[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton

[John Nissen]

Hi Albert, Thanks for calling last night.  As I said, this is an opportunity to get three vital points across to Bill Clinton for your meeting in September:     * the situation is far more serious and urgent than any scientist dares to admit [1], and warrants emergency action [2];     * the action must include geoengineering, because emissions reduction will be too slow to have an effect;     * geoengineering must be both SRM for cooling and carbon air capture for reducing acidification. As regards the situation, there is both the risk of sea level rise from Greenland (with tsunami if there's a containment failure) and the risk of massive methane release (see John Davies' email yesterday) if the Arctic sea ice disappears in summer.   The temperature forcing (from positive feedback) is building up much faster than expected or forecast by IPCC models.  The ocean acidification, loss of coral reefs, reduction of rainforest and glacier decline (e.g in Himalayas) are also critical problems requiring action, starting now.  The consensus of scientists is concentrating on emissions reduction, but it's clear, from the Climate Congress in March, that this alone is not going to be enough to reduce the risk of catastrophic warming [3] to an acceptable level.  The risk could already be > 50:50, without geoengineering.  (Every year that we delay increases this risk - politicians should note.) For saving the Arctic sea ice we need SRM - for which there are two main candidates: stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.  (A report from the Royal Society is due 1st September, so you can mention that.)  The risks of such geoengineering have to be balanced against the risk of not geoengineering - i.e. catastrophe for everybody! If you can get Clinton to appreciate these central points, then you will have done a service for the world!  Try and explain slowly, simply and clearly, so he can really take in the enormity of what you are saying.  Be careful not to drown him with science.  And be careful not to distract him with thoughts which are not central to these three points about where we are now, why we have to change course and what we have to do most urgently. It would be really helpful to have a draft of a paper that you will present to Clinton, summarising your arguments and including these points. BTW, please email me details about this amazing bloke you've discovered, who has studied the possibility of containment failure and has considered geoengineering.  I couldn't find anything on Google to track him down.  Can you also remind me of the other people you have asked? Cheers, John P.S.  I'll try to see the film!  I wish that being plunged into an ice age were a significant possibility, as this would save us from becoming toast. [1]  Dares to admit, or is able to face.  People stop admitting the existence of danger when it gets too great - e.g. in final stages of cancer or when living just below a dam.  And what do you tell your children - that they could be doomed? [2] Manhattan Project is good example of what can be done in emergency when facing an enemy.  We need to treat global warming as an enemy, regardless of whether it is anthropogenic or not, and so regardless of responsibility. [3] Global warming likely to provoke global conflict and risk nuclear war, because of extreme effects on food scarcity, water shortages, and mass migration. --- Veli Albert Kallio wrote: If you have not seen the film A Day After Tomorrow, please hire or buy a copy of it.   The only thing you substitute in the film is that the sea level surge and subsequent massive cooling is a result of global warming causing the footing of the ice sheet getting damange due to melt water lubrication within and under the ice. Once ice slides and breaks into sea, a sudden climatic cooling results as the disintergrating ice sheet rapidly melts into warm sea, making it as cold as your coca-cola in summer.   I'll take the points and trying to accommodate people as much as I can as I have a good team here and in the States moving this thing and the Danish, will eventually turn around too if things go to the direction the First Nations think the events went when ice age ended.   Kr, Albert   > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:53:26 +0100 > From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk > To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com > CC: john.dav...@foe.co.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com > Subject: Meeting with Clinton > > > Hi Albert, > > I'm just back from holiday, and have been talking to John Davies. It is > clear than the central topic for discussion is the possibility of > massive ice slide in past and future, to create sea level rise (but also > tsunami) and exacerbate global warming. > > So I urge that the following be included on agenda for Clinton, arising > directly from your central topic: > > 1. No tsunami warning system for Greenland and neighbours, let alone > other N Atlantic nations. > 2. Past slides were due to global warming and/or volcanic action. > Future slides can be expected due to global warming. > 3. Global warming is amplified at poles - at least doubling the > temperature rise both in the Arctic and around the Antarctic (affecting > WAIS). > 4. How does one stop, delay, or reduce risk of future slide? For > Arctic, must save the Arctic sea ice - and similarly for the Antarctic. > 5. For saving Arctic sea ice, physical measures are being considered > (such as river diversion) - but research is needed and there is no > research funding. > 6. CO2 emissions reduction, however drastic and global, will take > decades before warming is halted, let alone reversed. > 7. Positive feedback building up now - has to be countered. > 8. Emissions of carbon black (fine soot particles) must be reduced - > which will have rapid effect. > 9. SRM Geoengineering with sulphur aerosols must be trialled. > 10. Cooling of water entering Arctic ocean, by marine cloud brightening > over Gulf Stream, must be attempted. > 11. Research needed for cooling the WAIS, and preventing ice shelf loss. > 12. Research needed on risks from volcanic action under WAIS. > > Certainly we should not make global warming worse by removing reflecting > aerosols from troposphere without at least countering that effect using > other reflecting aerosols - esp sulphur aerosols in stratosphere. > > Lunch calls, > > Cheers, > > John > Windows Live Messenger: Thanks for 10 great years-enjoy free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---