PRAG Letter to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

[John Nissen]

2023-05-07 First version, draft summary only

 

Letter to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 

Summary

This letter is in response to an open letter from 60 scientists, including Jim Hansen, on the need for SRM research [1] and a letter to The Bulletin on the danger from tipping points [2].  Our basic argument is that the risk from tipping point processes becoming irreversible in the Arctic, with catastrophic consequences on climate and sea level, is so great that there is extreme urgency for SRM deployment to refreeze the Arctic.  SRM research should focus on optimum deployment in real time for the most promising candidates which could work together to refreeze the Arctic: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB). Surface brightening and winter cloud seeding/removal should also be considered to supplement SAI and MCB.  Deployment modelling and monitoring are necessary to give a reasonable guarantee of safety, such that insurance is available against unforeseen side-effects.

 

References

[1] Hansen et al. (February 2023)

An open letter regarding research on reflecting sunlight to reduce the risks of climate change

https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/

 

[2] David Spratt (April 2023)

Faster than forecast, climate impacts trigger tipping points in the Earth system

https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/faster-than-forecast-climate-impacts-trigger-tipping-points-in-the-earth-system/

 

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Attached is the second version of the letter, as promised at last week's PRAG meeting.  I welcome comments. 

I would like to make it an official PRAG output.  However it would be great to have individual signatories listed on it rather than just me as chair of PRAG.

I need to find out the procedure for submitting to The Bulletin.  David, can you help me?

Cheers, John

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

You can download a previous publication about climate by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists from

https://thebulletin.org/2017/06/the-trouble-with-geoengineers-hacking-the-planet/#post-heading

Stephen

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 16 May 2023 22:26
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com; David Spratt <dsp...@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: [prag] Re: PRAG Letter to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxooLsZRAVo30b9OX6AbP6aqP9JwVSGODCKAeyUR4KHWNw%40mail.gmail.com.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Douglas Grandt]

John,

It appears that there are now 110 signers to the letter

The following open letter is from more than 110 physical and biological scientists studying climate and climate impacts about the role of physical sciences research, ...

LATE BREAKING NEWS:  tweet thread may be important addition to the notes with a one sentence addition:

My suggested sentence and reference footnote follow:

=======

JPL scientist Dr. Peter Kalmus has tweeted that the recent NASA team meeting in Washington DC elevated the alarm that the Amazon is likely already past the tipping point [3]

Reference

[3] Dr. Peter Kalmus tweeted a lengthy thread on May 11, 2023

A few personal notes: I was just at a NASA team meeting for 3 days in DC. The scientific 

findings are so fucked up. Experts on tropical rainforests told me 

privately that they think the Amazon has already passed its tipping 

point. Let that sink in. The world needs to know

12:12 AM · May 11, 2023

·

3.9M

Views

11.7K

Retweets

706

Quotes

41.2K

Likes

2,033

Bookmarks

The thread begins at https://twitter.com/ClimateHuman/status/1656512546830950400?s=20

=======

It is disheartening that Dr. Kalmus and the people who replied to his tweet thread all seem to believe eliminating the fossil fuel industry is the solution.

Cheers!

Doug

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxooLsZRAVo30b9OX6AbP6aqP9JwVSGODCKAeyUR4KHWNw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[H simmens]

Hi John,

Thanks for your work on this important letter. 

I would suggest that you consider making it clear that not only are temperatures expected to rise to at least 2° C, but even in the best case of rapid emission reductions, they will remain elevated at that level or higher for many decades, resulting in unimaginable levels of suffering, havoc and severe challenges to civilizational stability. 

I would also suggest that you emphasize that the arctic amplification is itself accelerating from 2 to 3 times faster than the rest of the planet in earlier years to now four times faster, and even 6-7 times faster in the Barents Sea region , as described  in this Guardian article. 

Lastly, I would acknowledge the challenges of SRM governance with a comment that those challenges make it all the more important that the world community begin now to develop an equitable and effective governance architecture. 

Herb

Herb Simmens

@herbsimmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future 

“A Sciencepoem, an Inspiration, A prophecy, also hilarious. Dive in and see.” Kim Stanley Robinson

On May 16, 2023, at 5:26 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi all,

Attached is the second version of the letter, as promised at last week's PRAG meeting.  I welcome comments. 

I would like to make it an official PRAG output.  However it would be great to have individual signatories listed on it rather than just me as chair of PRAG.

I need to find out the procedure for submitting to The Bulletin.  David, can you help me?

Cheers, John

On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 1:00 PM John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:

2023-05-07 First version, draft summary only

 

Letter to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 

Summary

This letter is in response to an open letter from 60 scientists, including Jim Hansen, on the need for SRM research [1] and a letter to The Bulletin on the danger from tipping points [2].  Our basic argument is that the risk from tipping point processes becoming irreversible in the Arctic, with catastrophic consequences on climate and sea level, is so great that there is extreme urgency for SRM deployment to refreeze the Arctic.  SRM research should focus on optimum deployment in real time for the most promising candidates which could work together to refreeze the Arctic: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB). Surface brightening and winter cloud seeding/removal should also be considered to supplement SAI and MCB.  Deployment modelling and monitoring are necessary to give a reasonable guarantee of safety, such that insurance is available against unforeseen side-effects.

