Hi all,
To remind people of what this proposed letter is about: > > 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. I would strongly urge that we keep the letter as sent to Dr Pachauri, but preferably with more signatories. This open letter had the basic arguments for the two different kinds of geoengineering action that are needed (on different timescales), and points out that emissions reduction by itself will not and cannot work. On this latter point, scientists are still misleading the policy makers such as Lord Stern: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/30/climate-change-nicholas-stern-interview If anything the letter should be strengthened, rather than weakened. For example, with a great chunk of Antarctic ice about to break off, one should consider "Part C" actions in the Antarctic as well as the Arctic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/ice-shelf-wilkins-antarctic Also, there is "news" that Arctic sea ice volume may have reached record low last year: http://article.wn.com/view/2009/04/06/Thinning_Arctic_sea_ice_alarms_experts/ Cheers, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gorman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 6:09 PM Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? I will be happy to sign in this form. just noting that timescale is the critical difference between A,B and C A will take a century to get to zero emissions B will take half a century to get back to 280 C could control temperature wihin a couple of years -probably D is very difficult to plan if we dont know how much A,B and C we are prepared to do-worldwide. I know that my county of Hampshire UK, which includes Southampton docks, made planning policy decisions on the basis of the IPCC 2007 figure of 40 cms sea level rise by 2100. This was more or less raised to 1metre 20 in Copenhagen. noone can plan for such a moving target. I personally believe that we should do enough C to achieve almost zero sea level rise,which of course means saving the Arctic-now. John Gorman Chartered Engineer. Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.UK Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology UK (just in case you want to include qualifications!!) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:42 AM Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? Good points, Bill, adaptation should be part of the comprehensive approach we need to deal with global warming. For starters, there needs to be more funding of R&D into agriculture, town planning, vegetation, saving of species that are at risk of extinction, forest management, etc, etc. The Open Letter shouldn't go too much into detail about all that, as said, everyone can add individual articles and notes to describe what they propose to see happen. I suggest the following revised draft: ===== 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 four parts: Part A: Emissions reduction Part B: Carbon stock management Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management Part D: Adaptation We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering to reflect more sunlight back into space (part C.). Signatories: John Nissen, ... Sam Carana Tom Wigley Bill Fulkerson Dan Wylie-Sears Eugene I. Gordon etc. ========= END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER ===================== Please say if you want your name added, and if so also add details behind your name as you see fit. Feel encouraged to suggest changes to the text, if that's what it takes to get your name added. Cheers! Sam Carana PS: Yes, I did see the Cato ad, it's at: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html If anyone needed to see reasons why our Open Letter is needed, see my article called Global Warming - Red Alert! at: http://is.gd/qE1Y -------------------- earlier messages below ------------------------- On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, William Fulkerson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). 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. > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
