Many thanks, Alvin to rise points. I have taken bunch of best experts as I do
think it would be hard to be convincing if acting solitary on behalf of the
First Nations. As per now we do not know who is right and who is wrong, but we
are trying to package a novel, testable hypothesis to try give answer to the
United Nations' General Assembly investigation request.
Please find brief notes and responses to some of the issues raised by Alvin
below:
"I'm still not sure I understand what you guys are talking about with regard to
sudden catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet. About 5 years
ago, I raised the same possibility, but have yet to see any analyses that would
support large slides of ice into the ocean."
I am funding this if no outside sponsors takes up the matter by installing
equipment on the weak points in Melville Bay area to see if anything the First
Nations fear might be materialising. Is there a phenomenon of "ice sheet
thrust" where a warmed and wet ice sheet starts loose its land connectivity on
elevated terrain and pushes itself through the coastal barrier to create a new
outlet channel for the ice sheet come out, similar to the Hudson Straight. I
have funds in place to charter long haul helicopter flights to transport the
equipments required to-and-fro to monitor any lateral and vertical movements,
tilts and stresses forming on the Melville Bay terrain that must precede ice
sheet land containment failure if such a thing occurred behind Baffin Island
when the Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome lost its footing there according to the First
Nations soon after North Atlantic perennial sea ice was lost and climate warmed
rapidly (not slowly like the West says).
We have referred this as the Series 3 experiment to challenge the current
Western paradigm on the disintegration of ice sheet and get the ultimate first
hand warning if the Western models are incorrect and the ice age end case
history assigned wrong and Greenland does pose a danger. (The other two
experiments are way beyond my means.)
"the most likely explanation for the Younger Dryas (a period of abrupt climate
change in which ice age like conditions returned for around 1000 years to the
N. Hemisphere and so named after an Arctic wildflower that was prevalent at the
time) is the discharge of fresh water into the N. Atlantic from a large glacial
lake in southern Canada and northern Minnesota, Lake Agassiz. This lake was
larger than all of the present Great Lakes combined and was closed on the
southern end by an ice dam blocking discharge into the Mississippi River and
also on the northern end by another ice dam, preventing emptying into Hudson
Bay."
Quite aside the climate change issue we are dealing with anther issue. The
First Nations' people feel offended by the past misguided attempts to
westernise through the much-hated "residential school system" where basic
rights were not followed and child abuse prevailed. For the First Nations, the
issue and life around the Laurentide Ice Sheet is the Western Nations attempt
to brain-wash and force feed fake history to replace the indigenous histories
built around the onset, advances, retreats and disappearance of the huge
all-terrain covering ice sheet.
The Lake Agassiz has a vital role in discussions when it comes to the issue of
the Younger Dryas Point (YDP) World Heritage Site Listing application. There is
no disagreement over the presence of this large lake between the First Nations
and the Western nations. The YDP application refers to a particular site where
the ancestors ran to the safety of their lives as the wall of water busted from
Lake Agassiz washing out many villages and huge loss of life. The YDP site took
the brunt of cascading water but was able to provide safety when lake bursted
its banks. This site is important to the American indigenous peoples and came
to be part of their heritage and is not yet recognised by UNESCO because they
are always after things what are interesting to the white people, not what is
important to the First Nations.
There is no doubt that the onset of the Younger Dryas had a world-wide impact
and as such this site should qualify for UNESCO World Heritage site by a wide
margin. But all Amerindian sites in UNESCO's books are sites where magnificent
real estates has been built, or where gold and other treasures have been
plundered. Or, where corn and potato were first cultivated. But real estates,
agriculture, pop corns and potato chips are not part of the experience of
majority of the First Nations who relied on hunting on climate far too cold for
agriculture and lived nomadically. Thus the UNESCO bias and overlooking of
important YDP site that was at the apex of a major event that shaped world for
long period of time.
So we are well aware of the Lake Agassiz which formed when the shallow snow
fields in front of the compacted Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome melted away, but this
was entirely separate event from the slide out of the Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome
which occurred 52 years after the Lake Agassiz busted its banks and the
Laurentide drainage redirected from the river Mississippi in the south, to St.
