Open letter on Arctic Sea Ice Loss

Open letter on Arctic Sea Ice Loss

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the Earth. The sea ice has been retreating far faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted only three years ago ^[1]. After the record retreat in September 2007, many scientists revised their predictions for the date of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean from beyond the end of century to beyond 2030. Only a few scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and they were ridiculed.

In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in end-summer sea ice extent, and it appears that the minimum 2010 extent will be close to a new record ^[2]. However the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very sharp decline in ice volume ^[3], which is very worrying.

The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which could lead inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change. All this could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further than ever before this summer. We could be approaching a point of no return unless emergency action is taken.

We suggest that the current situation should be treated as a warning for us all. The world community must rethink its attitude to fighting global warming only by cutting greenhouse gas emissions sharply. Even if emissions could be cut to zero, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to warm the planet for many decades.

Geoengineering now appears the only means to cool the Arctic quickly enough. A geoengineering project of the intensity of the Manhattan Project is urgently needed to guard against a global catastrophe. A multi-disciplinary team of scientists and engineers should be tasked and resourced to assess the evolving situation in the Arctic and implement a strategy of parallel research, development, preparation and deployment for different geoengineering techniques, such as to minimise the risk of failure.

Yours sincerely,

John Nissen, MA (Cantab) Natural Sciences, Director of Cloudworld Ltd

Email jn@cloudworld.co.uk for correspondence

Other signatories

Stephen Salter, Emeritus Professor of Engineering, Edinburgh University

Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group, Cambridge University

Gregory Benford, Professor of Physics, University of California, Irvine

John Gorman, MA (Cantab), Chartered Engineer MIMechE, MIET - UK

Colin John Baglin, B.Eng. M.Sc. C.Eng. M.I.Mech.E.

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS, FIPC Co-Ordinator, Greenland Ice Stability Project

Dr. Brian Orr, PhD control engineering, j.mp/BrianOrr

Tom Barker, BSc PhD, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool

Nicholas Maxwell, Emeritus Reader, University College London; author - j.mp/NickMaxwell

Donald A. Grinde, Jr., Professor and Chair, Department of American Studies
SUNY at Buffalo - americanstudies.buffalo.edu

Sam Carana, contributor to Feebate.net and geo-engineering.blogspot.com

References
[1] Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Stroeve et al, May 2007
http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf
[2] NSIDC daily images - National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado
Reference image below dated June 24, 2010. For updates, see current daily image.
[3] Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), University of Washington.
Original reference image dated May 30, 2010. Image below is dated June 18, 2010.

As NOAA reports that the May 2010 global temperature was the warmest on record, sea ice extent remains well below the 2007 record low, as shown on above NSIDC image.

Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), University of Washington.

Open letter to Dr Pachauri

Climate Congress, Copenhagen, 10-12 March, 2009 

Open letter to Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, IPCC chair

Dear Dr Pachauri,

The Climate Congress presents an important opportunity to present all facets of the current situation, explore the ramifications, and suggest appropriate actions. The aim must be, as far as possible, to address the threat of a disastrous multi-metre rise in sea level and catastrophic multi-degree rise in temperature – whenever they might occur.

We would like to suggest a rather simple division of the problem/solution domain:

Part A: Emissions reduction

About: Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Target: Achieve near-zero carbon economies throughout the world by end century.

Difficulties: International agreement, life-style changes, high cost.

Rationale: Long-term sustainability.


Part B : Carbon stock management

About: Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by various means.

Target: Reduce levels below 350 ppm over next three decades.

Difficulties: May involve change in agricultural practice, worldwide. Side-effects may be difficult to anticipate.

Rationale: Reduce CO2 climate forcing below its current level, halt ocean acidification and protect carbon sinks.


Part C : Heat transfer and radiation management

About: Mainly about albedo engineering and solar radiation management.

Priority target: Cool the Arctic sufficient to halt retreat of Arctic sea ice within three years.

