Submission to the Hampshire County Council Commission on Climate Change.
It is good to see that our County Council is looking ahead because the projected climate changes will have major
implications, particularly because of the developed coastline. Among the well-publicised possibilities are;
-- major expansion of the presently tiny wine production. With the loss of wine producing areas in Italy, Spain and
France it is suggested that wine could become the most profitable agricultural product.
-- unless, that is, the government commandeers all agricultural land and the New Forest for biofuel production.
-- massive expansion of the summer seaside tourist industry. Southern England, it is estimated, will have the most
desirable holiday climate while the Costa Del Sol and Riviera will be too hot. Meeting this demand will require massive
building of holiday apartments and asking the Navy to give up Portsmouth.
--unless of course the Gulfstream stops, as has happened many times in prehistory, which would rob us of our
temperate climate almost instantly, even with global warming.
-- and before building the masses of high-rise holiday apartments we should check on the probable sea level rise. The
official IPCC figure is about half a metre this century, but the following wording which was in the scientific drafts has
been omitted from the executive summary: ” recent observations show rapid changes in the ice sheet flows -- -- -accelerating trend in sea level rise" (New Scientist 10th March 2007 which also stated "this would dramatically speed
up the rises in sea levels and may already be doing so.") Serious melting is occurring now in Greenland and on the
Antarctic Peninsula at today's very slightly raised global temperatures. This will eventually result in a rise of 16 metres
in sea level. This may not be this century but it could be. It is impossible, not just difficult, impossible, to stop this
melting by reducing CO2 emissions. (See attached appendix 1)
Sixteen metres would completely eliminate the Gosport peninsula back to the motorway. Hayling Island would of
course disappear with less than half that rise and must have been completely underwater during the last interglacial
phase 125,000 years ago when sea level was six metres higher than at present.
On the other hand none of these changes may occur after all !
Since 1990 and before there have been perfectly viable ways of cooling the planet. These are referred to as
geoengineering but "the climate community views these ideas with deep suspicion or outright hostility." ( Editorial
Nature 10 May 2007.) Even the Nobel laureate, Paul Crutzen could not get his ideas published without the intervention
of the president of the American Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone who wrote "many academics have opposed the
publication of Crutzen's paper for sincere reasons which are not scientific."
As more groups, like the Hampshire County Council, start to examine in detail how they might adapt to the projected
climate changes, they become aware of the magnitude of the problem and the uncertainties, which make planning so
difficult. It is not therefore surprising that "Altering the Climate through Geoengineering has Staged Something of a
Comeback." This is the heading of the editorial in Nature (10.3.07), the most prestigious peer review scientific journal,
and reflects a significant change in scientific attitudes.
Paul Crutzen received his Nobel prize for his work in recognising that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. His
proposal to counteract global warming is simply to simulate the effects of a volcanic eruption by injecting sulphur
dioxide into the stratosphere. To the purists, this is adding more pollution but the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991
more than reversed the effects of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without any adverse effects at ground
level.
Experimental work on this and other geoengineering proposals could be started immediately but nothing is being done
at the moment because of government and scientific attitudes. I believe the realisation is dawning that we will have to
adopt geoengineering solutions to achieve stability of sea level and climate because the alternative is simply
unmanageable even for sophisticated Hampshire let alone Bangladesh and the Maldives!
Appendix 1 Why we cant solve global warming by reducing emissions.
Appendix 2 Bio and contact details of Author –john Gorman
Appendix 1. Why We Can't Solve Global Warming by Reducing Emission Of CO2.
-- The most obvious problem so far is melting in Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula.
-- These ice masses are melting seriously now in a way that has not occurred during this interglacial
phase since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. (Position statement by British Antarctic
survey--Ref9. Also Ref 10 for Greenland)
-- This melting is occurring at today's very slightly elevated global temperatures.
-- Even if we could keep global temperature at today's level, the melting would obviously continue indefinitely.
This will result in a sea level rise of maybe 15 metres (seven to eight metres for the whole of the Greenland ice
sheet plus the same for the Antarctic Peninsula assuming a similar geographical size and assuming that the
melting did not extend to the whole of Antarctica.)
But the situation is worse than this because there is no possibility of keeping global temperature
rise to today's level.
Because the temperature would continue to rise even if we could stop all emissions today.
-- This is because of the net heating effect of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. This is now
forty per cent above the preindustrial level and would only decline very slowly (decades or
centuries) to that preindustrial level.
