
> thread.
>
> Unfortunately but by choice, the language is Japanese. Only one
David Mitchell
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hayes <vogle...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 12:01
Subject: Re: website for climate science and engineering
To: David Mitchell <David.M...@dri.edu>
Cc: kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu, Rajan.Ch...@dri.edu, geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Greg Rau
> Emily Lewis-Brown
> Sam Carana - runs the "Geoengineering" blog, http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/
> Nathan Currier, Yousif Masoud, David Mitchell
> Dear Michael,
>
> Unfortunately I'm ignorant when it comes to website construction, so I spoke with my division director to see whether some support and talent from our division could be applied to this proposed project. He suggested I speak with Dr. Rajan Chakrabarty in our division, who is developing a climate change educational website for the NSF and NASA (I just learned of this today). The aims of the website are similar to what you described in your email. I spoke with Rajan about our google geo-engineering group and our need to disseminate some of the important developments that come up, such as new journal articles and breaking news on climate engineering. Rajan was very receptive to incorporating a climate engineering section on this website that would be prominently featured on the homepage. Note that this is primarily intended to as an educational tool for climate science (and that the idea was peer-reviewed and funded by the NSF and NASA). You can access the website at the following URL: http://www.climate101.org/
>
> Rajan and his team have been developing this site for about one month now, with only ~ 1/3 of it finished. There are mistakes in places and it is not ready for prime-time obviously, but since it is in its formative stage, now is an ideal time for someone like yourself to enter the process should it serve the needs of our group. So rather than develop a website from scratch, the invitation is to piggy-back onto an existing climate education website under development and to play a leading role in its development. That is, you could be in charge of the climate engineering section, with complete freedom to post to that section of the website. That would probably serve the interest of NSF and NASA as well, since climate engineering is a rapidly expanding field and will be with us for a long time it appears. I've copied Ken Caldeira since he has provided input on this process.
>
> Best wishes,
> David Mitchell
> Associate Research Professor
> Desert Research Institute
> 2215 Raggio Parkway
> Reno, Nevada 89512-1095
> USA
> Phone: 775-674-7039
> E-mail: David.M...@dri.edu>
>
>
> On 7/28/2011 8:31 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:Thanks David,
>
> I will circulate a prototype website soon so the interested folks can have input. The start up will be bare as the funds are limited, but the I believe it is important to just get it started so the development can begin. The editorial board is going to give the field a voice of consensus which is very much needed.
>
> Any help in designing, building and maintaining the effort is welcomed. This can not be a one man show.....just too much work.
>
> Thanks again and I hope this effort meets your expectations.
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael Hayes>>
hiroshi mizutani
Mike MacCracken
1. Situation faced if trends continue (so roughly a central fossil fuel estimate with few controls on emissions; including ongoing deforestation adds a bit more): Per capita global emissions of CO2 rover the 21st century rise to the present European average and continue a bit after (more reliance on coal would mean less useful energy from emissions of given amount). So, say an average of 3 tons of C/capita for 9 billion people gives emissions over century of 2700 GtC by 2100. Divide by 4 (roughly) to get ppm increase in CO2 concentration (and uptake of CO2 could go down, so divisor would be less) and one ends up with atmospheric concentration at 1000 ppm and rising significantly after 2100. So, very significant temperature increase.
2. Aggressive mitigation (so collectively: conservation, efficiency, alternative sources of energy, ending deforestation, etc.): Keeping the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm in 2100 requires C emissions over the century be less than roughly (550-380 ppm) times 4, or about 640 GtC. Emissions in the year 2000 were roughly this, so keeping the CO2 concentration to 550 ppm (so CO2 doubling) means annual global emissions over the 21st century have to average about the emissions in the year 2000 when global per capita emissions were close to 1 ton of C per person per year, and then emissions have to be down 80+% or so after 2100. And this while the population is going from about 6.5B to 9-10B and the standard of living is rising. In addition, deforestation would need to be stopped. Achieving this would be quite an achievement—but it still equates to a global temperature increase of, say 2.5C or so above preindustrial and more if one counts the other species contributions (which needs to be done as SO2 emissions, and so sulfate loading and its cooling influence, go down). And we would be far above the 450 ppm that is likely maximum to avoid serious impacts form ocean acidification. [I should note that it would be great if this could do better than keep the CO2 concentration from exceeding 550 ppm, but that should perhaps be the norm that we aim for and indicate if we are ahead or behind on this—without this much effectiveness, it is hard to imagine that the other steps below could really make up for failing to do this, especially if post 2100 emissions are not really low.]
