Dear Albert,
I do not agree with portions of the letter. But I think waiting until
this seasons results come in is better than making predictions that may
fall short.
CERN and the Space Station are in some people's view frivolous and lack
urgency. At this point I can not think of a better analogy than the
Manhattan project.
It is well know, had urgency and brought a quick end to the War.
Sincerely,
Oliver Wingenter
Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
When I was press-spokesman to Arctic Mirror of Life symposium
(convened by HE Kofi Annan and HE Jose Manuel Barroso) with Robert
(Bob) Correl, he was the lead author of the Arctic impact report of
the Arctic Council. (J. Lubachenko was our third spokesman.)
_Bob Correl is extremely concerned of the huge increases of moulins
and crevasses in Greenland over his long career observing them to
increase massively in numbers. So, he will support anything reasonable
put to him. I know he agrees the risks are understated._
Last Autumn I also sponsored to the UN General Assembly some Sami
members of the Arctic Council from Lapland (Finland) when the North
American indians invited me over to New York to discuss their climate
worries (emanating from thier perceived ancient native memories). When
President Evo Morales visited Helsinki in April 2010 I met them last
time. Sami and Inuit will give the maximum support on issues vital for
them, i.e. the sea ice.
The Arctic Council could be a good place for propositions or letter.
The inuit people risk their lives on weak sea ice. They do worry a lot
about the deteriorating sea ice and would not mind overstating this,
provided things are approximately right and try to capture essense of
their problems and they will give all support they can do.
I think it is necessary to await until Autumn. Usually some methane
expedition reports also come in from the seasons' expeditions to
study feedback CH4 emissions.
In my view too Manhattan Project analogy is off-the-mark. *CERN* is a
far more positive collaborative venue whitout negative or national
connotations like the Manhattan Project. Manhattan Project is also now
in far distance timewise. *International Space Station (ISS) c*ould
also be a much more positive project to refer as an example.
Kind regards,
Albert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:49:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John
Holdren
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
I agree with David that we should wait for the September data.
But on the Manhattan Project analogy:
The Manhattan project went through just this. (I know this history
well; I was a postdoc of Ed Teller, knew Szilard, & my father in law
invented centrifugal U isotope separation with Harold Urey in 1939.)
The project in its early phase lost more than a year of mother-may-I
before getting real support, and so could not stop the war in 1944.
That's about 12 million lives...
There are plenty of well thought through ideas, but they don't get
funded--just as in the Manhattan example. (They spent a year and all
their money 1938-39 checking the German results, against Fermi's
advice; he thought they were obviously true.)
I was a postdoc with Holdren and suggest he's open to an increased
funding argument, and maybe setting up a group to coordinate Arctic
observations, geoengineering ideas, and even some diplomatic
approaches to the Arctic Council downstream (2011) -- but yes, we need
a sound argument. This is not the same as another government panel
agreeing to insert lines in a report!
Gregory Benford
For all his admirable qualities, you seem to be a process guy, not an
outcome guy.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]>
wrote:
The current extent of ice coverage is no different than it was 20
years ago:
And, it appears to be tracking the 2006 decline, which makes sense
as the wind patterns are about the same, and wind has far more to
do with the extent of ice coverage than temperatures of the kind
we have today.
As I have written repeatedly, wait until the end of September and
we will be able to argue from actual data on ice loss. These
hysterics are getting in the way of actual observations - what
some of us like to think is the baseline for science.
d.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tom Wigley <[email protected]> wrote:
John,
You say ...
"we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of
methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead
inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate
change."
This is guesswork, not science.
I do not want to sign this letter.
Tom.
+++++++++++++
John Nissen wrote:
In view of the situation in the Arctic, I would be
grateful for support for an open letter to John Holdren,
along the following lines. Please let me know whether you
agree with this text and whether you'd be happy for me to
add your name at the bottom.
Cheers,
John
---
To John P Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Dear Dr Holdren,
The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect
sunlight back into space and cool the Earth. The sea ice
has been retreating far faster than the IPCC predicted
only three years ago [1]. But, after the record retreat in
September 2007, many scientists revised their predictions
for the date of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean from
beyond the end of century to beyond 2030. Only a few
scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and
they were ridiculed.
In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in
end-summer sea ice extent, and it appears that the minimum
2010 extent will be close to a new record [2]. However
the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very
sharp decline in volume [3], which is very worrying.
The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect
permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as
early as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to
runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change. All
this could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further
than ever before this summer. We could be approaching a
point of no return unless emergency action is taken.
We suggest that the current situation should be treated as
a warning for us all. The world community must rethink its
attitude to fighting global warming by cutting greenhouse
gas emissions sharply. However, even if emissions could be
cut to zero, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere would
continue to warm the planet for many decades.
Geoengineering now appears the only means to cool the
Arctic quickly enough. A geoengineering project of the
intensity of the Manhattan Project is urgently needed to
guard against a global catastrophe.
Yours sincerely,
John Nissen
[Other names to be added here.]
[1] Stroeve et al, May 2007
http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf
[2]
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
[3]
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure5.png
--
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.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/> --
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.