Lawrence in the East.
The Series 1 Experiment intends to find evidence of this ice sheet slide-out.
This is the issue in question we are deliberating in depth because the climate
risk as the Arctic Ocean sea ice cap melt-away and its potential starting to
warm up climate rapidly increasing the accumulation of melt water within and
under Greenland ice sheet.
The Western nations say that the time period from the Last Glacial Maximum to
Youngest Dryas is 15,000 years and the depressed ocean level rose
correspondingly this period to its current levels. If the First Nations are
right that all compacted ice came out at once, we should see the sea level
jumping suddenly (as per the United Nations' General Assembly complaint and
investigation request what the First Nations of North America submitted under
auspices of the World Indigenous Nations Summit as the closing plenary request
when these bodies were in a joint session).
We are looking at 5 large conurbations that are located 30-120 metres below
current sea level. If sea rose over these in 15,000 years the build structures
should have faced the forces of sea as tropical storm systems do occur time to
time to create large waves. If the conurbations are "Pompeii in Water" this
would suggest sudden volumetric increase in sea, this supporting to ice sheet
land containment failures elsewhere. We are also looking anomalies in the
objects to be recovered, as the time span would be drastically reduced. In
addition presence of human remains and household valuables left in place could
also suggest the sea level suddenly jumping up if a large ice sheet
destabilised elsewhere.
We are heading for Series 1 experiment first because these will deliver in any
case good archaeological returns as the sites are from 5,000 dwellings, 1,200
dwellings to 500 dwellings in size but the great dept makes the cost very high
and complex equipment are required to remove large amount of mud and silt piled
on top of many of the buildings. This is what we are discussing as a good
scientific return is guaranteed even if the First Nations' idea fails.
Series 2 experiment addresses the Mesoamerican Climate Calendars which claim to
have recorded the onset, advances, retreats and disappearance of the Laurentide
Ice sheet. The native history-keeping of many First Nations are projected
against the events and turning points in the evolution of the North American
ice. Some of the First Nations have recorded the onset of climatic cooling and
glaciers on annualised, yearly basis. The Western nations idea of 500,000 years
is too long to have exhaustive recollections of events.
As Greenland Ice Dome and the Foxe - Laurentide Ice Dome behind the Baffin
Island were formed simultaneously, the proposal to data-validate or dismiss is
that the pre-glaciation era biodetrius is taken to mass-spectrometer test run
to check it out for the number of years the First Nations insist the great ice
persisted. As carbon-14 has a half-life 5,770 years the pre-glaciation era
sub-glacial biodetritus returns positive reading, an impossibility if
Greenland's ice sheet is 500,000 years old, or older, like the Western Nations
claim. So this should easily distinguish between the two. So, objective is to
obtain carbon-14 readings.
The First Nations view is that during the ice age sea levels dropped this
destabilising the methane clathrates and exposing large sea beds in Siberia,
Beringia, Doggerland to sunlight. Copious amounts of millions of years old
geological carbon was released. As the oceans were freezing cold and
non-stratified their capacity to dissolve and sunk carbon dioxide back to deep
sea was enormous despite the large emissions. As cosmogenic carbon-14 was
introduced to the system at flat rate due to cosmic radiation, its proportion
diminishes in the middle column between the onset and ending of the ice age.
The medium and long life cosmogenic radioisotopes are more indicative of the
age of the soil where the plant once grew and as such can have a long
pre-existence to the photosynthesising time of the plant. The plant metabolism
dictates that the carbon-14 enters the plants direct from the ari through
stomata on the leaves, while the other cosmogenic isotopes enter through root
system. Thus despite being timed by long duration isotopes, these don't capture
real time.
The cause of the sudden glaciations is proposed as geothermal fluctuations and
Mega-Surtsey event along the Reykjanes Ridge section of the Mid Atlantic Ridge
as possible explanation why there were so much ice and snow so suddenly and why
there were so intense rains in the tropics. But carbon-14 test is risky take or
loose it all and our plan is first to do the Series 1 experiments to see if ice
disappeared faster than the West says.