3. Reducing the concentrations of relatively short-lived gases (CH4, tropospheric ozone, HFCs, etc.) and of black carbon (to extent not offset by reductions in associated light colored aerosols) can perhaps reduce the temperature increase by up to say 0.5 C (see UNEP-WMO assessment). Very helpful, but the temperature increase is still likely over 2 C (so perhaps still significant chance of exceeding some thresholds, like permafrost thawing and Greenland ice sheet melting, etc.) and no real help on ocean acidification.
4. Adaptation—There needs to be more exploration of where the limits are to adaptation without really significant impacts. Some say 2 C, others would say less, even 0.5 C if the 350 ppm CO2 value is the one to be aiming for. What is clear is that already at 0.8 C we are seeing some quite troubling trends and very serious consequences for those in particular regions (e.g., the Arctic).
5. Pulling C from atmosphere: There are some potentially inexpensive options, like reforestation and afforestation, perhaps iron fertilization, and maybe biochar that might be able to pull, say, as much as 200 GtC from the atmosphere, which ends up being 50 ppm equivalent, so maybe we are at 500 ppm (and if mitigation is less effective, we are higher). Whether industrial C removal (over and above capture at power plants) becomes practical at some reasonable level is still to be determined. Even if it matches the potential inexpensive options, the concentration is still at 450 ppm (and likely higher if mitigation can’t be done).
6. Regional climate engineering: There may be some potential (all still to be determined) to moderate some regional impacts, like Arctic warming (with spillover potential net benefits to mid latitudes), limited shifts in storm tracks, etc. to help us get by at 450-500 ppm impacts. This also may include some regional ocean buffering, etc. Capacity here would very likely be limited and useful only to get through a hump in impacts if the other steps are effective. Some, but perhaps manageable governance complications.
7. Global SRM: There are two general classes of implementation: (a) wait until very significant changes are already underway and take actions for a significant global intervention to pull the climate back away from the brink (and it is not clear it is really possible to reverse major ice sheet loss of mass once that gets started, etc.); or (b) starting early and implementing at gradually increasing rate, seeking, for example, to limit further change and thus avoid the onset of rapid and dangerous change. Both options likely have very large governance and intergenerational aspects, to just name a few points.
8. Suffering (what happens to environment and society when everything else had been considered—and one may do more of one and less of another, etc.--so whatever mix one wants to consider)—meaning discomfort (like this summer in some regions), relocation/environmental refugees, disruption, major losses of life and environmental extinctions, etc. IPCC results cover this basically omitting steps 5-7 and with a lot of uncertainty about step 4, and suffering ends up being very significant, even if the baseline case is a bit overstated above—even so, however, getting to step 2 is going to be a significant challenge without much more effort that is now being exerted by nations of the world.
Basically, the notion of risk management is minimizing step 8 in an optimal manner, and what one might hope to keep track of is what is happening in each of the various steps along the way—are the signs positive or negative. It might be interesting to figure out some sort of graphical indicator to show the relative level of effort on each of these steps and/or substeps (like the clock of the minutes before midnight originated, as I recall, by the Federation of Atomic Scientists). We do have the thermometer showing the likely temperature given current commitments to mitigation, but that is only one step along the process.
