SEE CAPS > Dear all: > I would gladly sign the letter. I agree with Tom Wigley that the word > geoengineering should be included in the description of Part C. The > letter must be crystal clear and unambiguous. As for the comment that > this conference is the wrong place to use a letter, I don't agree. > But I do agree that we should be talking to everyone we can. This > week I attended the National Academy of Sciences meeting on America's > Climate Choices. I was glad to see that geoengineering will be an > important part of the Committee's deliberation. That part of the study > will be headed by Ken Caldeira, the perfect person at the right spot > at the right time. In the meeting the point was made and heard that > the time frame for saving the Arctic is incompatible with mitigation > and adaptation time constants. I am a little disappointed that > adaptation is not included in Parts A, B, or C. That means that the > letter is not really talking about the whole problem of managing > climate change to promote human and environmental well-being > (paraphrasing John Holdren).
SO THE LETTER MAKE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IS IS NOT ADDRESSING EVERYTHING< OR IT MUST ADD THE MISSING THINGS. Remember that the recent Climate Change > plans of both India and China emphasize combating poverty as the most > important strategy for adapting to climate change. The richer you are > the easier it will be to manage the impacts of climate change. > Surely, we shouldn't leave adaptation out of our letter. Finally, I > assume everyone saw the full page Cato Institute ad in the Washington > Post and New York Times addressed to President Obama and charging that > the President was ill informed about the science of climate change. > It had about 120 signers. I AM IN OZ, SO DOD NOT SEE THIS. CAN SOMEONE SCAN IT AND EMAIL IT TO ME? > The best, > Bill > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > [email protected] > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Eugene I. Gordon wrote: > >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