 

References

[1] Hansen et al. (February 2023)

An open letter regarding research on reflecting sunlight to reduce the risks of climate change

https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/

 

[2] David Spratt (April 2023)

Faster than forecast, climate impacts trigger tipping points in the Earth system

https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/faster-than-forecast-climate-impacts-trigger-tipping-points-in-the-earth-system/

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxooLsZRAVo30b9OX6AbP6aqP9JwVSGODCKAeyUR4KHWNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anderson, Paul]

I did not receive John’s message with the attachment.   I checked the junk/spam and it was not there.

 

Please check that I am in the correct list or whatever for receiving all the messages.

 

And please send the attachment to me ------ direct email  is    psan...@ilstu.edu  

 

Thanks.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psan...@ilstu.edu       Skype:   paultlud     Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Website:    https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.                       

 

From: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 3:49 AM
To: 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'noac-m...@googlegroups.com' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'David Spratt' <dsp...@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: RE: [prag] Re: PRAG Letter to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

 

This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/PAXPR05MB8048951093B3D423DCAB9691A77E9%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[Chris Vivian]

John,

 

Just one minor point. I suggest you put a footnote to explain what Rossby Waves are.

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

 

From: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of John Nissen

Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 10:26 PM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; noac-m...@googlegroups.com; David Spratt <dsp...@bigpond.net.au>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_FxooLsZRAVo30b9OX6AbP6aqP9JwVSGODCKAeyUR4KHWNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas]

Bravo all, and hurrah for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

I think this paper should be expanded to include all identified active tipping systems: the works of Lenton 2019 and McKay 2022. The Arctic is not the end-all. Any one of of the now active tipping systems could cause a tipping systems cascade as per Lenton and McKay's work and many others. Too, many geoengineering strategies need to be rapidly researched in case emergency cooling is needed, not just Arctic refreezing. SRM is needed to cool the planet, so the oceans can cool in time to avoid irreversible WAIS collapse. This includes many ocean restoration processes that in other circles are described as geoengineering, because our oceans plausibly have the greatest capacity for natural sequestration, and they are at the root of much of the mayhem we have been enduring with repeatedly unprecedented weather.

On "Public Perception of Climate Change"

"We live in a world which we thought was intrinsically stable.  Any perturbation could be countered by removing that perturbation.  CO2 was the main cause of global warming so, logically, the reduction in emissions should have the effect of reversing global warming."

The modus operandi of IPCC, or the broad climate change scenario that IPCC supports, is that "additional warming is acceptable." I don't disagree that some (too large of a) fraction of civilians believe that reducing emissions will reverse global warming, but this is not the position of climate science or policy which I think is more meaningful. This predominant view up until about five years ago was "to avoid dangerous climate change" by limiting warming to 2 C, as was defined by Rijsberman and Swart 1990. In the last five years (since the 1.5 Report)  the world view on climate change has morphed somewhat and we do not hear "avoid dangerous climate change" any longer because obviously, dangerous climate change has arrived. What we hear now is "avoid the worst of climate change." Both of these broad concepts supported by the global consensus and policymakers that create policy based on the global consensus, are of course what this letter is about.

In the "Sudden Dawning" paragraph, you have Hansen at 4 C warming by 2100. His prepub "Warming in the pipeline (December 2022)" is about 6.3 C in 100 years, 63% of EQ response, page 32.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.04474.pdf

"Risk of unstoppable descent to catastrophe"

Publishing exists on tipping activation within the last ten years or since 2010 (ish). One could argue that the tipping point for mountain glaciers was the peak of the Little Ice Age, as most have been in decline since, though the decline has certainly accelerated in the last 10 or 20 years. It is certainly plausible that Arctic sea ice is following the same path.

Tipping activation:
Lenton et al., Climate tipping points-too risky to bet against, Nature, November 27, 2019.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0  
McKay et al., Exceeding 1.5 C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points, Science, September 9, 2022.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

"Planetary Restoration"

Hansen leads with 350 ppm CO2. His description of Earth systems collapses with warming beyond their evolutionary boundaries is definitive.
Hansen et. al., Target Atmospheric CO2 Where should humanity aim?, Open Atmospheric Science Journal, August, 2008.
https://openatmosphericsciencejournal.com/contents/volumes/V2/TOASCJ-2-217/TOASCJ-2-217.pdf

His Holocene boundary and 350 ppm CO2 work with "Young People's Burden..." is foundational. The upper limit of the Holocene was 0.25 C to 0.75 C above the mid- to late 19th century. This is the boundary to the evolutionary limits of our Earth systems.
Hansen et al., Young people's burden--requirement of negative CO2 emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 577–616, 2017.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf

1980 tipping of Arctic Sea ice. Citation? Hansen's lower limit of the Holocene boundary is probably close at 0.25 C warming in 1980.

