Hello John,
A couple of points that you made referencing my original posting require a response.
First of all it wasn't an outburst as such. More a call to attract the attention of the crisis forum who for some time now seemed to be quietly moving along in one direction only and yet I had never come across any concerns about the potential impact of a mistake in applying one of these solution ideas. Yes I do think they are very madcap to be honest. But then that is my opinion.

In answer to some of the points raised I offer first two links:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-global-2c-nations.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-global-2c-nations.html

Now I have only just come across these articles today but in no way does it imply that I don't appreciate the dangers we are facing. I feel they do offer some other information which you may or may not have been aware of previously. For a long time now there has been a steady stream of science papers that have generally contradicted previous thinking or added completely new interpretations on something previously not under the microscope.
However to suggest that we will face a cataclysmic demise from methane hydrate when the same sort of event has seemingly happened before would be a bit premature. I would hasten to add that there is still a lot we don't even begin to partially understand let alone fully understand.

I also wish to point out that I was not suggesting that the geoengineers were simply conducting these experiments/trials or whatever so that the corporations could continue business as usual but that the corporations would seize upon the opportunity to cite work done (if it was successful) to justify their continued polluting. Now to my mind that is how they work and I did not suggest that you and your fellow engineers were working for the corporations. Quite the opposite actually.

Please don't misunderstand me because I can see the theoretical basis for the experiments you talk about but to be honest I am not burying my head in the sand either by refusing to applaud your efforts loudly and sing their praises. I am reluctant to advocate for this form of repair work because of the untried and untested nature of the 'solutions' that have been put forward (so far).

Here is something that you can all consider for a while. Has anyone actually calculated the impact of say ocean seeding if more than one nation suddenly embarks on this method without the knowledge of the other participants? After all if too much of one method is used there will be an exceptional reaction that will upset whatever ecosystem existed at that time and in that location. The same applies to the atmosphere and if the rumours are to be believed then chem trails are a form of climate control which has been going on for years. How will extra impacts of this sort be controlled to avoid a complete reversal of atmospheric conditions? Has anyone set up a register of potential conflicts here?

There is also another aspect that I have not heard mentioned on here and that is physical geoengineering solutions. As you state there is no point in trying to mitigate for the temperature rise with reductions of emissions because the effects of climate change will be around for a century at least even if we stop emitting carbon pollutants totally.
However there is a very reasonable case for reforestation on a grand scale and a reversion of agriculture to a sustainable level without going back to the caves or forgoing our comforts entirely as these two issues do create a lot of carbon pollution from deforestation and chemical agriculture. Whilst forests are growing they absorb carbon compounds. So if we stop emitting carbon and at the same time plant loads of trees and other carbon absorbing vegetation (physical geoengineering), then we will make a rapid dent in the levels in the atmosphere.
Yet to try to combat climate change by simply spraying a chemical into the atmosphere or onto the land or oceans (a chemical derived most probably from some mineral mining process and processed in some factory all of which adds to the carbon burden) is like sending one cheese down the hill to catch the previous one that rolled down the hill. Or as I told my contact at Skeptical Science 'Its like prescribing a pill to combat the adverse side effects of one pill that was itself prescribed to combat the different side effects of a previously prescribed pill.' Where will it all end? I fear that the entire plan is not exactly robust enough to surmise that one size solution will fit all. Yes I know you never implied that but there have been a lot of individuals elsewhere who seem to advocate for the geoengineered approach as if it is the silver bullet when it clearly is not.
To even suggest we try regardless because we have no other options is why I believe we will be committing ourselves to an early grave. There are alternative options that don't involve upskittling the atmosphere, which is currently destabilised enough already.   

