Come on folks. There is no reason to dismiss the entire scientific community as afraid to publish a paper due to concerns about political correctness or impact on careers. I don't buy this slur on an entire profession.
-----Original Message----- From: John Gorman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:33 AM To: Hawkins, Dave; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? this is a case where the correct answer is that "there isnt any peer reviewed reference because it wouldnt be politically correct to say it and to do so would be to risk ones career" However the back of an envelope calculation is simple; The area of sea ice has halved in little more than a decade. Whatever scenario one takes it will be gone in 30,40,50 years. Even with no further emissions from today the CO2 will stay at 380 and the temperature in the arctic will stay at 3 or 4 deg C above 50 years ago. The sea ice will continue to melt. With any conceivable emissions limitation scenario it will be gone much sooner. This is partly why I included that quote from Schumaker in my submission to the parliamentary committee. All this talk of tree rings, computers, models etc is just stopping us from recognising the obvious. Vick Pope would say " can you prove that this will happen?" no of course i cant. Its in the future. john Gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? > Hi John, > In your note you say, "The undisputed fact that emissions reduction > cannot save the Arctic sea ice, at its current rate of retreat..." > Can you provide a reference or two that reaches this conclusion? > (I'm not asking to dispute what you say but would like to see what you > have in mind as support for the proposition.) > Thanks > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu Dec 10 16:46:31 2009 > Subject: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? > > > Hi all, > > Two excellent programmes on the environment and mankind's impact: > > David Attenborough: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_ People_Can_Live_on_Planet_Earth/ > > > Iain Stewart: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jf6md/Hot_Planet/ > > Unfortunately, although Iain had sympathetic mention of Klaus Lackner's > artificial trees, solar radiation management was represented by sulphur > being fired into the stratosphere by guns - mention of ozone disruption > - and the programme ended with punch line "geoengineering is too > expensive and too dangerous". This was an unwarranted dismissal of the > technology with probably the best chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. > The undisputed fact that emissions reduction cannot save the Arctic sea > ice, at its current rate of retreat, was not mentioned. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- 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.
