Hi Michael,

The AMEG message should not be demotivating.  On the contrary, it shows that global warming is real and has had a very large effect in the Arctic (through the amplification mechanism I refer to).  AMEG is simply focussed on tackling the warming of the Arctic which requires modest-cost geoengineering - no strain for the exchequor, business or for the public.  AMEG is perfectly aware of the only slightly longer term problem of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, that caused the Arctic warming in the first place.  This is from our web site:

"Note that AMEG considers that the cooling of the Arctic should be seen one of many efforts to bring the atmosphere and oceans back towards their pre-industrial state, especially since such efforts reduce both immediate and longer-term risks arising from Arctic warming, sea ice retreat and methane release. AMEG is fully supportive of these efforts."

However, I may personally differ with you on how to tackle the excess CO2 in the atmosphere which is such a threat over the coming decades.  My view is that we have to actively remove carbon dioxide to get the level well below 350 ppm.  I would like to see a carbon tax applied at the point of fossil fuel extraction, such that people who burn the stuff will automatically have paid to have the carbon put back in the ground - twice over.

And why not be straightforward about the danger?  If the situation is alarming, then one should say so.  One should not bury your head in the sand, as the Met Office people clearly have, claiming that their predictions of sea ice demise (based on modelling) prove that Peter Wadhams concerns about collapse by 2015 (based on measurements of sea ice thickness) are nothing to worry about!

BTW, one of the questions we were asked at the Environment Audit Committee hearing was: what would life be like in 20 years?  We've tried to answer this in the Appendix to our submission, see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/writev/171/arc31.htm

Cheers,

John

---

On 10/07/2012 14:22, Michael Northcott wrote:

[log in to unmask]">Forumers

I think it is good to report possible counter-examples to the down sides of global warming when we can so as to balance apocalyptic talk of the kind favoured by AMEG which though intended to provoke exceptional governmental intervention (and a crisis driven 'state of exception' which justifies the suspension of the political process and legal norms so as to pave the way for global level intentional intervention in the earth system) is demotivating for those seeking to make incremental changes in their lifestyles and communities, and to use the political process to press governments and corporations to continue the process of building such adjustments into long term infrastructure planning. A climate group in Germany reports in Nature in June that with increased atmospheric CO2 tropical forests are spreading, and will spread, northwards and southwards into savannah. This is because trees in warmer areas respond well to increased atmospheric CO2 provided precipitation does not decline (experiments with trees in boreal forests such as Duke's FACE live model showed only limited increase in tree growth from raised CO2 but no live models have been run in tropical forests whereas this paper finds that satellite evidence already shows some increased tree growth north and south of the tropics with current increased CO2 levels). This is a small indicator that the earth may have some compensating elements to what is going on in the Arctic. If human land use permits this earth system response it might also help mitigate the predicted die off of up to a third of species of a 2-3 degree warming which on current emissions scenarios now looks almost inevitable. 

The paper abstract from Nature is below:

Atmospheric CO2 forces abrupt vegetation shifts locally, but not globally
Steven I. Higgins1 & Simon Scheiter2

doi:10.1038/nature11238

<Mail Attachment.png>

<Mail Attachment.png>

<Mail Attachment.png>

It is possible that anthropogenic climate change will drive the Earth system into a qualitatively different state1. Although different types of uncertainty limit our capacity to assess this risk2, Earth system scientists are particularly concerned about tipping elements, large- scale components of the Earth system that can be switched into qualitatively different states by small perturbations. Despite grow- ing evidence that tipping elements exist in the climate system1,3, whether large-scale vegetation systems can tip into alternative states is poorly understood4. Here we show that tropical grassland, savanna and forest ecosystems, areas large enough to have powerful impacts on the Earth system, are likely to shift to alternative states. Specifically, we show that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentra- tion will force transitions to vegetation states characterized by higher biomass and/or woody-plant dominance. The timing of these critical transitions varies as a result of between-site variance in the rate of temperature increase, as well as a dependence on stochastic variation in fire severity and rainfall. We further show that the locations of bistable vegetation zones (zones where alterna- tive vegetation states can exist) will shift as climate changes. We conclude that even though large-scale directional regime shifts in terrestrial ecosystems are likely, asynchrony in the timing of these shifts may serve to dampen, but not nullify, the shock that these changes may represent to the Earth system. 