Mike MacCracken
> Dear Michael,
>
> Unfortunately I'm ignorant when it comes to website construction, so I spoke with my division director to see whether some support and talent from our division could be applied to this proposed project. He suggested I speak with Dr. Rajan Chakrabarty in our division, who is developing a climate change educational website for the NSF and NASA (I just learned of this today). The aims of the website are similar to what you described in your email. I spoke with Rajan about our google geo-engineering group and our need to disseminate some of the important developments that come up, such as new journal articles and breaking news on climate engineering. Rajan was very receptive to incorporating a climate engineering section on this website that would be prominently featured on the homepage. Note that this is primarily intended to as an educational tool for climate science (and that the idea was peer-reviewed and funded by the NSF and NASA). You can access the website at the following URL: http://www.climate101.org/ <http://www.climate101.org/>
>
> Rajan and his team have been developing this site for about one month now, with only ~ 1/3 of it finished. There are mistakes in places and it is not ready for prime-time obviously, but since it is in its formative stage, now is an ideal time for someone like yourself to enter the process should it serve the needs of our group. So rather than develop a website from scratch, the invitation is to piggy-back onto an existing climate education website under development and to play a leading role in its development. That is, you could be in charge of the climate engineering section, with complete freedom to post to that section of the website. That would probably serve the interest of NSF and NASA as well, since climate engineering is a rapidly expanding field and will be with us for a long time it appears. I've copied Ken Caldeira since he has provided input on this process.
>
> Best wishes,
> David Mitchell
> Associate Research Professor
> Desert Research Institute
> 2215 Raggio Parkway
> Reno, Nevada 89512-1095
> USA
> Phone: 775-674-7039 <tel:775-674-7039>
> E-mail: David.M...@dri.edu <javascript:main.compose('new', 't=David.M...@dri.edu')>
> > <natcurr...@gmail.com <javascript:main.compose('new', 't=natcurr...@gmail.com')> >wrote:
> > --
> > 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 <javascript:main.compose('new', 't=geoengi...@googlegroups.com')> .
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.For <javascript:main.compose('new', 't=geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.For')> more options,
> > visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael Hayes
> 360-708-4976 <tel:360-708-4976>
> http://www.voglerlake.com <http://www.voglerlake.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Hayes
> 360-708-4976 <tel:360-708-4976>
> http://www.voglerlake.com <http://www.voglerlake.com/>
>
>
David Mitchell
I think this type of presentation makes a lot of sense, and it would be nice to develop some graphical indicator to show the relative level of effort on each of these steps. But it seems that some of the temperature estimates depend on climate sensitivity. Are you assuming the Charney sensitivity adopted by IPCC of ~ 3 deg. C? If so, some temperature predictions may look different if we used a climate sensitivity based on paleoclimate data, such as 7.8 deg. C as advocated by Jeff Kiehl and David Wasdell (see attached). These authors argue that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity from paleoclimate measurements is much less relative to GCM predicted climate sensitivity since it is based on the Earth's climate system (i.e. whether we comprehend it or not). Perhaps we could show an analysis similar to what you describe but done twice; one for each climate sensitivity assumption.
Best,
David Mitchell
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.
Josh Horton
Michael, sorry to hear about your computer and house problems,
hopefully they are on their way to a quick resolution. And thanks
again for your leadership in getting the website effort up and
running.
I don't mean to be a buzzkill, but as discussions about the website
have proceeded, several issues have cropped up that I think should be
brought into sharper relief, to avoid difficulties down the road:
1. There are some obvious advantages to piggybacking on the Climate101
project, but there are also disadvantages, the most important of which
is loss of independence. I appreciate what David says about complete
editorial freedom, but the fact is this can never exist so long as the
site is funded by NSF and NASA. I have nothing against either
organization, but make no mistake that joining Climate101 will
inevitably result in losing some editorial control, and this will
ultimately affect site content. However, these costs may be worth the
gains in efficiency.
