 |
 |
Hi John, I absolutely take your point about chemotherapy. And ditto about the Geo techniques you have referred to as being "surprisingly benign" But just because of this, 'we' could become addicted to using them whilst carrying on in the same old way, burning coal and oil 'like there's no tomorrow', while our chemotherapy drip continues to take care of everything. And then we have a war, or nature throws a severe wobbly, or we enter CO2 levels in the atmosphere beyond anything the earth has experienced and we find we can't maintain the drip anymore even though our atmosphere has become akin to that of Venus. But my bottom line is that where I agree with you that the case for 'interfering' in the Arctic is overwhelming, to go from that to start making the case for controlling the whole of the world's climate system is multiplying the obstacles a hundred-fold. And the Arctic is where the action is at the moment and must be overwhelmingly our prime focus for the present. Cheers, Brian On 13 May 2011, at 14:20, John Nissen wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Proposed geoengineering methods with stratospheric aerosols and > cloud brightening are surprisingly benign, I found to my surprise > several years ago, since geoengineering has always been denounced as > being so dangerous. No significant side-effects have ever been > established. > > We have to be clinical about our treatment of our planet. If the > patient is dying of cancer, we have to consider chemopherapy - but > only as long as it takes to put the patient on the road to > recovery. Any doctor who waits to find out whether the patient is > dying, is liable to end up with a dead patient. > > BTW, the dangers of suddenly withdrawing geoengineering have been > much overhyped. Where did you get the idea that it could lead to a > venus environment? We could only get that if the methane does its > worst. > > Cheers, > > John > > --- > > On 13/05/2011 10:40, Brian Orr wrote: >> >> Tom, >> >> Very much the sentiments I was thinking of expressing. >> >> But I think there is one further point that needs stressing. >> Seeking how we might use >> geoengineering to 'save the Arctic from meltdown' because this is >> an 'imminent' and >> catastrophic possibility, is a very long way short of climbing into >> 'wholesale geoengineering' >> - possibly as the means of continuing with unfettered 'business as >> usual'. >> >> 'Wholesale geoengineering' has to be avoided like the plague if >> only because once hooked >> on that solution we can only wait for the time when it will >> inevitably fail and the world will be >> turned into Venus 'overnight'. >> >> But using it to address the Arctic emergency could hold back what >> appears to be the most >> critical of the many tipping points we see coming towards us - and >> give the world more time >> to de-couple our lives from carbon as far as is required to return >> us to a more stable climate. >> >> Going down this road (which would only be decided upon finally >> through the most intense >> international negotiations since Copenhagen and would result in a >> firm 'yes' or 'no' - there >> doesn't seem much room for equivocation here), should give the >> world the message that >> the climate change crisis is real, tangible and most be given >> mankind's utmost priority. >> >> Of course there will be those who will say "See, we can rise to any >> challenge." But we've >> always known they are the enemies of creation. >> >> Brian >> >> On 12 May 2011, at 21:35, Barker, Tom wrote: >> >>> 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 can¹t, but we can make an educated guess by looking at what are >>> known in ecology variously as Œalternative stable states¹, >>> Œregime shifts¹, Œcatastrophic shifts¹ 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 Œdesirable¹ state, the system doesn¹t change >>> back. Reinforcing stabilising mechanisms hold it in the new state >>> (just as they did in the previous state, which was why it didn¹t >>> change smoothly and is thus called Œnon-linear¹). 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 >>> won¹t 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, that¹s 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 dont 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 cant 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 SWe 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 >>> >>> >>