Now you suggest that all the solutions are based on natural phenomena and this is a bit of a vague statement. I for one do not think we have sufficient knowledge or understanding to start messing around with nature anymore than we already have. Judging by the way the human race has slaughtered all the top predators and destroyed a massive number of habitats is evident to all.
The only natural solution I could think of is something like seeding the oceans to encourage plankton which I have seen mentioned elsewhere. If this is one of those solutions there is a problem that needs to be taken seriously into account. A recent scientific paper found that ecosystems were becoming more imbalanced and declining after the top predators were removed by human predations. This imbalance led to the decline in ecosystem health and ultimately the demise of food structures and habitat degradation and destruction as lower predators populations exploded and put pressure on the ecosystem that it was unable to cope with.
Now that may seem like an irrelevance to the engineers here but in reality the process of plankton creation to absorb carbon (CO2) would need a secondary predator to eat the plankton as rapidly as it is being created to take in that carbon absorbed by the plankton before the plankton died on the surface and became a renewed emission by decomposition (CH4).
Then you need the next predator above the first one and then the next above that and so on, or eventually the ecosystem (in this case the ocean environment) would become totally imbalanced and the current absorption systems and recycling systems would become imbalanced and this would then impact on the climate cycles which would become further disrupted. Its like one unfathomable global game of 'Kerplunk' (The kids game with straws and marbles. Pull out the wrong straw and the lot falls which we have been doing for centuries by destroying species and habitats and ecosystems. Each straw represents a system or species or habitat. The marbles the climatic impacts. But if the system is in balance then all the straws are in place and all the marbles are also held in place by the straws.)
I may sound like an amateur here but believe me I am actually a scientist in my spare time (but not a geoengineer). I study ecosystems, habitats, species migration (plants) and agricultural pollution. I also get involved with human rights issues with regards food sustainability and pollutant impacts, climate issues and land issues.
Deforestation and palm oil are two big climate destroyers that are interlinked in Far East Asia and you will no doubt have heard a lot about this issue.
I have also recently been involved with two friends of mine with the drafting of 2 UN proposals. One was the promotion of sustainable agriculture around the planet and the other was to remove as many of the suspected causes of CCD to allow the bee populations to increase again. The two would have a positive impact on climatic emissions of carbon pollutants in many ways not clearly obvious at first reading.

I will leave it at that for now.

Regards
Kev C
PS If I have not addressed all the points made it is because of lack of time at this particular moment. I may well return to the remainder of the points if someone requires a response.

On 26/10/2011 20:57, John Nissen wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Hi all,

I'd like to go back quickly to Kevin Coleman's outburst last night, because his opinion is very widespread and he expresses it quite clearly.

KC: It is not that we the people do not feel comfortable with this daft madcap experiment called Geoengineering. Its simply that we have the sense to realise that we have only one planet and therefore only one chance and none of us is even remotely keen to commit Hari-Kari.

JN:  One can argue that we have committed Hari-Kari by adding over 100 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere.  The result has been global warming of ~0.8 degrees C of global warming, and global warming will continue for at least a century, even if emissions of CO2 could be stopped overnight.  But, worse that this, the temperature in the Arctic is rising at 5-6 times the global rate, and the sea ice is now retreating at an alarming rate, threatening release of vast quantities of the potent greenhouse gas, methane.  As you say we have only one planet, therefore the effects of this experiment with CO2 have to be countered, to prevent a Hari-Kari consequence.  The Arctic cannot be cooled by emissions reductions, so we have to resort to geoengineering, I'm afraid.

KC: So please don't start trying to convince me that the problem is real because I already know what the problem is and its people like the corporations who profit from this mess and people like you that do likewise pretending to clear it all up. That is the problem. There is no political will to do anything about it all because there is no profit in doing so. That is the bottom line so all your mad experiments will do is perpetuate the madness that is corporate greed from pollution and destruction of the planet.

JN:  This is a common misunderstanding that advocates of geoengineering want to do it in order to allow corporations to continue their greedy behaviour which has, to a large extent, been the cause of high emissions in the Western World.  This supposed motivation is far from the truth.  In trying to save the Arctic sea ice, and prevent a methane excursion, there is absolutely no benefit to those companies who are wanting to mine in the Arctic - and who therefore favour an sea-ice-free Arctic!  On the other hand, what we want to do is to save their lives as well as our own, because a methane excursion would probably be fatal for everybody on the planet, as global warming would spiral out of control.  There is a geological precedent in Earth's history - the PETM - the last major extinction, 55 million years ago.  We're in the middle of the next, and liable to take Homo Sapiens along with most other species - possibly all life except extremophiles!

