Re: Is scientific reticence hindering climate understanding? Access to article

[John Nissen]

Hi David,

Thanks for the article which I managed to read.  I was disappointed that there was no mention of the requirement for direct cooling intervention.  Clearly the Earth System is accelerating away from the norms of Late Holocene, and nothing we can do by way of emissions reduction or greenhouse gas removal can stop this acceleration.

So I would like to respond in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to your article.  I wrote a letter to The Economist which they wouldn't publish, see [1].  The essential message is that there are four critical ongoing processes in the Arctic which must be halted to reduce the risk of catastrophic sea level rise and climate change; and the estimated cooling power requirement is now so high that SAI will have to be involved both to cool the Arctic directly and to cool surface water flowing into the Arctic from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

It is the reticence of the climate science community, as represented by the IPCC, which has allowed the Arctic situation to deteriorate to such an extent that now only the most powerful of cooling interventions (or combination of interventions) has a chance to bring down the Arctic temperature - essentially to refreeze the Arctic to some extent.  The PRAG view is that ideally the cooling intervention should restore the Arctic to the temperature and albedo it had in 1980, when the Arctic sea ice started to retreat.

Cheers, John

[1] Letter to The Economist (which they did not publish)

2025-02-11

To: the editor of The Economist

For publication

 

Refreezing the Arctic is vital for our future well-being

 

Dear editor,

 

“Breaking the Ice”, 23^rd January, proposed that unabated Arctic melt was a golden opportunity for economic exploitation.  This is preposterous.  The Arctic is heating at four times the global average, causing melting, thawing and other processes which would herald catastrophic sea level rise and climate change unless drastic cooling intervention is made to stop them.  These processes, triggered by Arctic heating, are already beyond the “point of no return”, when they cannot be halted except by direct cooling intervention.  Not intervening would be disastrous for industry, agriculture and economies globally, threatening starvation or migration for billions of people plus the danger of world war.

 

The critical ongoing processes, which could soon become irreversible even with the most drastic cooling intervention, are:

• Greenland Ice Sheet meltdown, leading to metres of sea level rise;
• permafrost thawing, causing a significant feedback to global warming;
• polar jet stream disruption, causing ever greater weather extremes in the Northern Hemisphere and leading to a reconfiguration of global atmospheric circulation;
• Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation breakdown, leading to a reconfiguration of global ocean circulation.

 

The urgent need for Arctic cooling intervention has been ignored by those focussed on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.  A global fund for cooling intervention might need only a few tens of billions of dollars a year to refreeze the Arctic and reverse global warming using Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a well-researched, reliable, effective and scalable technique.  Preparations for deployment could start immediately and be ramped up to full strength within a few years.  This would have huge benefits for ecosystems worldwide, adding to other economic and social benefits.  It would open the door for a complete restoration of the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state.

 

Yours sincerely,

John Nissen

Chair of the Planetary Restoration Action Group (PRAG)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:09 AM David Spratt <dsp...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Hi,

This week, an article on climate and scientific reticence was published online in the journal of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

Is scientific reticence hindering climate understanding? 

To cite this article: David Spratt (2025) Is scientific reticence hindering climate understanding?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 81:2, 107-113, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2025.2464442 

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2025.2464442

Published online: 12 Mar 2025. 

Whilst it is behind a paywall, the first 50 people who access it via this link will have access to the full article:

 https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/C4S5GNKB2BZJWXQXR6QI/full?target=10.1080/00963402.2025.2464442#abstract

David Spratt

[David Spratt]

For goodness sakes John, I have just spend months talking about the coming Climate Collision and the need for cooling - a report, videos, webinar, public meetings, meetings with politicians and more.

I have been writing and speaking about geoengineering/climate interventions since 2007. I don’t need to be hectored by anyone about cooling.

Your response is ungracious. 

You ned to get off your high horse.

David Spratt

[John Nissen]

Dear David,

I apologise if I have upset you.  I have great respect for your work.  My disappointment was that you did not take the opportunity to mention the need for cooling intervention in The Bulletin, when clearly you have been arguing for it for a long time*.  Is The Bulletin so much against SRM that they would not have published your article if it had included an argument for SRM?

I am not sure what you mean by my high horse.  My motives are to try and get the necessary actions taken to reverse climate change, slow sea level rise, and ensure a decent future for the young people of today.  Necessary actions include refreezing the Arctic.  My estimate of the cooling power requirement suggests that SAI will have to be used.  The widespread fear of SAI has no justification, as far as I can tell.

Best wishes, John

* BTW, I have also been arguing for geoengineering since 2007, prompted by the extraordinary retreat of Arctic sea ice in the September of that year and then meeting up with Peter Wadhams.

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Here is a draft letter to The Bulletin, and I am hoping Peter Wadhams and some others of you would be willing to add your signatures on behalf of PRAG.  Cheers, John
 

Dear editor,

 

The excellent article by David Spratt “Is scientific reticence hindering climate understanding?” requires a follow up: “Yes. And this lack of understanding is preventing effective climate action.”

 

The main reason for the Paris COP agreement on limiting global warming to 1.5°C was to avoid the activation of tipping processes.  But there are four such processes in the Arctic which could go beyond the “point of no return” unless powerful cooling intervention is taken immediately to reduce the Arctic temperature. 