Difficulties: Seen as tampering with the environment, and therefore intrinsically dangerous; but cost is low and side-effects should be manageable.

Rationale: Reduce risk of massive methane discharge and stabilise the Greenland ice sheet.

International focus has been almost entirely on Part A until recently, when it has been realised that: 

(1) it is proving extremely difficult to achieve reductions; 

(2) the current trend is towards IPCC’s worst case scenario; 

(3) lifetime of CO2 had been under-estimated – even if anthropogenic greenhouse gases could be stopped overnight, the existing gas levels will live on in the atmosphere for centuries, causing the global temperature to continue to rise many degrees; 

(4) global warming of more than 2 degrees could be disastrous; 

(5) tipping points could be reached much sooner than expected. It is generally recognised that the underlying primary cause of global warming is the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. If emissions reduction can’t reduce it quickly enough, then we have to resort to some form of geoengineering – or more specifically carbon stock management – see Part B. 

Furthermore, ocean acidification is becoming dangerous, and this can only be tackled by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. So, within a decade or two, carbon stock management could become essential, and we should be doing large-scale experimentation now. 

But the actions of Part A and Part B cannot prevent tipping points driven by positive feedback on temperature. Emissions reduction and carbon stock management cannot produce a cooling effect – certainly not on the time-scales we are talking about. We have to resort to other kinds of geoengineering, hence Part C. 

As regards tipping points, our perception of the situation has changed fundamentally since the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice in September 2007. The IPCC had chosen to ignore potential tipping points, as being too difficult to model or lacking reliable data. 

But now some experts are talking about possible summer disappearance of sea ice within a decade [1], and this possibility is even mentioned in the introduction to Session 1 of the Congress [2]: “Sea ice is changing and the sea ice in the northern polar ocean has retreated in the last few years and might totally disintegrate during the next decade.” Sea ice disappearance will accelerate Arctic warming which could trigger the release of vast amounts of methane from permafrost (leading to many degrees of global warming) and/or destabilise the Greenland ice sheet (leading to many metres of sea level rise). 

There now appears no other possibility to save the Arctic sea ice than to cool the Arctic region, by reflecting more sunlight back into space. There are two prime candidates for this: stratospheric sulphate aerosols and marine cloud brightening [3]. The former involves the injection of a H2S or SO2 high in the stratosphere, where it reacts to form microscopic droplets of sulphuric acid which scatter sunlight efficiently. This mimics the effect of a volcano like Pinatubo, which cooled the planet for two years from its sulphur emissions into the stratosphere. The latter – the brightening of marine clouds – involves producing a very fine spray of sea water from ships which sail underneath low-lying cumulus clouds, such that some of the spray wafts upwards, brightening the clouds and reflecting light back into space. 

Modeling suggests that each of these cooling technologies should be effective, affordable, fast acting, easily reversible and reasonably safe. If we can save the Arctic sea ice, then we may be able to avoid other tipping points such as the methane release from permafrost. Such action buys time while we reduce CO2 levels and avoid other catastrophes such as from ocean acidification. On the other hand, if we do not act with the necessary urgency, we may soon find ourselves beyond the point of no return: doomed both to many metres of sea level rise and to spiraling temperatures, way above 6 degrees this century – temperatures for which the very survival of our civilization would be in question. 

- John Nissen Email: jn@cloudworld.co.uk for correspondence 

- Stephen Salter Professor of Engineering, University of Edinburgh John Latham http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/ 

- Oliver Wingenter Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 

- Peter Read Hon. Research Fellow, Massey University Centre for Energy Research 

- Andrew Lockley, London UK Former director of Friends of the Earth ENWI 

- John Gorman MA (Cantab), London, UK 

- Sam Carana, contributor to feebate.net sam.carana@gmail.com

References:

[1] Climate Safety report, which can be downloaded from: 

http://climatesafety.org/

[2] Climate Congress, Session 1, in: 

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/programme/sessions06.03.2009.pdf

[3] Solar Radiation Management: 

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