Re: [geo] Sea Ice
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. It looks like the temperature dips to ~250 K. The hot end would not be more than 273K, so perhaps 20-25 deg K diff. Efficiency (max) is 1-Tc/Th or 9%. It wouldn't even do that well because the end freezing ice is going to be surrounded by a thick and thermally resistive ball of ice. Then you have the problem of collecting the energy from these scattered pipes sticking out of the ice. On the other hand, you could almost certainly get a few tens of watts for the thing to report its health to a satellite. Keith Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Sea Ice
Greg, The delta T would likely average 20 to 25 C: sea water near 4, surface temperature average probably -20. Other OTEC projects would likely have the same delta T. One merit of doing this in the arctic is that the ocean is the warm source, and the problem of liberation of CO2 from a deep ocean source at surface is avoided. The capital cost of building that far in the north is very high, and the local demand for power low as well. We need to be careful not to reject any idea prematurely, but we should recognize that the locational difficulties for useful energy in the far north are severe. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: Rau, Greg [mailto:r...@llnl.gov] Sent: May-14-14 6:29 PM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] Sea Ice Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Sea Ice
On the other hand, you are going to need energy for your other (parallel?) scheme of pumping seawater onto the ice. Or I could take a few Whrs to do my C-negative electro-geochemistry. Plenty of good ol', Canadian Shield silicate minerals up that way that need a good jolt to increase their consumption of CO2. Dump the produced bicarbonate into the Arctic Ocean to offset ocean acidification and save the whales, and convert the resident snowmobiles to run on the hydrogen we'd also be generating - what's not to like? Who knew: Nunavut - the Saudi Arabia of geoengineering? G From: pcfl...@ualberta.ca pcfl...@ualberta.ca To: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov Cc: Ronal Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net; Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:20 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Sea Ice Greg, The delta T would likely average 20 to 25 C: sea water near 4, surface temperature average probably -20. Other OTEC projects would likely have the same delta T. One merit of doing this in the arctic is that the ocean is the warm source, and the problem of liberation of CO2 from a deep ocean source at surface is avoided. The capital cost of building that far in the north is very high, and the local demand for power low as well. We need to be careful not to reject any idea prematurely, but we should recognize that the locational difficulties for useful energy in the far north are severe. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: Rau, Greg [mailto:r...@llnl.gov] Sent: May-14-14 6:29 PM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] Sea Ice Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Sea Ice
Deriving energy from the very large wintertime temperature gradient is actually an idea I explored way back in the 1980s. I was going to use the gradient to make a fuel (hydrogen or something similar) that could be carried via a large submarine to lower latitudes. The problem, however, that I don't see how one gets around is keeping the above-ice structure (the condenser) from becoming covered by ice, which would act as an insulator and so really lower the efficiency. In addition, in that one is deriving the energy from the heat released as water freezes, one would also have to worry about ice coating the below-ice structure (the evaporator). It all just seemed to be rather difficult engineering. Mike On 5/14/14 9:20 PM, pcfl...@ualberta.ca pcfl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Greg, The delta T would likely average 20 to 25 C: sea water near 4, surface temperature average probably -20. Other OTEC projects would likely have the same delta T. One merit of doing this in the arctic is that the ocean is the warm source, and the problem of liberation of CO2 from a deep ocean source at surface is avoided. The capital cost of building that far in the north is very high, and the local demand for power low as well. We need to be careful not to reject any idea prematurely, but we should recognize that the locational difficulties for useful energy in the far north are severe. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: Rau, Greg [mailto:r...@llnl.gov] Sent: May-14-14 6:29 PM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] Sea Ice Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Sea Ice
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Sea Ice
Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - sea ice galaxies, circles and ovals tell the story
Good observation otherwise, but the thinned ice breaks up and scatters more. If you look at satellite pictures a few years ago the sea ice was not nearly as fluid as it is today. The North Pole sea ice is predominantly arranged such a way that some of the regular geometries resulting from the rotation are constantly almost always visible. In the past the rigid and thick multi year sea ice caused a lot more ridges and strengt variation within ice impeding a regular contraflows and centrifugal scattering of sea ice from the pole. In addition, the same laws of water displacement by floating ice become applicable. As much of the sea ice has been pushed towards perimetry of the Arctic Oceans coastal containment margin, the movement of ice towards equator from the pole requires displacement of the corresponding sea ice volume. So, if North Pole has 70-80 of sea ice, 20% of the surface water has been uplifted as the ice has been slinging towards perimeters. This kind of water upswell was irregularised dissipated by the ice ridges of pack ice, variable sea ice thickenesses randomising the effects. Withnessing patterns like cirles and ovals and spiralling ice galaxies do not increase my confidence that all is well as it used to... Some years ago the Arctic sea ice was so rigid that when Siberian rivers poured warm water into sea these weakened the sea ice from the estuary and the ice split all across the ocean to Canada. It was solid like the sement wall, not a fluid ice of today. I do not remember who called it the rotten ice on the Beaufort Sea last autumn, but that's it. Anyone who has been living in the Arctic knows that spring ice is thick but weak. The autumn ice is thin and strong. Between the two is the winter ice which Arctic used to be. Seeing the coriolis forces arranging highly regular patterns result from ice uniformity. Kr, Albert Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:13:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren From: dwschn...@gmail.com To: wig...@ucar.edu CC: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lind...@apl.washington.edu; serr...@kryos.colorado.edu 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 wig...@ucar.edu 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
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
I think Bill is absolutely right. I too agree with John N's concerns, but the next step should be - I believe - an adequately funded RD effort to examine thoroughly those few SRM ideas that have some prospect of being affordable and quantitatively adequate, if deployed. It seems to me quite likely that two such techniques acting in concert could prove to be significantly more powerful and flexible than one acting alone.. All best,John (L). Quoting William Fulkerson wf...@utk.edu: Dear John: You know that I agree fully with your concerns about the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, but I can¹t sign your letter. I am tired of calls for a new Manhattan Project. The Arctic does not require it. What is required is a fully funded RDD effort (multilateral if possible) to understand better the importance of the consequences from loosing summer sea ice and of applying solar radiation management techniques to arrest it. The RDD should be carried out under the rules suggested at the Asilomar Conference. We need to give John Holdren a well thought out proposal. As far as I know no such proposal has been written by anyone except by Ehsan Khan of DOE early in the decade, and the draft report was finally released last year . The America¹s Climate Choices report of the NAS has not yet been released. I know, however, that geoengineering was covered in the science part of the reports and in the mitigation part, I believe, but I haven¹t seen them yet. I attended the geoengineering workshop that was part of this study. With best regards, Bill On 7/11/10 1:38 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk 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 geoengineer...@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. -- John Latham lat...@ucar.edu john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) 303-497-8182 (W) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
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 geoengineer...@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@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.