1Institut fu ̈ r Physische Geographie, Goethe Universita ̈ t Frankfurt am Main, Altenho ̈ ferallee 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), Senckenberg Gesellschaft fu ̈ r Naturforschung, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

00MONTH2012|VOL000|NATURE|1

©2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

1860 

Cheers

Michael

Professor Michael S Northcott
New College
University of Edinburgh
Mound Place
Edinburgh
EH1 2LX
UK

[log in to unmask]
Tel: 441316508900

On Jul 10, 2012, at 7:39 AM, John Nissen wrote:

Hi Mark,

Just a few words then about what I've been doing...

I've always liked science, and have kept up all branches science through avid reading of the Scientific American.  But I found myself after University in an engineering job developing computers, computer electronics and computer software - so it was application of science.  What I learnt was to take a systems approach and follow trends.  This has been invaluable since retiring a few years ago, when I started to concern myself over the science of global warming.  There seemed to be (and still seems to be) a lack of understanding in the climate science community about positive feedback - a common phenomenon in electronics.  If one looks at the control of the planet's environment as a system, the "Earth System", then once can see that our planet has an exquisite mechanism in place for controlling and modulating the temperature involving amplification of Milankovitch cyclic signals [1] through the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Current and the Arctic sea ice, but, most importantly, with negative feedback through meltwater to divert those currents southwards and away from the Arctic.  As any electronics engineer will tell you, negative feedback is crucial to achieve stable amplification.

Thus I see the basic problem facing our continued existence on this planet as an engineering problem, where the basic mechanism has been disrupted by the heat-energy forcing produced by a colossal pulse of the greenhouse gas, CO2.  The warming signal has been amplified by the same mechanism of the Earth System that deals with Milankovitch signals!  However there's no negative feedback to keep the system stable, so the amplification is running wild.

We now have very strong positive feedback in the Arctic, because of the sea ice melting and exposing more water to sunshine causing further melting in a vicious cycle.  This positive feedback was ignored by IPCC in their 2007 report, AR4.  It  may even be ignored in their AR5 report, though by the time this comes out, the sea ice extent may have collapsed, and everybody will know we are in an emergency. 

On top of the sea ice problem is the threat of methane from terrestrial permafrost as the whole Arctic warms.  But, in the last few years, there have been growing signs of escalating methane emissions from the Arctic seabed, especially north of Siberia.  This makes the risk of methane feedback extremely high/grave, where the greenhouse effect of the methane leads to further Arctic warming and further methane emissions, in an unstoppable cycle producing abrupt and catastrophic climate change.

In trying to get action to avert disaster, a group of us wrote letters to key figures: the IPCC chairman, the ex-chairman, and various scientific advisers, without any real breakthrough in acceptance of either the danger or the means to avoid it.  Then, last year, after a workshop on how to deal with the deteriorating Arctic situation, we set up the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, AMEG, as a campaign group for action.  Recently we have been directing our attention at the UK government through the Environment Audit Committee, at which we gave evidence in their inquiry "Protecting the Arctic" [2]. 

BTW, our latest contribution, a plea for rapid government action, has only just been published [3], and should appear shortly on our web site [4] under "latest developments".

Cheers,

John

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/writev/171/contents.htm

[3] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/writev/171/arc31.htm

[4] http://www.ameg.me/

---

From: Mark Levene <[log in to unmask]>

[log in to unmask]"> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:06:53 +0000
To: Alastair McIntosh <[log in to unmask]>, 'Jonathan Ward' <[log in to unmask]>, 'Christopher Shaw' <[log in to unmask]>, 'John Nissen' <[log in to unmask]>, "Dr. Nafeez Ahmed" <[log in to unmask]>, John Ashton <[log in to unmask]>, Jon Barrett'' <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, Justine Huxley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: : Saturday Nov 17, Crisis Forum/ Climate Change nd Violence workshop, St Ethelberga's London/ please read!

dear good participants,

it seems to have taken me all day to try and organise your various missives/jottings etc into something approaching coherence!  Before good Marianne puts some of this material on the website would you care to have a care perusal of what I've edited and collated together. Apologies if vast realms of 'stuff' on you or your presentations have been cut. It does need to be as short as possible. BUT if you feel I've got anything desperately wrong please shout now.

While John Ashton's blurb is forthcoming, if I can have a brief biofrom John Nissen, rather than simply culled from Wikipedia and from Jonathan Ward  (we have a lot of John's and Jon's for this event!) that would be excellent

thanks all,
mark  

----------------------------------------------------


Provisional Programme Information
Saturday  17 November  2012
Climate Change  and Violence workshop 7
St Ethelberga's Centre for Reconciliation & Peace, Bishopsgate,  London

Provisional details of the workshop (these will be finalised in the coming months)

Morning session

Registration 9.45-10.15

10.15 - 11.45  

John Ashton,  'Where history, politics and culture collide'

A perspective on climate change from an escaped FCO diplomat  (to be continued).

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed,  'Overcoming the Crisis of Civilisation: Transformative Pathways for Socio-political, Economic, Ethical and Technological Transition to a Post-Carbon World'

Over the coming decades an unprecedented convergence of civilisational crises on a global scale,  will lead either to unmitigated disaster, or open opportunities for renewal and transformation. In this presentation, Nafeez will outline some of the key areas for structural transformation, and - based on lessons learned so far - how a viable post-carbon civilisation capable of surviving and perhaps even prospering in the 21st century might look.


coffee break  11.45-12.00

12.00 - 1.30  Facing off collapse ? Whose voices get heard in the climate change debate?
John Nissen and Chris Shaw, with Jonathan Ward, round-table panel.  

The Earth System embraces mechanics, climate, heat dynamics and cryogenics, together with biological, biochemical, chemical and physical processes and cycles. In the face of what is clearly now imminent collapse in key domains of the system, John Nissen will be arguing for an engineering approach to ensure the planet can continue to support our civilisation in a sustainable and hospitable way. Set against John's proposition that such remedial action is one of absolute necessity Chris Shaw will pose whether geo-engineering might simply be the cloak under which neo-liberal ideology reproduces 'business as usual', leaving humanity more wedded (and marginalised) than ever to implicitly undemocratic discourses and constructions of climate change when actually the phenomenon might be providing us with the necessary lever for radical social change.

1.30-2.15 lunch

2.15- 3.45  'So what is to be done? A basic call to consciousness, empathy and antisyzygy'

Alastair McIntosh and Jon Barrett

What kind of a world do we need to work towards to bring about a reduction in violence as set against the realities of accelerating climate change?  What are the social, political, psychological and spiritual dynamics of such a challenge?  And, perhaps more the point, where they might contradict one another how do we hold such contradictions together so that we don't end up compartmentalising ourselves and each other through splitting, projection and demonisation?   

3.45-4.00   coffee break

4.00 -5.00 final plenary, all available speakers

Brief biographical notes.

John Ashton  was formerly Special Representative for Climate Change at  the FCO, as well as in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and in the Government more widely, with a remit to building a stronger political foundation for an effective global response to climate change. In 2002, he founded  the independent think tank E3G, and later  played a key role during the approach to Copenhagen in designing the FCO¹s climate change network and strategy, with its shift in focus from the environment to the politics of security, prosperity and equity.  With a distinguished  public career prior, John has been active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997.

Jon Barrett has spent many years in developmental work with people in difficulty with their lives ­ especially young and adult offenders and people tackling addictions, and especially through the Scottish charity Basecamp Trust,  which he founded and directed. Since 2008, he has been an independent researcher, writer and educator on the Œconverging crises¹ of human and ecological unsustainability. His primary interest continues to be in Œwhat works¹ to engage so-called Œhard-to-reach¹ population groups and to motivate enduring pro-social/pro-environmental behaviour change. Jon and his wife, Louise live on the north Finistere coast in France where in renovating a derelict farm as a home and public resource they continue to explore what Œsustainability¹ really means for our 21st century lives and expectations.

Alastair McIntosh is a Scottish writer, broadcaster and activist on social, environmental and spiritual issues. His many books include Hell and High Water, on the cultural and deep psychological elements of climate change  and which was described by the Archbishop of Canterbury as 'inspirational' in preparing his address to Copenhagen in December 2009. His lectures round the world embrace  WWF International, the World Council of Churches, the Russian Academy of Sciences and also the Joint Services Command and Staff College, where for a decade and a half he has articulated the case for non-violence at the most senior levels of the British military establishment.  Alastair and his wife, Verene Nicolas, have lived in Govan for the last 7 years where Alastair is founding director of the Gael Gael Trust for the regeneration of people and place.  

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD), an independent think tank focused on the study of violent conflict in the context of global ecological, energy and economic crises.  Having published widely on  international terrorism and the ŒWar on Terror¹, his current research on the radicalisation of violent conflicts in strategic regions, as rooted in the structure of the global political economy, is developed in A User¹s Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: and How to Save It (2010). This has also been more recently developed as a feature documentary 'The Crisis of Civilisation' with the filmmaker Dean Puckett.

John Nissen

Christopher Shaw is a Research Associate at the University of Sussex. His current interest is in developing responses to climate change based on explicit and socially progressive value systems. His progress can be followed at  www.notargets.org <http://www.notargets.org>

Jonathan Ward

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.