 

The critical ongoing processes which could soon become irreversible are:

• Greenland Ice Sheet meltdown, leading to metres of sea level rise;
• permafrost thawing, causing a significant feedback to global warming;
• polar jet stream disruption, causing ever greater weather extremes in the Northern Hemisphere and leading to a reconfiguration of global atmospheric circulation;
• Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation breakdown, leading to a reconfiguration of global ocean circulation.

 

Failure to halt these processes would inevitably lead to catastrophic sea level and climate change: disastrous for industry, agriculture and economies globally; and threatening starvation or migration for billions of people plus the danger of world war.

 

The urgent need for Arctic cooling intervention has been ignored by those focussed on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.  A global fund for cooling intervention of a few tens of billions of dollars a year could pay to refreeze the Arctic and reverse global warming using Stratospheric Aerosol Injection which research suggests would be effective and remarkably benign.  Preparations for deployment could start immediately and be ramped up to full strength within a few years.  This would have huge benefits for ecosystems worldwide, adding to other economic and social benefits.  It would open the door for a complete restoration of the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state.

 

Yours sincerely, etc.

 

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

I think I should send it tomorrow.  So I'd be grateful for willing signatories to let me know within less than 24 hours.

I would like to change: "The urgent need for Arctic cooling intervention has been ignored by those focussed on curbing greenhouse gas emissions." to "The extreme urgency for cooling intervention has now been recognised through improved understanding of the situation."

Re SAI, I would like to strengthen the case and change: "which research suggests would be effective and remarkably benign " to "which recent research indicates could prove remarkably benign as well as highly effective". 

Cheers, John

[Tom Goreau]

I’d be willing to sign on if coral reef extinction, and Amazonian desertification are added to the list, which I think greatly strengthen the urgency of arctic and/or albedo modification.

[Tom Goreau]

Possibly you might want to add the possibility of rapid methane releases?

 

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB4994252DD3B6D974426B1363DDDF2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Dana Woods]

I like John's letter and I could be missing something but I don't think he means to be ungracious but rather to tale an opportunity to advance the idea of SAI . I think adding coral reef extinction . Amazonian Desertification and possible sub sea Methane releases sounds fine and dandy you could (adding heat related deaths and crop failures would be ok with me too) And hope that Thom , Peter W and anyone else who's contribution might help will sign it, additions or no additions

Regards and Peas on Earth, Dana

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49942417D7E4CD4DF4B881E7DDDF2%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Dana and Tom,

In the light of your comments I propose to change the final paragraph, so that the whole letter reads:

Dear editor,

 

The excellent article by David Spratt “Is scientific reticence hindering climate understanding?” requires a follow up: “Yes. And this lack of understanding is preventing effective climate action.”

 

The main reason for the Paris COP agreement on limiting global warming to 1.5°C was to avoid the activation of tipping processes.  But there are four such processes in the Arctic which could go beyond the “point of no return” unless powerful cooling intervention is taken immediately to reduce the Arctic temperature. 

 

The critical ongoing processes which could soon become irreversible are:

• Greenland Ice Sheet meltdown, leading to metres of sea level rise;
• permafrost thawing, causing a significant feedback to global warming;
• polar jet stream disruption, causing ever greater weather extremes in the Northern Hemisphere and leading to a reconfiguration of global atmospheric circulation;
• Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation breakdown, leading to a reconfiguration of global ocean circulation.

 

Failure to halt these processes would inevitably lead to catastrophic sea level and climate change: disastrous for industry, agriculture and economies globally; and threatening starvation or migration for billions of people plus the danger of world war

The extreme urgency for cooling intervention has now been recognised through improved understanding of the situation.  A global fund for cooling intervention of a few tens of billions of dollars a year could pay for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) to refreeze the Arctic and cool the planet such as to save coral reefs, the Amazon rainforest and other critical ecosystems.  The latest research shows SAI to be a remarkably benign as well as highly effective technique.  Preparations for deployment could start immediately and be ramped up to full strength within a few years.  It would open the door for a complete restoration of the planet to a safe, sustainable, biodiverse and productive state.

However, I could alter the beginning, in the light of an email from Robin Collins which points out that The Bulletin has a March issue on tipping points with an interview article of particular relevance to us; see HPAC thread "Notoriously difficult to investigate and even more difficult to predict".  This was one of several interviews conducted for the March issue of The Bulletin.  I am inclined to leave the letter as it is above, with the addition of Tom as co-author and hopefully Peter Wadhams if he agrees soon, and send it later today.

Cheers, John

[Tom Goreau]

Thanks, John!

 

I’m happier with it because now the impacts stretch from the poles to the equator!

 

If my name adds anything useful, please feel free to add it.

 

Best wishes from Grand Cayman, where I’m looking at vanished beaches, collapsing sea walls, and speaking today against plans for a cruise ship port.

 

Tom

[Dana Woods]

Thanks Tom and John,

Sorry to leave it to folks as to whether to alter anything but Im having one of my notorious mental energy crises & am actually about to go to sleep as I've been up since yesterday (thirty some goats plus not much help keep me on a 26 or 27 hour cycle :sigh:

Cheers, Dana