KC: The solution is so easy. Stop polluting. Simple. If we did that the effect would be quite remarkable. Stop deforestation and stop burning fossil fuels. Stop flying everywhere. Stop trying to be clever with all these little inventions. Until we can recycle everything without polluting the planet (which at the present time we cannot) then we should limit our clever ideas and inventions to things that we actually can make sustainable and recycle fully and cleanly.

JN:  The idea that the solution is to stop polluting is the commonest mistake of all, and promoted by the media in (often selective) reporting of scientists.  In fact many scientists are now afraid to admit that this solution will not work.  Only recently has the chair of the UNFCCC committee, Christiana Figueres, admitted that we need to keep below 1.5 degrees global warming, and this could require geoengineering.  (And even she is ignoring the Arctic methane problem.)

KC: In fact to stop climatic change from killing us all why don't we stop mining for fossil fuels entirely and start by reducing our individual global footprints right now? Fit solar PV's on every house roof that could generate electricity. Oh yes of course your going to say that that requires mined materials. Wrong! There is a technique available now to make solar PV cells from silicon and we have tonnes of that on the surface. In fact it is everywhere. The only problem is there is no political will to embark on this path because the corporations who own the political system won't allow it as it threatens their control of the masses and their profits and power generating monopolies. If you don't believe me then you are one of them.

JN: Energy efficiency and use of renewables will reduce emissions, but, as I've said, this won't halt global warming, let alone halt the much more rapid Arctic warming.

KC: The answers are all very simple. Legislation could be introduced tomorrow to make these sorts of simple and meaningful changes happen but the governments won't let us start because their handlers, the corporations who own them, won't let them introduce that meaningful legislation to make it happen.

JN: In no respect are these changes "answers" at all.  But you are right that the corporations resist them.  Until global warming is taken seriously, corporations will continue to resist them.  One way to show that global warming is taken seriously is to take the Arctic situation seriously, and admit that geoengineering will be required.  When people, even the most hardened capitalists, realise that their own lives are at stake, then they will want geoengineering like everyone else. 

KC: Now why will they let you and your madcap scientists mess with the planetary ecosystems? Again its simple. It will allow the corporations to continue with business as usual. Its not about whether it will stop our demise or that of the planet. Its about whether the corporations can continue playing god over us mere mortals and make a bundle of worthless paper money in the process. By reducing the carbon content the corporations will cite that as a reason not to change their methods of manufacture, production or creativity. They will say they can still pollute because there is a method of carbon extraction that keeps everything in check so they can increase their pollution levels by simply increasing the geoengineered solutions capacity.

JN:  There is nothing "madcap" about the kind of geoengineering being advocated to cool the Arctic - the techniques are all based on natural phenomena that have been shown to have cooling effects.

KC: But they fail to recognise one major flaw and so do the geoengineers. Resources are finite and when they run out either we have a sustainable form of energy generation and food farming in place or we die. It matters not if you can control the atmospheric carbon or that the climate is being kept artificially cooler by some huge stratospheric seeding experiment. When the resources run out its game over for everyone and everything.

JN:  Of course we recognise that resources are finite and there's a limit to growth in consumption of energy, food and resources generally.  But the game is over very quickly if there is a significant methane excursion in the Arctic.  We have to win that battle if we are to live to fight other battles.

KC:  So save your efforts for something that will work and stop whining about us people who are a lot older and wiser who know what is at stake and what it is truly worth.

JN:  I'm not whining about you, Kevin - your beliefs are very common, and they deserve to be carefully rebuffed.

KC: End of discussion.

JN:  Well, Kevin, you provoked a response, and you got several!  If you don't want to change your views, that's up to you.  It is probably more comfortable not to face up to the danger.  But I prefer to try and fight to save the planet, while there's a chance, rather than bury my head in the sand, along with the majority.  At the methane workshop, held here in Chiswick, there was good progress in identifying engineering techniques that, working together, have a chance to save the sea ice and prevent a methane excursion.  You should be glad :-)

Cheers,

John

---

On 26/10/2011 14:41, Barker, Tom wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait

Hi Steve

 

