Hi Peter, Your name should be added, and Stephen Salter's and Oliver Wingenter's I think. (see P.S.)
And perhaps Colin Forrest, John Davis, Gregory Benford and Roger Angel would be willing to add their names (see P.P.S) - and Brian Launder (co-editor of that special issue on geoengineering of the RS Phil Trans), with Stephen Salter and John Latham for the cloud brightening (Part C). Is there anybody else from the geoengineering group, so we can finalise the list today? The majority seems to be in favour of a short letter. So be it. But I shall not be around for the next week - so I'd appreciate somebody drafted the final version, and I'm happy to have my name to it. After Tom Wigley's edit, it appears like this: ---- 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. We believe that the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the approach to the climate change problem should be as broadly based as possible. As such, this should 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 note that there is little or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering methods (in Part B and Part C). These should be urgently considered as part of a comprehensive approach to climate change. Signatories: John Nissen Peter Read Oliver Wingenter (OK?) Stephen Salter (OK?) John Latham (OK?) Andrew Lockley John Gorman Colin Forrest (OK?) John B Davis (OK?) Gregory Benford (OK?) Roger Angel (OK?) Bill Fulkerson Tom Wigley Dan Wylie-Sears Eugene I. Gordon Sam Carana Brian Launder (OK?) Ken Caldeira (OK? see below) ---- I'd be happy enough with that. Who can deliver to the Major Economies Forum? Ken, could you, as the principal ambassador for geoengineering? You would need to be a co-signatory. Is that OK? If not, who else? Tom, could you? I doubt now that we've time to get Andrew's and my points in, about the nature of denial that's going on - denial of how serious a mess we are in (see posting of an hour ago). Pity. It'll have to be for the next letter... And I'm not altogether sure about having a Part D, for reasons John Gorman has expressed, but I can live with it. Cheers, John P.S. The last version of the Pachauri letter had the following names at the end: ---- John Nissen Email: [email protected] for correspondence Stephen Salter Professor of Engineering, University of Edinburgh Peter Read Hon. Research Fellow, Massey University Centre for Energy Research Oliver W. Wingenter, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Andrew Lockley Former director of Friends of the Earth ENWI John Gorman Chartered Engineer MIMechE, MIET Sam Carana, contributor to feebate.net [email protected] ---- P.P.S. And the following were at end of my letter to PM Gordon Brown: ---- Colin Forrest. BSc, Hons [email protected] John B Davies [email protected] Eugene I. Gordon PhD, Physics, MIT Fellow IEEE [email protected] Gregory Benford Professor of Physics University of California, Irvine [email protected] Roger Angel Professor of Optical Sciences Fellow of the Royal Society Member of the National Academy of Science [email protected] ---- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Read" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "Stephen Hugh Salter" <[email protected]>; "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? > Hi John > I seem to be left off Tom Wigley's circulated list, i.e > John Nissen > Andrew Lockley > John Gorman > Bill Fulkerson > Tom Wigley > Dan Wylie-Sears > Eugene I. Gordon > Sam Carana > I would like to be a signatory to any of the drafts recently circulated, as > I imagine would Stephen and Ken > I think it should be short and avoid the comforting "global warming" > language in favour of "climate change" (or preferably "climatic change" > since sea level is not normally regarded as "climate") > > I suggest John (Nissen) circulate a final version very soon with > *all the names that have expressed willingness to sign > *and a request to any of them not wanting to sign the final version to > tell John within 48 hours > *and inviting anyone extra who does want to sign it, to tell John by the > same deadline. > Cheers > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:21 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? > > > > > 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. [snip] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