Steep Trails,

B

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxooLsZRAVo30b9OX6AbP6aqP9JwVSGODCKAeyUR4KHWNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Thanks Bruce.

Attached is version 3a which has mark-up.

I've adjusted the text of "what people used to think about climate change" in the light of your comments.  I've added a few more tipping points, but not attempted a comprehensive list.  I think I have already painted an alarming enough picture of 4C not to elaborate on detail.

Thanks also to Tom, Doug, Herb and Chris for suggestions and corrections, which I've tried to take into account.

Cheers, John

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/bde087e5-8205-4685-5ffa-2218c2020073%40earthlink.net.

[Rebecca Bishop]

Hello John,,

Please find attached a few minor suggestions for the letter - effectively a proof read.

My main question is:  what did the initial letter say, to which we are responding?  It might be good to state that up the front, in a non-confrontational way, so the reader knows why we have written.

I looked for the PRAG meeting recording and also looked in the Bulletin, but couldn't find it.  

Thank you for this excellent work, and look forward to seeing the final.

Please feel free to add me as a signatory if it's any help.  I'm thinking this will be on the agenda for our next meeting and finishing will be agreed then.

With best wishes,

Rebecca.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_FxrPHz_2Rn8AgUk-5o%3D%2BHzykdHjcvoDPU%2BL6V9qmFj%3DS1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Thanks Rebecca,

However you were commenting on version 2, and version 3 has taken into account some of the points you make - typo spotting helpful.  Hopefully version 4, with small corrections made, is of sufficient quality and substance to be agreed as a PRAG output and for people to add their signatures.

You have suggested an addition to PRAG's mission:

This letter is the result of research by the Planetary Restoration Action Group (PRAG)
whose mission is the restoration of the planet to a safe, sustainable, productive and
biodiverse state, for the enjoyment of all humanity, and the avoidance of catastrophe for
humans and other living beings in the ecosystems of which humans are a part.

I don't think this addition to the letter is necessary, because we have stressed that avoiding catastrophe is a prerequisite to planetary restoration.  However we could discuss your suggestion at tomorrow's PRAG meeting*.  I like the mention of ecosystems, because as environmentalists we are all concerned about them; but instead of "of which humans are a part", how about "on which humans ultimately depend"? 

Cheers, John

* Doug Grandt is convening the meeting and writes:

Meeting Link for Planetary Restoration Action Group

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5505455558

Meeting ID: 550 545 5558

 

Monday  9:00 pm UK  

               1:00 pm PDT California

               1:00 pm CDT Illinois

               4:00 pm EDT East Coast

Tuesday 6:00 am AEDT Australia 

[Rebecca Bishop]

Hello John,

Thanks for your comments, and please see attached a revised version, which I hope is helpful.

One typo remained, which I have corrected.

Also, I am deep green, like Peter Singer and also following most faith traditions, and I have tweaked the comment using your words and some of my own thoughts.  I don't think humans are any better, or by and large different, from other animals, plants, amoebae etc.  though we are the only ones with consciousness to change things.

Look forward to the meeting tomorrow,

Rebecca.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CACS_FxqW0b5%3DM61cnf_BV2SWZL4e2DdDS6gr0YmPW4m5JJR_-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Rebecca,

You suggest two additions.

This letter is the result of research by the Planetary Restoration Action Group (PRAG)
whose mission is the restoration of the planet to a safe, sustainable, productive and

biodiverse state, for the enjoyment of all humanity and our continued cohabitation with
all living beings on this planet. The current and predicted climate crisis impacts not only
humans, but the ecosystems on which all life depends.

I suggest the first addition could be "and for the protection of ecosystems on which all life depends".  Then we don't need the second sentence but it might still be useful.  The point we could make here is that the climate crisis must be addressed (by cooling intervention) before the planet, along with its ecosystems, can be restored to a healthy state.

Cheers, John

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

Attached is the fourth version, marked up with just a few changes from version 3a.

We can discuss this at the PRAG meeting at 9 pm UK time (in exactly an hour) this time hosted by Doug Grandt [1].  I am hoping we can get many of you to provide your signatures.

I am copying to David Spratt who prompted the letter and to Jim Hansen with gratitude for his work.  I am sure they both share our aims for a better world.

Cheers, John

[1] Doug writes:

Meeting Link for Planetary Restoration Action Group

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5505455558

 

Meeting ID: 550 545 5558

 

Monday  9:00 pm UK  

               1:00 pm PDT California

               1:00 pm CDT Illinois

               4:00 pm EDT East Coast

Tuesday 6:00 am AEDT Australia