Mike: The NSIDC summary corraborates my comment, and was part of the basis of my comment in the first place.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Think about how fire stations rate fires. A one alarm fire merits a single departure from the station. A two alarm fire means a second set of trucks and firemen (firepersons?) heads to the conflagration. I've seen reports on fires rated as high as a seven alarm event. In every case there is alarm. In some cases there is more rather than less. My comment made two points. In response to a chiding from John, I was indicating that what he was calling a seven alarm fire others are only calling a two alarm fire, and I had no basis for arguing it is one over the other, so I do not. Second, a point that has never been acknowledged on this group, the research funds will not flow until there is an institutional response embracing geoengineering. The environmental activists refuse to embrace the need for research and thus are condemned to suggest the appropriate level of alarm about arctic ice is closer to a two alarm problem rather than a seven alarm sector call-out. There is another way to get the essential institutional push - create your own institution. That would not be a wiki, by the way. It would be a new section in an existing organization (AGU?) or a new coalition with professional staff available to "push" for research. Hence my comment, until there is money for an institutional response, there won't be money for research. You can call it "priming the pump" if you like. As I'm a dog person, I'm not interested in trying to herd cats, and at this point, geoengineering is being done by a bunch of feral cats. [Ferous cats for those into OIF ;-)) ] Finally, just got back from watching "Doubt" (the movie). For those of you so certain about your science and your policy positions, don't go see the movie. It will be uncomfortable for you. Cheers, David On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear David—Your comment on the situation regarding sea ice merits some > comment. Please take a look at the latest newsletter from the National Snow > and Ice Data Center at http://nsidc.org/pubs/notes/65/Notes_65_web.pdf . > They make very clearly that we should indeed still be quite alarmed about > the meltback of Arctic sea ice. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 1/3/09 11:13 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > *The following email to <[email protected]> was deemed > more appropriate for <[email protected]> > * > John: > > I have no science to confirm or dispute your concerns. The most recent > graphs on sea ice I've seen shows things are returning toward the > mean. I'm not prepared to increase alarms based on what I've seen. > Further, the environmental groups have chosen to focus on only those > subjects that avoid geoengineering. So, I really can not help the > community in any useful manner. The necessary institutional structures > are not in place and absent funding for that, I do not see a rapid > flow of resources into research on geo. > > Good luck. > > David Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > On Jan 2, 2009, at 6:45 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, Stephen. > > > > Although the Arctic tipping points and sea ice are specifically > > mentioned by Chris Rapley and Neil Wells, we have the situation that: > > (a) none of the other experts seem aware both that the sea ice is a > > potential tipping point for the Earth system - and (b) most > > importantly, none of them recognise that emissions reduction is > > useless to halt the retreat of the sea ice in the necessary > > timescale. Indeed it is not conceivable to halt the sea ice retreat > > without geoengineering to cool the region - and stratospheric aerosols > > and marine cloud brightening are probably the only two feasible > > techniques for cooling the region quickly enough to have a good chance > > of halting the sea ice retreat. > > > > BTW, I am really disappointed that neither David Schnare nor Albert > > Kallio made this point - I know Albert is as concerned as anyone > > about the speed of sea ice retreat and repercussions thereof. > > > > This is really bad news to begin 2009, as it was a chance missed. > > > > We can do better, and we must > > > > John > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:18 pm, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> . . . . and one more at > >> > >> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/what-can-we- > >> d... > >> > >> Stephen > >> > >> -- > >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > >> School of Engineering and Electronics > >> University of Edinburgh > >> Mayfield Road > >> Edinburgh EH9 3JL > >> Scotland > >> tel +44 131 650 5704 > >> fax +44 131 650 5702 > >> Mobile 07795 203 195 > >> [email protected]http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs < > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> > >> > >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]; [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