We also have a Series 4 experiment for the North Atlantic Perennial Sea Ice
occurrence but as per this there is an agreement with the First Nations that
this is not published as other people are making claims similar to ours and
saying that we are borrowing their ideas. It is a sort of control mechanism to
ensure that others do not run away with all our ideas and then we fail to get
funding or the First Nations get short-changed with their dealings with the
white people once again.
But that's all we try to do and hope get people checking out their details and
secure that we do not get unexpected sudden sea level jumps and the Last Dryas
period unexpected if Greenland ice sheet land containment failure occurs in the
much warmer post-sea ice Arctic.
As per now, the North West Passage's southernmost route is opening third year
in a row, and one must now ask will it be open for every summer from now on?
Kr, Albert
From: agask...@nc.rr.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; albert_kal...@hotmail.com
CC: john.dav...@foe.co.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:14:01 -0400
I'm still not sure I understand what you guys are talking about with regard to
sudden catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet. About 5 years
ago, I raised the same possibility, but have yet to see any analyses that would
support large slides of ice into the ocean. As Greenland consists of three
separate islands covered with ice, at some point, if enough of the ice sheet
melted, the remaining ice would become unstable and fall into the ocean, but
that would be a long way off.
I do believe, however, that a survey of the structural stablility of both the
Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets is merited. I am not aware of this
having been done and simply having climatologists say large pieces won't break
off isn't good enough as they continue to be surprised by ice shelf collapses
and sea ice disappearance. In other words, they don't seem to be all that good
at predicting the future. We have a shortage of a lot of things in this world,
among them civility and fresh drinking water, but one thing not in short supply
is structural engineers. I want to hear what they have to say about the
Greenland Ice Sheet.
I am not, however, convinced that an imminent catastrophe is upon us. The
basis for your concern appears to be folklore of the Inuits living along Hudson
Bay around 12,400 years ago whose tales tell of their villages being swamped by
a sudden rise in the water level and that the Younger Dryas period immediately
followed. Is that correct? Your conclusion was then that the sea level rise
was due to a sudden release of ice by the Greenland Ice Sheet.
However, the most likely explanation for the Younger Dryas (a period of abrupt
climate change in which ice age like conditions returned for around 1000 years
to the N. Hemisphere and so named after an Arctic wildflower that was prevalent
at the time) is the discharge of fresh water into the N. Atlantic from a large
glacial lake in southern Canada and northern Minnesota, Lake Agassiz. This
lake was larger than all of the present Great Lakes combined and was closed on
the southern end by an ice dam blocking discharge into the Mississippi River
and also on the northern end by another ice dam, preventing emptying into
Hudson Bay.
The fresh water released entered the N. Atlantic and disrupted the northern end
of the Gulf Stream, hence the colder weather that followed. This is loosely
what the movie the Day After Tomorrow is based on, although that is a bad sci
fi movie with little scientific basis behind it. The events portrayed in the
film could never happen as they violate laws of physics and thermodynamics.
Various theories have been advanced for the collapse of the ice dam, but the
most likely one now seems to be a comet strike in eastern Canada that also
caused massive wildfires, killing off most of the large mammals in N. America
along with the Clovis people of New Mexico. Soot and quartz particles found at
the proposed impact site seem to confirm an extraterrestrial source of the
event. There is no evidence that Greenland was affected by the comet strike.
The explanation for the much shorter cooling period of around 8000 years ago
also seems to be related to a discharge from Lake Agassiz, although that one is
also still debated.
I am interested in your comment about someone studying ways to stabilize the
Greenland Ice sheet and would like to hear more about it. Previously, we have
discussed such ideas as filling in Moulins with some kind of straw, with ice
and of course there was the Discovery Project Earth episode about placing
insulating foam sheets around melt lakes.
The Royal Society report is not going to endorse the immediate use of
geoengineering. Most of these "evaluation type studies" have either rejected
research altogether (the DEFRA paper) or called for some kind of long drawn out
research program (Koonin workshop) in which the authors are never able or
willing to pull the trigger and say what should be done and when.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Nissen
To: Veli Albert Kallio
Cc: John Davies ; gorm...@waitrose.com ; Geoengineering
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:43 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
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
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and
emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
