Fwd: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members

Andrew Lockley

unread,

Feb 23, 2012, 11:20:32 AM2/23/12

to geoengineering

As sent to UK environmental audit committee.....

> From: Hugh Coe <hugh...@manchester.ac.uk>
> Date: 21 February 2012 02:59:50 GMT
> To: "wal...@parliament.uk" <wal...@parliament.uk>, "peter.a...@parliament.uk" <peter.a...@parliament.uk>, "z...@zacgoldsmith.com" <z...@zacgoldsmith.com>, "caroline...@parliament.uk" <caroline...@parliament.uk>, "neil.carm...@parliament.uk" <neil.carm...@parliament.uk>, "caroline...@parliament.uk" <caroline...@parliament.uk>, "uca...@parliament.uk" <uca...@parliament.uk>, "paul.u...@parliament.uk" <paul.u...@parliament.uk>, "martin....@parliament.uk" <martin....@parliament.uk>, "white...@parliament.uk" <white...@parliament.uk>, "cla...@parliament.uk" <cla...@parliament.uk>, "perc...@parliament.uk" <perc...@parliament.uk>, "she...@sheryllmurray.com" <she...@sheryllmurray.com>, "sheryll....@parliament.uk" <sheryll....@parliament.uk>, "off...@simonwright.org.uk" <off...@simonwright.org.uk>, "simon.w...@parliament.uk" <simon.w...@parliament.uk>, "ric...@richardbenyon.com" <ric...@richardbenyon.com>, "richard....@parliament.uk" <richard....@parliament.uk>, "ma...@marklazarowicz.org.uk" <ma...@marklazarowicz.org.uk>, "mark.sp...@parliament.uk" <mark.sp...@parliament.uk>, "Lenton, Timothy" <T.M.L...@exeter.ac.uk>, "pw...@damtp.cam.ac.uk" <pw...@damtp.cam.ac.uk>, John Latham <john.l...@manchester.ac.uk>, "s.sa...@ed.ac.uk" <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk>, "al...@env.leeds.ac.uk" <al...@env.leeds.ac.uk>, Brian Launder <brian....@manchester.ac.uk>, "Tom.cho...@manchester.ac.uk" <Tom.cho...@manchester.ac.uk>
> Subject: Environmental Audit Inquiry - comments to the Members
>
> Dear Members of the the Environmental Audit Inquiry
> We understand that you will be considering an evidence session titled
> "Protecting the Arctic" on Tuesday 21st February.
>
> There is a mounting evidence that significant changes are occurring in
> the Arctic and we are pleased that your Committee is considering this in
> detail. However, we would like to stress that whilst such indicators of
> rapid change are a major cause for concern, implementing any
> geoengineering approach to adjust an Arctic warming on the basis of its
> undemonstrated, causal effects on rapid Arctic change should not be
> considered at this time. Any such scheme needs to have its concepts
> rigorously challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing
> and scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place.
> Systematic, deliberate modification of climate is, itself, likely to
> have effects on global weather systems, including large scale changes to
> regional rainfall. Such changes have been shown to occur in climate
> model simulations but as the key processes remain poorly understood at
> the present time, the climate models, our only predictive tools, are at
> present unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying the magnitude
> of the changes that may occur. Until this can be done and the balance
> of risks be well understood we strongly urge that a geoengineering
> solution of any kind is not to taken forward to address changing Arctic
> temperatures.
>
> Nevertheless, the increased evidence that such major changes may occur
> and the lack of progress in mitigating CO2 induced climate change means
> that investing in research into the viability of geoengineering is both
> very important and timely. Furthermore, it is important that Government
> does support the area, as the evidence base needs to be considered free
> from vested interests.
>
> We thankyou for your considerating our short note
> yours sincerely
>
> Professor John Latham, UCAR, Boulder, USA
> Professor Tom Choularton, University of Manchester
> Professor Brian Launder, FRS, University of Manchester
> Professor Hugh Coe, University of Manchester
> Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh
> Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds

Josh Horton

unread,

Feb 24, 2012, 7:34:35 AM2/24/12

to geoengineering

This letter is heartening to see, as many of us are very uncomfortable
with the notion of near-term deployment in the Arctic. Did anyone
attend this hearing? I know John Nissen was scheduled to be a
witness. Is this available for viewing online?

Josh Horton

On Feb 23, 11:20 am, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com> wrote:
> As sent to UK environmental audit committee.....
>

> > From: Hugh Coe <hugh....@manchester.ac.uk>
> > Date: 21 February 2012 02:59:50 GMT

> > Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Andrew Lockley

unread,

Feb 24, 2012, 8:01:52 AM2/24/12

to joshuah...@gmail.com, geoengineering

I went. Lenton and Wadhams gave evidence, as well as Nissen. It was surprisingly moderate.

The MPs seemed semi-well-informed, but seemingly more concerned with decadal effects than serious long term problems.

Zak Goldsmith was very anti, seeming not to recognise fully the dangers of warming.

Frighteningly, the MPs even asked whether arctic sea ice loss was really happening. They seemed surprised that all the witnesses agreed it was, and would have serious consequences for the climate. Seemingly Deniers are more influential than we like to believe.

If anyone finds a link, please post it.

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.

Douglas Spence

unread,

Feb 24, 2012, 1:34:29 PM2/24/12

to andrew....@gmail.com, joshuah...@gmail.com, geoengineering

arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/02/protecting-arctic.html

Is that the right link? (assuming it remains available, I find it ever harder to remain informed on these matters)

Frankly I think if you expect a meaningful and productive response from governments (or people en masse) you are grossly misjudging human behaviour.

I listened to the video there, and for what it's worth I agree with John Nissen, assuming I correctly understood him to be saying that civilisation is on a path to absolute failure within the near future (coming years, not decades).

I do not agree that it is possible or probable that we can prevent this.

I also probably can't contribute to discussions in this group as I'm not a scientist and my focus is very much on that complete failure scenario (and has been for some years).

On that note, if anyone has anything to better help me understand the regional consequences of abrupt release of large volumes of methane I'd like to know. For example a few of my questions:
- is hydrogen sulphide a concern and if so, on what timescales and in what general regions?
- is methane outgassing likely to reach levels where it can form large scale explosive mixtures with the atmosphere?
- if hydrogen sulphide is produced, is there a risk to the ozone layer and over what timescale?

I appreciate it's a long shot, since established science seemed to be saying only a few years ago that the sea ice would last until the end of the century...

Regards,
Douglas

Josh Horton

unread,

Feb 26, 2012, 11:47:53 AM2/26/12

to geoengineering

Here is a recent post on this topic from my blog, that might be of
interest to some of you ...

http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/environmental-audit-committee-hearing.html

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Environmental Audit Committee Hearing in the UK

Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee held a hearing on "Protecting the Arctic" (available for
viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by
climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping
points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The
proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a
supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane,
Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative
light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near-
term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending
climate catastrophe.

After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of
Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of
Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that
recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
(ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence
regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be
implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading
authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the
nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that "I don't think the
alarmist story adds up in what I've seen" (15:20:33). Lenton was
hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic.
Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about
the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed
serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on
sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between
the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and
nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate
deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on
geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive
demands put forward by AMEG.)

On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is
not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly
premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific
establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of
Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and
calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately,
AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and
redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and
policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing
geoengineering in the process.

In addition, here is a link to a post by Matt Watson (head of SPICE),
who uses my piece as a starting point to articulate his own views on
the subject:

http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/ameg.html

Josh Horton
joshuah...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/

> > On Feb 24, 2012 12:34 PM, "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward