Dear Oliver,
We have already been waiting too long. The ice volume is way down,
according to PIOMAS. And read Albert's email - many ice experts are
extremely concerned about the general trend. However the person I
trust most is Peter Wadhams, because years ago he helped to highlight
the problem of positive feedback which is causing the acceleration of
Arctic warming.
BTW, I don't want to make too much of the Manhattan analogy, because
I'm not a historian, but one of the reasons for referring to Manhattan,
was that the project was to counter a particular threat, which could
have altered history - namely Hitler developing the atomic bomb before
US. By the nature of the threat, the US didn't know how long they
had. In the Arctic, we are against powerful forces that could overcome
us, if we don't get our skates on and fight with a concerted effort.
Because we don't know how long we've got, we've just got to work like
fury to reduce the risk of catastrophe. That's how I see it. Our most
precious comodity is time - delay will be our ultimate downfall.
Cheers,
John
---
[email protected] wrote:
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) could
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
Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up
now.
--
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.
|