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
Dear all, I am pleased to say that a number of you, including Peter Wadhams and Gregory Benford, have endorsed the letter. But some of you seem to have a problem with the tenor. I have tried to make the letter as forceful as possible, without implications that cannot be backed by science or logic. We cannot expect rapid action unless the letter spells out the imminent danger very clearly. The action we request is the setting up of a project, specifically to address the danger from the Arctic. Because of the urgency, we need a well-resourced and focussed project, with determined leadership, hence the reference to "emergency action" and a project of "Manhattan intensity". I hope that answers some concerns. However, Tom Wigley is concerned that one passage might be more guesswork than science: "... 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." I would like to allay his concerns as follows. If all carbon trapped in permafrost were released as CO2, it would triple CO2 in the atmosphere [1]. A significant proportion will be released as methane, which a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Continued heating of the Arctic will inevitably lead to melting of permafrost. This heating is accelating due to positive feedbacks. A major feedback is from the albedo change when sea ice is replaced by water [2]. As the sea ice retreats, we can expect methane to be released in ever larger quantities. The global warming effect of the methane will lead to further methane release, and further warming, in what can be described as thermal runaway. Abrupt climate change could then be expected. Massive methane discharge is thought to have caused abrupt climate change in the past, "on a timescale less than a human lifetime" [3]. So I think there is reasonable scientific grounds for what we have said. Regards, John [1] Copenhagen Diagnosis, p21 http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf [2] Nature Letters http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/arctique-ann%C3%A9es-2000-tures.pdf [3] Clathrate gun hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis --- Tom Wigley 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]
RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to Arctic Council
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: xbenf...@gmail.com To: dwschn...@gmail.com CC: wig...@ucar.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lind...@apl.washington.edu; serr...@kryos.colorado.edu 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 dwschn...@gmail.com 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 wig...@ucar.edu 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
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to Arctic Council
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: xbenf...@gmail.com To: dwschn...@gmail.com CC: wig...@ucar.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lind...@apl.washington.edu; serr...@kryos.colorado.edu 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 dwschn...@gmail.com 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 wig...@ucar.edu 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
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
Dear John: You know that I agree fully with your concerns about the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, but I can¹t sign your letter. I am tired of calls for a new Manhattan Project. The Arctic does not require it. What is required is a fully funded RDD effort (multilateral if possible) to understand better the importance of the consequences from loosing summer sea ice and of applying solar radiation management techniques to arrest it. The RDD should be carried out under the rules suggested at the Asilomar Conference. We need to give John Holdren a well thought out proposal. As far as I know no such proposal has been written by anyone except by Ehsan Khan of DOE early in the decade, and the draft report was finally released last year . The America¹s Climate Choices report of the NAS has not yet been released. I know, however, that geoengineering was covered in the science part of the reports and in the mitigation part, I believe, but I haven¹t seen them yet. I attended the geoengineering workshop that was part of this study. With best regards, Bill On 7/11/10 1:38 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk 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 geoengineer...@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.
Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
folks CERN is like a de facto Manhattan Project for nuclear research except now without a policy to destroy as the Manhatten Project was (we dont need that project mentioned again as it rekindles nastiness but teh best minds were collected with a policy to achieve destruction ... and they succeeded) A climate/general eco based global effort similar to CERN would be a great leap forward CERN is respected ... with current climate scepticism and conspiracy theories abounding, Climate knowledge needs to be put on a MUCH better footing Is that direction achievable??? G /// On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:27 AM, William Fulkerson wf...@utk.edu wrote: Dear John: You know that I agree fully with your concerns about the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, but I can’t sign your letter. I am tired of calls for a new Manhattan Project. The Arctic does not require it. What is required is a fully funded RDD effort (multilateral if possible) to understand better the importance of the consequences from loosing summer sea ice and of applying solar radiation management techniques to arrest it. The RDD should be carried out under the rules suggested at the Asilomar Conference. We need to give John Holdren a well thought out proposal. As far as I know no such proposal has been written by anyone except by Ehsan Khan of DOE early in the decade, and the draft report was finally released last year . The America’s Climate Choices report of the NAS has not yet been released. I know, however, that geoengineering was covered in the science part of the reports and in the mitigation part, I believe, but I haven’t seen them yet. I attended the geoengineering workshop that was part of this study. With best regards, Bill On 7/11/10 1:38 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk 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 geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comgeoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- GUY LAKEMAN Guy's Central Headquarters GCHQ Thinktrank TVIT.ORG/ASM face piles and piles of trials with smiles it riles them to believe that i percieve the web they weave wanting is the product of envy and jealousy and they lead to greed and greed is the shadow of the dark side NEVER TRY ... DO or DONT DO! thailand happy number +66851635792 -- You received
