Ditto for me. -gene 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of dsw_s
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 6:22 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?


I'll sign letter as it stands.  I'll almost certainly be willing to sign any
revision that others here come to consensus on, too.  I agree that keeping
it short is probably a good idea.  Using the word "geoengineering" has pros
and cons.  I slightly prefer the three-item version over Tom's two-item
version.

Dan Wylie-Sears

On Apr 3, 6:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> First, don't confuse what Pachauri says/does with IPCC as an institution.
> These are not the same thing. With regard to Geoeng, I suspect 
> Pachauri is even more conservative (negative? ignorant?) than IPCC. 
> But IPCC cannot ignore the scientific issue or the literature on the
subject.
>
> Second, I think there should only be two items ...
>
> (A) Emissions reduction (Mitigation)
> (B) Carbon cycle and radiation management (Geoengineering)
>
> Unless we mention Geoeng specifically, many will not know what we mean.
>
> I would be happy to sign such a letter.
>
> Tom.
>
> +++++++++++++++++===
>
>
>
> > I suggest that we draft an Open Letter addressed to the Participants 
> > of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, who will be at 
> > the preparatory session at the US Department of State on April 27-28 
> > in Washington, D.C.
>
> > Taking into account Stephen's comments on the body language of Dr 
> > Pachauri, it may be wise to make a very brief statement, such as the
> > following:
>
> > ===== OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON 
> > ENERGY AND CLIMATE ==========
>
> > Participants,
>
> > We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a 
> > strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that 
> > the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems 
> > confirmed by the name of the Forum.
>
> > Whilst we acknowledge that the politics of energy are vitally 
> > important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to global 
> > warming is appropriate, which would include the following three parts:
>
> > Part A: Emissions reduction
> > Part B: Carbon stock management
> > Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management
>
> > We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no 
> > funding for research and testing regarding part C.
>
> > Signatories:
>
> > John Nissen, ...
> > Sam Carana
> > etc.
> > =========   END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER   =====================
>
> > I invite others to make changes, but suggest that leaving the Open 
> > Letter short could make more members of this group willing to sign, 
> > while we could always each elaborate in separate articles as to what 
> > we each individually propose. Please all make comments and changes 
> > as you see fit, but do add your name and just let's try and get more 
> > names under the Open Letter this time!
>
> > Cheers!
> > Sam Carana
>
> > PS: I'll add details about the Forum below:
>
> > President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on  
> >Energy and Climate 
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-...
>
> > THE WHITE HOUSE
>
> > Office of the Press Secretary
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > For Immediate Release                                    March 28, 
> > 2009
>
> > President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on 
> > Energy and Climate
>
> > The President is pleased to announce today the launch of the Major 
> > Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.
>
> > The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among 
> > key developed and developing countries, help generate the political 
> > leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN 
> > climate change negotiations that will convene this December in 
> > Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and 
> > joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while 
> > cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> > President Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies and 
> > the Secretary General of the United Nations to designate 
> > representatives to participate in a preparatory session at the 
> > Department of State on April 27-28 in Washington, D.C. The 
> > preparatory sessions will culminate in a Major Economies Forum 
> > Leaders’ meeting, which Prime Minister Berlusconi has agreed to host 
> > in La Maddalena, Italy, in July 2009.
>
> > The 17 major economies are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the 
> > European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, 
> > Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the 
> > United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the 
> > December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework 
> > Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been 
> > invited to participate in this dialogue.
>
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> John
>
> >> We could start summer spraying from land-based plant on the Faeroes 
