Well Mark
I don't really want to get
into a scrap with you, because I know you are a
good man, but I resent the labels of hubris and
conceit that you like throwing around. I for one
am not saying that we are truly past mitigation,
and if we are, then we should apply reverse gear,
rather than wait for the inevitable without at
least attempting to do something positive about
our 'fate', which is what you seem to me to be
saying. Who is 'assuming we will have an answer'?
Not me. I am prepared to simply try, that's all.
I admit to not understanding
your viewpoint. In a choice between fighting a
lion and an alsatian, I'll take the alsatian.
Are you really saying you would rather kneel
gently in front of the lion and prepare yourself
for the end?
We have, inadvertently I
admit, been geoengineering for at least 200 years
in the wrong direction, and I am prepared to do
some geoengineering in the right direction to get
us out of the mess we're in. If it doesn't go the
way we plan, it might still be better than
trashing the biosphere, and not as profound a
change as a climate flip. If in the end, we
fail, people will then be able to 'prepare
ourselves psychologically and culturally for the
inevitable' as you put it, if they want to, but I
rather think there will be resource wars and
violence enough to prevent any dignified peaceful
end.
As for a lack of scientific
rigour, I wonder if you are mistaking lack of
evidence for lack of science. It's OK to admit we
don't know, but that does not mean we should just
give up meekly. We know enough to know how to try,
so why not?
Tom
From: Discussion
list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mark Levene [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12
May 2011 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
Actic Council meeting on Thursday - Scientists for
Global Responsibility - Emerging technologies: are
the risks being neglected? 21 May 2011
thanks, Tom for going to the trouble.
The issue of the flip is entirely clear. What I'm
less sanguine about is this 'educated guess' notion
for dealing with it, and as you breezily put it a
'few lesser risks'. All this side of things, seems
to me to be utterly indeterminate. Or, if I could
use a musical term Aubrey Meyer has been fond of
using (and hence known to both of us) with regard to
a lack of scientific rigour in the political
determining of the degree of necessary carbon cuts
for mitigation to be effective:
'aleatory'. The term is worth looking up. 'Educated
guesses' in terms of what is at stake here I'm
afraid neither read as convincing or assuring....
What then you might ask is the alternative? and
my only answer at this moment can be : if we are
truly past mitigation (which seems to be the case)
then we must prepare ourselves psychologically and
culturally for the inevitable....and come to accept
that this is our fate, or more precisely - given
what we, primarily in the hegemonic Western sphere,
have done to the biosphere - our
Nemesis.
Or put yet again, I think it's time we stopped
assuming that we will have an answer, a solution,
another technical fix to the mess we have caused.
All that is a conceit and hubris, though highly
indicative of the mental state of 21st century
dysfunctionality. It's time instead to find our
reconciliation with the planet, and hence
ourselves,
even
in
the face of
our own species destruction. That to me, given all
that is implied here, is still worth working and
struggling for, whatever the remaining
time-scale.......
mark
on 11/5/11 2:20 pm, Barker, Tom at
[log in to unmask] wrote:
Hi Mark
We canıt, but we can make an educated guess by
looking at what are known in ecology variously as
alternative stable statesı, regime shiftsı,
catastrophic shiftsı and other names. See for
example work by Scheffer, Carpenter, Folke, Moss.
An environmental driver exists (might be steadily
increasing nutrient concentrations (or CO2)), and
the system maintains itself regardless. But
pressure is building up, and suddenly it flips
into a completely different state. If the
environmental driver is taken back (at great
expense and difficulty) to where it was when the
system was in a desirableı state, the system
doesnıt change back. Reinforcing stabilising
mechanisms hold it in the new state (just as they
did in the previous state, which was why it didnıt
change smoothly
and is thus called non-linearı). With some
ecosystems, e.g. shallow lakes, subtle signs can
be seen that it might flip soon (Brock &
Carpenter paper is good), but we know about these
because it has been seen many times. We can see
signs in the planetary ecosystem (Arctic and
Antarctic ice, Amazon, deserts etc) that we are
probably nearing a flip, but this has not been
witnessed before, and a lot is unknown. What is
will be like afterwards is pretty unknown too, but
sure as cheese is cheese, we wonıt like it, and it
is hardly likely to be conducive to the sort of
life we know. Unprecedented mass extinctions are
predicted by some.
Preventing the flip is the top priority, thatıs
why some people are prepared to take a few lesser
risks to avoid it.
I Hope that helps, T
From: Mark
Levene [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11
May 2011 13:53
To: Barker,
Tom; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
Actic Council meeting on Thursday - Scientists for
Global Responsibility - Emerging technologies: are
the risks being neglected? 21 May 2011
Tom,
question;
if we can't 'know' how close we are to the 'flip'
how can we 'know' the outcome of "some sort of measured geoengineering
project" ?
mark
on 11/5/11 11:22 am, Barker, Tom at [log in to unmask] wrote:
In that case, you might as well have my reply to
her. Tom
I agree with the precautionary principle of
course, but we are already artificially
manipulating the climate, and not trying to direct
it to benign ends. We don t have time to ensure
everything is safe as it can possibly be before we
embark on some sort of measured geoengineering
project. For one thing, that sort of knowledge can
never be known, and for another, there is
hysteresis in the system, and we can t know either
what the result of a flip would be or how close
we are to one. What we do know is that we would
not be able to return to comparative stasis once
the flip has occurred. And what we are pretty sure
about is that we are hurtling towards that tipping
point now, blindly. That seems to me to be the
greater risk.
I came across this quote from Churchill the other
day. You might wish to consider it in the light of
climate change.
½They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be
undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for
drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be
impotentS
Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest
warnings, we have entered upon a period of danger.
The era of procrastination, of half measures, of
soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is
coming to its close. In its place we are entering
a period of consequences S We cannot avoid this
period, we are in it nowS
- Winston Churchill
November 12, 1936
Tom
From: Discussion
list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Mark
Levene
Sent: 11
May 2011 13:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW:
Actic Council meeting on Thursday - Scientists for
Global Responsibility - Emerging technologies: are
the risks being neglected? 21 May 2011
from Tessa Burrington
but extremely relevant to us all.
mark
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Actic Council meeting on Thursday
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:58:16 +0100
I am on the Crisis Forum mailing list. I thought
you might be interested in the following
conference - if you think it migh