You actually made me read Kevin’s contribution again carefully, so thanks. I have no objection to the views expressed, nor to the criticism of the ‘powers that be’, but I do take issue with the exasperated screaming, and the unhelpful and destructive accusations that seem to be inherent in the text but are not made explicit. We maybe all feel like that sometimes but we’re here to be constructive in order to find a way out of the mess.  Yes, if we all stop flying and driving and buying foreign ‘stuff’ and out of season food, as well as replant lost habitats, and reconnect with the Earth and culture while we’re at it, we might possibly put back the clock on climate change, and biodiversity loss, and peak oil won’t matter either. But that is not going to happen because those ‘powers that be’ are not going to give up that power, and certainly not before their competitor does. That must surely be the only reason that Contraction and Convergence, and Tradable Energy Quotas and other excellent ideas have not been adopted.  Our leaders, faulty as they are, cannot conceive of another way that will work.  When they do, it will definitely be too late to do anything about it. We will monitor the end of civilisation. That is why we need to study and trial things like geoengineering, so that when it is really desperate, a potential stop gap is already capable of being put in place. We are getting near that point, and we need to be ready. Only a fool would rely on geoengineering as a way to perpetuate the ills of this absurd ‘capitalism’, but to stamp our feet and throw our toys out of the pram because the world isn’t lived sustainably is plain stupid, and it doesn’t add anything to the Forum.  Blocking trials of geoengineering is as idiotic a decision as those that made it necessary in the first place.

Tom

 

From: Wright, Steve [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 October 2011 14:03
To: Barker, Tom; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait

 

Tom

 

Well it is an emotional subject and sometimes righteous indignation is the most appropriate response..But the thread does raise serious issues about utility of various solutions. We are just at the beginning of understanding that each “option” will have a political economy so some will be favoured over others. For example ‘I’m told that slash and burn agriculture causes more annual emissions than all forms of air travel put together but few are aggressively opposing that one as the key environmental focus. So the idea of getting to where we want to be by enacting what we want to see has always found currency on this site

 

Kevin does raise the ethical point that our “solutions” should not merely create the space to carry on business as usual. In the security field we have seen a growing bureaucratic capture of the policy and decision making by the security industrial complex – certainly in Europe. As the global economic crisis deepens and the “best solutions” offered are a return to growth, we may find new policy fields opening up re public expenditure on future geo-engineering options. Would we feel comfortable if the only groups capable of delivering on the required global scale were super multinationals like BP or BAe systems that have both the reach and the buying power as core prime industries?

 

Mark is the best moderator who does moderation gently or not at all. In the long run there is not just one solution but a myriad of possible options with associated interest groups. If there is suspicion of geo-engineering it might be because of past experimentation gone wrong. It would be an interesting exercise to map and rank order the set of available carbon emission reduction possibilities in terms of efficiency and cost of investment but we can never ignore the dimensions of fairness and justice. Kevin might be vociferous but it is a view congruent with the very informed and quantified views of Aubrey Meyer on contract and converge. For me it is perhaps even more interesting to examine why these entirely sensible options will probably never be adopted and that comes down to capital and corporate investment strategies over which most of us including governments have very little control….So watch tonight’s banking headlines and weep – then come along to Mark’s Winchester workshop if you can!

Steve

 

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Barker, Tom
Sent: 26 October 2011 08:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait

 

Fair enough Mark. I notice you use the word ‘informed’, and Kevin may be for all I know, but his style suggests otherwise. I didn’t even bother to read his second tranche of text. I guess it was another rant. So much for discussion.  We at least ought to voice our objection to badly crafted comment. I did not say that he should leave, merely that he might think about it for the sake of thoughtful debate. If he has something useful to add, why not say it in a less shrill manner, and evidence based?

 

Cheers, Tom

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Levene
Sent: 26 October 2011 09:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait
Importance: High

 

Tom, Kevin, and all good discussants on the Crisis Forum J-list .,

As long as folk maintain their decorum, and speak essentially to the point of any current discussion,  the J-list is available to anybody who wishes to make comment. As a general rule we do not moderate, and do not wish to do so.  A subject like the end of the world ( as we know it) will have the  debaters on this list offering many different perspectives, some diametrically opposed to others. It cannot be otherwise. We may not like what others say, we may vociferously wish to refute them. But the List exists so that participants can have their informed say. Crisis Forum will hold to that principle.  So, good discussants, help  us maintain the decorum. And, indeed, we look forward to a widening of this current debate, which might take us beyond the immediate subject of geoengineering the Arctic per se.