2. In a similar vein, Ken raised the issue of whether we should
address geoengineering on its own or as one element of broader climate
risk reduction. There seems to be some consensus on the latter, and
joining with Climate101 would make this effective, but there was never
much debate or explicit agreement on this point. It's worth noting
that this list is oriented toward "geoengineering," not "climate risk
reduction including mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering." If
the proposed site were to adopt a broader climate risk management
perspective, this would necessarily entail a change in focus.
3. There seem to be multiple conceptions of what the website should
be, and there are important differences among them. This project is
variously referred to as a website, a portal, an organization, a
voice, etc. Some view it as purely informational, but others view it
as a sovereign actor taking part in policy debates. One of the
critical questions here is how proactive (for lack of a better word)
this body should be--should it function as an educational resource, an
advocate, or something in between? Obviously, the answer to this
question also affects the question of Climate101 membership.
These are some tricky issues, but I think it's better to raise them at
the outset and reach some form of consensus rather than gloss them
over and hope they never become real impediments.
Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
On Aug 10, 6:18 pm, David Mitchell <David.Mitch...@dri.edu> wrote:
> Dear Mike,
>
> I think this type of presentation makes a lot of sense, and it would be
> nice to develop some graphical indicator to show the relative level of
> effort on each of these steps. But it seems that some of the
> temperature estimates depend on climate sensitivity. Are you assuming
> the Charney sensitivity adopted by IPCC of ~ 3 deg. C? If so, some
> temperature predictions may look different if we used a climate
> sensitivity based on paleoclimate data, such as 7.8 deg. C as advocated
> by Jeff Kiehl and David Wasdell (see attached). These authors argue
> that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity from paleoclimate
> measurements is much less relative to GCM predicted climate sensitivity
> since it is based on the Earth's climate system (i.e. whether we
> comprehend it or not). Perhaps we could show an analysis similar to
> what you describe but done twice; one for each climate sensitivity
> assumption.
>
> Best,
> David Mitchell
>
> On 8/10/2011 9:31 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>
>
>
> > other species contributions (which needs to be done as SO2 emissions,
> > and so sulfate loading and its cooling influence, go down). And we
> > would be far above the 450 ppm that is likely maximum to avoid serious
> > impacts form ocean acidification. [I should note that it would be
> > great if this could do better than keep the CO2 concentration from
> > exceeding 550 ppm, but that should perhaps be the norm that we aim for
> > really make up for failing to do this, especially if post 2100
> > emissions are not really low.]
>
> > 3. Reducing the concentrations of relatively short-lived gases (CH4,
> > tropospheric ozone, HFCs, etc.) and of black carbon (to extent not
> > offset by reductions in associated light colored aerosols) can perhaps
> > reduce the temperature increase by up to say 0.5 C (see UNEP-WMO
> > assessment). Very helpful, but the temperature increase is still
> > likely over 2 C (so perhaps still significant chance of exceeding
> > some thresholds, like permafrost thawing and Greenland ice sheet
> > melting, etc.) and no real help on ocean acidification.
>
> > another, etc.--so whatever mix one wants to consider)---meaning
> > relocation/environmental refugees, disruption, major losses of life
> > and environmental extinctions, etc. IPCC results cover this basically
> > omitting steps 5-7 and with a lot of uncertainty about step 4, and
> > suffering ends up being very significant, even if the baseline case is
> > being exerted by nations of the world.
>
> > Basically, the notion of risk management is minimizing step 8 in an
> > optimal manner, and what one might hope to keep track of is what is
> > of graphical indicator to show the relative level of effort on each of
> > these steps and/or substeps (like the clock of the minutes before
> > midnight originated, as I recall, by the Federation of Atomic
> > Scientists). We do have the thermometer showing the likely temperature
> > given current commitments to mitigation, but that is only one step
> > along the process.
>
> > Mike MacCracken
>
>
> read more »
>
> ClimateSensitivity_Wasdell_2011.pdf
> 2018KViewDownload
>
> Kiehl_paleoclimate_Science_2011.pdf
> 393KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -