Print

Print


Let's not forget black carbon abatement. It would be mad to be deploying
reflective aerosols etc, while continuing to shower the Arctic in soot
particles from forest burning, dirty old diesel engines, polluting
industries etc. 
 
Oliver Tickell.

  _____  

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 20 July 2010 23:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Climate change, carbon tax and standard of living



Hi Chris,

Yes.  There's no other technique for cooling the Arctic that I know of.  Of
course we might be too late even for geoengineering.  But if it's the only
way, then we've got to do our damnedest to get it to work.  The survival
instinct should cut in.

Cheers,

John

---

Chris Keene wrote: 

So even though we've passed a tipping point where positive feedback has
taken over, and the process is continuing at ever increasing speed, you are
arguing that we haven't reached the point of no return, it isn't too late.
Is that based on having to use geo-engineering?

Chris

On 20/07/2010 18:53, John Nissen wrote: 


Brian,

No, it's not quite like a kettle with a cosy.

The "tipping point" is when positive feedback takes over, and a process
continues at ever increasing speed.  That's what we're seeing with Arctic
sea ice - we probably passed the tipping point in 90s, looking at how
observations started to deviate from IPCC's linear models.  (See Copenhagen
Diagnosis report, fig 13.)

The "point of no return" is when it becomes too late to do anything about
it.  We do not know whether we're past that point in the Arctic.  What we do
know - from basic physics - is that emissions reductions cannot cool the
Arctic   Therefore we have to find a some other way - and geoengineering
seems the only option.  People who dismiss geoengineering as "too dangerous"
should consider the risk of not geoengineering to cool the Arctic - what
with all the methane there.  BTW, it's probably worse than Copenhagen
Diagnosis report says.  Read this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm

However you do have a point with the kettle analogy - once the water's
boiled away the kettle will heat very rapidly until the fuse blows.  In
Arctic, once the sea ice has melted away, the region will heat up much more
rapidly until the methane blows - and then we could have abrupt climate
change globally when that happens, with many degrees of global warming.
Let's not try that suicidal experiment.

Cheers,

John

BTW, the IPCC forecasts for global warming, on which government policies are
based, do not take into account the possibility of the methane effect, even
in worst case scenarios.  And the need to cool the Arctic is ignored, since
they still work on the assumption that sea ice will last into the next
century.  Mad. 

---

Brian Orr wrote: 

Thanks for the references, John. Will climb into them when given half a
chance 
and see how far I can pull the relevant numbers together.

But basically, the problem is 'merely', in effect, working out how much
quicker a kettle will heat-up
compared with 'normal' if you turn the heat up a little and then enshroud
the kettle in a 
tea-cosy.

Two obvious tipping points can be forecast: the first when the water reaches
100 degree C:
the second when all the water boils away.

Hopefully even the most dire of climate change forecasts reach anything like
those conditions!!!!

All the best,

Brian
 
On 20 Jul 2010, at 15:03, John Nissen wrote:



Hi Brian,

Here are some figures from the literature.

1.  Existing CO2 continuing to warm for thousands of years:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/david-archer-carbon-dioxi_n_169708.
html 

2. Soils emit CO2 as they warm:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide

3.  Sea ice and methane:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp

4.  Arctic warming from global warming

Polar amplification of global warming is widely accepted among climate
scientists, and its importance is stressed here:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/12/what-exactly-is-polar-amplification-an
d-why-does-it-matter/

5. Methane quantity

The total amount of carbon stored in permafrost has been estimated to be
around 1672 Gt (1 Gt = 109 tons), of which ~277 Gt are contained in
peatlands (Schuur et al. 2008; Tarnocai et al. 2009). This represents about
twice the amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.

See Copenhagen Diagnosis, page 21:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf 

Most of that carbon could emerge as methane, which is a much more potent
greenhouse gas than CO2, hence the possibility of thermal runaway, where the
methane adds to global warming which causes more methane to be released, and
so on.  This kind of effect is thought to have lead to abrupt climate change
in the past (though from methane trapped on ocean floor):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis 

So...

Effectively, there is a methane time-bomb in the Arctic.  Unfortunately the
only way to defuse the bomb is currently very unpopular as it involves
geoengineering.  You will rarely read a good word for geoengineering in the
media or scientific press - and this is a giant hurdle to be overcome if we
are to do what it takes to save the planet. 

But the Arctic is not the only place going critical - the Amazon rainforest
could dry out and burn, and ocean acidification could harm the marine food
chain.  We are going to have to pull out all the stops if we are to save our
planet, hence the carbon tax idea to finance this.

Cheers,

John

---

Brian Orr wrote: 

John, and t'others who've joined the debate. 

You state, and I broadly agree with you, that:- 

"Even if CO2 emissions could be reduced to zero overnight, the existing CO2
level would remain well above pre-industrial level for centuries if not
millennia.  Therefore global warming would continue this century and long
after.  This would cause emissions of CO2 from soils and ocean as they warm,
thus the CO2 level would continue to rise after emissions were cut to zero. 

One of the most significant effects of global warming is the dramatic
retreat of Arctic sea ice, whose complete loss would almost inevitably be
followed by discharge of massive quantities of methane for permafrost, and
we are then liable for thermal runaway.  But continued global warming is
liable to lose us the Amazon rain-forest, with equally catastrophic
consequences. 

Thus emissions reductions cannot save the planet, from the physics of the
situation..........." 

Are you able to put any figures to your assertions - the most simple 
would satisfy me for present purposes. c.f. some 'Scandinavian' over 
100 years ago predicted today's global temperature rise with surprising 
accuracy - long before the electronic computer was invented? 

"One picture is worth a thousand words." I say "some simple sums can 
save several books." 

Brian 

On 13 Jul 2010, at 16:07, John Nissen wrote: 



Hi all, 

Brian has suggested a lifestyle reduction of 60% (see posting appended
below), but consider the following points. 

It is now a generally accepted premise that, if CO2 emissions can be
drastically reduced, the planet can be saved. 
Following from this premise, there is a common assumption that we have to
change our lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions - and  I think that is
probably why there are so many climate change sceptics - they simply want to
believe that they can carry on as they have been doing without guilt.  Hence
we have a fight between climate change believers and climate change sceptics
- and this underlied the impasse at Copenhagen last December. 

But is the premise true?  Even if CO2 emissions could be reduced to zero
overnight, the existing CO2 level would remain well above pre-industrial
level for centuries if not millenia.  Therefore global warming would
continue this century and long after.  This would cause emissions of CO2
from soils and ocean as they warm, thus the CO2 level would continue to rise
after emissions were cut to zero. 

One of the most significant effects of global warming is the dramatic
retreat of Arctic sea ice, whose complete loss would almost inevitably be
followed by discharge of massive quantities of methane for permafrost, and
we are then liable for thermal runaway.  But continued global warming is
liable to lose us the Amazon rainforest, with equally catastrophic
consequences. 

Thus emissions reductions cannot save the planet, from the physics of the
situation.  The premise is false. 

By accepting the false premise, all our efforts are focussed, at Copenhagen
and in NGOs, on emissions reduction.  But because the premise is false, we
are on a hiding to nothing.  Forget your hair-shirts and other lifestyle
changes! 

Stop and think.  The global warming is due to the existing CO2 in the
atmosphere - so one of our challenges has to be to reduce that level towards
300 ppm and the preindustrial level.  How do we do that?  Use biology and
chemistry - a two prong approach.  Use plants to absorb CO2, and bury the
carbon.  It's called biochar.  Use chemicals to scrub CO2 from the
atmosphere, and bury the CO2. 

How do you pay for this?  The obvious way is using a carbon tax on fossil
fuels, raised like VAT at the point of extraction, as the fossil fuels are
sold on.   This tax would be gradually ramped up over the years.  At some
point, the tax would be sufficient to pay for as much carbon put in the
ground as taken out.  CO2 removal from the atmosphere would exactly balance
CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  The world economy would be carbon
neutral automatically.  Beyond this point the world economy would become
carbon negative, and CO2 levels would fall - eventually approaching
pre-industrial levels. 

How much would it cost?  I reckon the tax would need to reach about $1
trillion per year - equivalent to 1.5% global GDP -  hardly enough to effect
most people's lifestyle - even gas-guzzlers!  Certainly not 60% for you,
Brian. 

So off with that hair shirt.  Let's stop fighting one another, and campaign
for a carbon tax directly on fossil fuel out of the ground to pay for the
geoengineering to get the CO2 down to near pre-industrial level. 

And, while we're about it, some of the tax should for the geoengineering to
save the Arctic sea ice - a mere $1 billion per annum.  A snitch. 

Cheers, 

John 

--- 

Brian Orr wrote: 


Tom, 

You've certainly moved the debate a lot closer to where it should be at but
I suspect you've pulled back from the brink a little - the abyss would
frighten all but the totally fearless or the totally unfeeling. 

How far would you agree with my 'guess' that the West will need to drop its
material standard of living by 60% over the next 20 - 30 years? 30% to
achieve zero carbon emissions, 20% to achieve ecological/environmental
sustainability and 10% to allow the developing world a measure of expansion
- which we owe them many times over. 

Running on a material economy 40% of what we have now - we will have gone
back to pre-war conditions. Sure! But with greater equality we can insist on
and the huge progress we have made in the 'knowledge sphere' as it applies
to industry, learning, medicine and entertainment should mean we will have
much more enjoyable lives. 

We won't be able to take our i-pods to 2030 but if technology can't give us
an 'alternative technology' for 2030 then I suggest its climbing into a
death spiral. 

Brian Orr 

[snip] 








No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 

Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3017 - Release Date: 07/20/10
07:36:00