go well,
mark,
for Crisis Forum  






on 26/10/11 12:07 am, Kevin Coleman at [log in to unmask] wrote:

Then you have missed the point of what I am most concerned with and that is the distinct lack of forethought for the consequences of such mad experiments with our only planet.
Until there is definite proof that all these clever little ideas actually work beyond the four walls of the laboratory they should remain in the laboratory.
Mankind has already done enough damage to the planet. It is not reasonable to inflict further damage on the basis of untried and untested theories based on simplistic laboratory experiments.

As for a rant I beg to differ. I have been holding my patience for far longer than you could imagine but the final straw was to read the patronising comment that people like me were uncomfortable with the idea of geoengineering.
I am not uncomfortable with them. I am totally against any further experimentation.
Ranting is not what I was doing. Objecting is.
Maybe it is others that are not suited to this forum. After all as an environmentalist observing ecosystems I can assure you that the planet is indeed in crisis and it is entirely human in manufacture. Manufacturing more crisis on the planet is against my principles and ethics and the better judgement of a great many people who have shared my extreme concern for a good long time now.
As for a response I didn't ask for one. I merely made a point that I would hope intelligent people would understand and make them think before they condemn us all.
Regards.


On 25/10/2011 23:59, Barker, Tom wrote:

P { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px }
Maybe this group is not for you. The place for such ranting is elsewhere. The content of your contribution does not deserve a response within this forum. Tom


From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Kevin Coleman [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 October 2011 23:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop: Heat flux through Bering Strait

'As for lentils, I don't think anybody feels comfortable about geoengineering, it's just that some of us feel that what we are up against is so horrific, that we just have to find a way to counter it - and that inevitably involves some geoengineering to cool the Arctic'.

In response to the above comment from John Nissen I post this point of order. So please take note.

It is not that we the people do not feel comfortable with this daft madcap experiment called Geoengineering. Its simply that we have the sense to realise that we have only one planet and therefore only one chance and none of us is even remotely keen to commit Hari-Kari.

So please don't start trying to convince me that the problem is real because I already know what the problem is and its people like the corporations who profit from this mess and people like you that do likewise pretending to clear it all up. That is the problem. There is no political will to do anything about it all because there is no profit in doing so. That is the bottom line so all your mad experiments will do is perpetuate the madness that is corporate greed from pollution and destruction of the planet.

The solution is so easy. Stop polluting. Simple. If we did that the effect would be quite remarkable. Stop deforestation and stop burning fossil fuels. Stop flying everywhere. Stop trying to be clever with all these little inventions. Until we can recycle everything without polluting the planet (which at the present time we cannot) then we should limit our clever ideas and inventions to things that we actually can make sustainable and recycle fully and cleanly.

In fact to stop climatic change from killing us all why don't we stop mining for fossil fuels entirely and start by reducing our individual global footprints right now? Fit solar PV's on every house roof that could generate electricity. Oh yes of course your going to say that that requires mined materials. Wrong! There is a technique available now to make solar PV cells from silicon and we have tonnes of that on the surface. In fact it is everywhere. The only problem is there is no political will to embark on this path because the corporations who own the political system won't allow it as it threatens their control of the masses and their profits and power generating monopolies. If you don't believe me then you are one of them.

The answers are all very simple. Legislation could be introduced tomorrow to make these sorts of simple and meaningful changes happen but the governments won't let us start because their handlers, the corporations who own them, won't let them introduce that meaningful legislation to make it happen.

Now why will they let you and your madcap scientists mess with the planetary ecosystems? Again its simple. It will allow the corporations to continue with business as usual. Its not about whether it will stop our demise or that of the planet. Its about whether the corporations can continue playing god over us mere mortals and make a bundle of worthless paper money in the process. By reducing the carbon content the corporations will cite that as a reason not to change their methods of manufacture, production or creativity. They will say they can still pollute because there is a method of carbon extraction that keeps everything in check so they can increase their pollution levels by simply increasing the geoengineered solutions capacit

 

 

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

 


--
"Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions." Cullen Hightower