> >> or conventional ships two years after getting some money.  However 
> >> it would be essential to have proper climate modeling, such as that 
> >> from Phil Rasch, before any spray is released.
>
> >> I was watching the body language of Dr  Pachauri when you gave him 
> >> the letter in Copenhagen and I believe that we should not be too 
> >> hopeful of ant immediate help from IPCC.  Their track record on 
> >> Arctic ice is dismal and they will be on the defensive.  I hope 
> >> that I am wrong so please let me know if you have had, or if you 
> >> get, any reply from him.
>
> >> 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
>
> >> John Nissen wrote:
>
> >>> Hi Sam,
>
> >>> Excellent posting.  Two matters arising:
>
> >>> Firstly, on the matter of Stephen Salter's "cooling ships", we 
> >>> could start with a sea-side installation on some suitable NE 
> >>> Atlantic island, (e.g.
> >>> Faeroes?) to provide infrastructure - easy access for power, 
> >>> people, maintenance, etc.  We badly need funds to jump start this
technology.
> >>>  Any
> >>> suggestions?
>
> >>> Secondly, thanks for the great idea of an open letter to the 
> >>> forthcoming international climate forum.  Can it be the same 
> >>> letter as sent to Dr Pachauri?
>
>
>>>http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-dr-pachaur...
>
> >>> If possible I'd like to include an argument for the urgency for 
> >>> Part C action in the Arctic, as has been suggested we might 
> >>> discuss in this geoengineering forum over the next week.  How 
> >>> should we balance the risks of geoengineering against the risks of 
> >>> not geoengineering, or delaying action?
> >>> What is the optimum ramp up speed for candidate techniques?
>
> >>> Also we should point out the rediculously low cost of Part C type 
> >>> geoengineering, in relation to potential cost and life saving if 
> >>> it manages to prevent Arctic tipping points tipping.
>
> >>> BTW, who should the open letter be addressed to, at the forum?
>
> >>> Here it gives the date as April 27-28:
>
>>>http://www.france24.com/en/20090328-obama-climate-change-denmark-un-s...
>
> >>> AFP - President Barack Obama Saturday launched a Major Economies 
> >>> Forum on Energy and Climate to give a boost to a historic 
> >>> agreement on climate change facilitated by the UN.
>
> >>> Leaders from the 16 major economies are to participate in a 
> >>> "preparatory session" on April 27-28 in Washington to "help 
> >>> generate the political leadership" for successful climate change 
> >>> negotiations December in Copenhagen, the White House said in a 
> >>> statement.
>
> >>> The forum, the White House added, would encourage "a candid dialogue"
> >>> between developing and industrialized countries and help "advance 
> >>> the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that 
> >>> increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas 
> >>> emissions."
>
> >>> Denmark, which is hosting a UN meeting in December to create a new 
> >>> agreement on global warming to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and the 
> >>> United Nations were also invited.
>
> >>> The preparatory sessions would conclude with the Major Economies 
> >>> Forum Leaders' summit, to be hosted in July by Italian Prime 
> >>> Minister Silvio Berlusconi in La Maddalena, Italy.
>
> >>> The 17 major economies are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the 
> >>> European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, 
> >>> Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom and 
> >>> the United States.
>
> >>> UN talks were to resume in Bonn on Sunday with some 190 countries 
> >>> participating to reach a new pact for curbing greenhouse gases 
> >>> beyond 2012, when Kyoto Protocol provisions expire.
>
> >>> The climate treaty was rejected by the US Congress in 1997 because 
> >>> it did not impose commitments on developing countries.
>
> >>> Obama's announcement came ahead of a Group of 20 economic crisis 
> >>> summit in London on April 2, for which he would embark on his 
> >>> first major foreign trip as president, with other stops planned in 
> >>> France and Germany for a NATO summit, the Czech Republic for an 
> >>> EU/US summit and an onward trip to Turkey.
>
> >>> ----
>
> >>> Cheers,
>
> >>> John
>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" 
> >>> <[email protected]>
> >>> To: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:49 PM
> >>> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?
>
> >>> Andrew,
>
> >>> Looking at global historic data of warming, one might at first 
> >>> glance conclude that only a relatively small amount of global 
> >>> warming did cause the arctic melting we're witnessing now. So, the 
> >>> conclusion would then be that we similarly needed to reflect just 
> >>> a small amount of sunshine back into space to have the reverse effect.
>
> >>> However, what complicates things is that global warming is 
> >>> amplified in specific areas, notably around the North Pole. East 
> >>> Siberia was at times 7°C warmer than
>
> ...
>
> read more »


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to