So do I, John. So do I. David Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship
On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:51 AM, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > Perfectly put Andrew. > > When John Nissen put the same points to Vicky Pope, the Met > offfice's head of Climate Change, after the parlimentary committee > hearing , she said "but we dont know these things are going to happen" > > not a sensible attitude when you realise the the escape of methane > is blamed for the Permian extinction, which caused the largest > proportion of extinctions in the earths history. > > Now is the time to "Save the arctic" I am hoping that the Royal > Society's report in a few months will provide the first > "Institutional " support for geoengineering action as David Schnare > sees necessary for research funding. > > John Gorman > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected] > > > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering" > <[email protected] > > > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:33 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: [David Schnare comment on sea ice situation > > > > If I may leap to John's defence, my understanding of his point is that > while the EVIDENCE of Arctic sea ice loss and resulting 'tipping > point' effects may be strong, but not overwhelming, the CONSEQUENCES > of such a 'tipping point' are likely to be apocalyptic and > irreversible. Would a 'one alarm fire' at the heart of an oil > refinery be treated the same way as a 'one alarm fire' in an empty > office block? I think not. > > What John is trying to point out is the potential imminent approach of > armageddon. We should follow the precautionary principle and ensure > that we PROVE his theory wrong before rejecting it. The prospect of > my own death, plus that of virtually everyone I've ever known, is > enough to make me want to be very sure of whether he's right or not. > > To put it into perspective, I wear a seatbelt today with no direct > evidence I'm going to crash my car. If my seatbelt broke, I'd replace > it before driving. I think the risk of my death from Arctic sea ice > loss is higher than the risk from a car crash today, so I want to make > damn sure I understand that risk before refusing to 'fit a seatbelt' > to the planet. > > A > > 2009/1/4 David Schnare <[email protected]>: >> 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 merit >>> s 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