--If we could stop all emissions now, it is reasonable to assume that the rate of increase of global
temperature would remain at about 0.2°C per decade for most of this century. This would give a
further rise of about 2° C by 2100
But the situation is worse than this because there is no possibility of stopping CO2 emissions
now.
Which is fairly obvious. But maybe we can keep total emissions close to present levels by
international agreement. This might limit the rise to 4 - 6°C by 2100. (The IPCC figure.)
But the situation is far worse than this.
Because global industrial development is bound to result in increased emissions. Probably
greatly increased in the short-term.
This is simply because of the human numbers involved. The rich nations of the world constitute
about one billion people of the six and a half billion now. By 2050 the UN estimates that there will
be nine billion. Presumably ten billion well before 2100.
This rich tenth of the worlds population has a carbon footprint ten to twenty (USA) times that of
the poor population.
Even if the rest of the rich world followed the UK’s legal commitment to cut emissions by 60% by
2050, it would only require one billion of the present agricultural population to become urbanised to
cancel any gains.
But the situation is far, far worse than this. China expects half a billion agricultural workers to
move to the towns by 2030 (not 2050!) Jeffrey Sachs in the Reith lecture on 17th April estimated
world economic activity by 2050 at six times today’s level. And most of the development will be low
tech. This means coal, which can be dug out of the ground and has the worst CO2 footprint of all
energy sources.
In conclusion; emissions will continue to rise. Global temperature will continue to rise, and probably
accelerate. Melting of the ice masses throughout the world will continue and probably accelerate.
Sea level will rise and probably accelerate.
These human numbers, and a multitude of other reasons, make it vital that we reduce carbon
emissions and other forms of pollution, but this will not solve the problem of global warming this
century.
Most people who have read and watched the debate unfolding are fully aware of all of this. They
understand the global situation and realise that no reduction in emissions will save the Greenland
ice sheet and the coral reefs.
This was my situation till I started reading the academic literature on climate less than a year ago.
It was with amazement that I found that the academics concentrated on reduction of emissions
with religious zeal and that any talk of geoengineering solutions was not ‘politically correct’.
This ‘corporate thinking’ even opposed the proposal of the Nobel laureate, Paul Crutzen leading to
the comment by Ralph Cicerone, The President of the American Academy of Sciences; "Various
individuals have opposed the publication of Crutzen's paper for sincere reasons that are not wholly
scientific,"
I am concerned that this attitude by the experts is stopping the development of the only tool that
we have at the moment to control global temperature and sea level and restore stability.
It is essentially a natural tool, the simulation of a volcanic eruption, but with only 2% of the
intensity of Mount Pinatubo in 1991-2. It doesn’t seem to have major disadvantages. It may have
complications that we don’t predict but it is hard to envision any that are more catastrophic than
not doing anything.
Note; This is not an argument against reducing carbon emissions by all possible means. The human
numbers and a multitude of other reasons make this vital, but no reduction of emissions will lower
global temperature and avoid sea level rise.
Appendix 2. Biography and Contact Details of Author.
(Relevant bio details only as written for google geoengineering group.)
Unlike most of the members of this group, none of my careers have been even vaguely connected with geoengineering
or climate. Born in 1943 (63 now) I studied engineering at university and control engineering in a post degree year. My
first job was on the control of the electric motors in steel mills using analogue computers for control and simulation.
Next I worked for Digital Equipment (DEC, the PDP 8 and 11 for those old enough to remember them!) in Maynard
Mass., Munich and Reading UK on the interfacing of computers to control things. My last big project was an engine
test control system with lots of different digital control algorithms.
My second short career was as a ski instructor and my third career since 1983 or so is on seating, office chairs, car
seats, the human spine and chiropractic.
As a control engineer I have always found it obvious that we must control global temperature. This morning I received
a multi-page glossy from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for a conference on "Climate Control". Great, I
thought -- I'll go to that -- till I looked at the price of £1000 for three days and realised that it was about climate
control in cars!
We expect temperature control in our cars, houses and offices. Why is it not obvious that we need control for global
temperature?
I only mention the ski instructor bit because I love snow, ice, glaciers and wild snowy places. I am absolutely
convinced, from what I have read and seen for myself, that really serious melting is underway in all these places.
John Gorman. Oaklands, New Mill Lane, Eversley, Hants. UK
Home tel. 0118 973 2365 email gormans@waitrose.com
Website; www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm