Hi John,
Again here I note same issue as in the first letter that it overstates, "might possibly" could be more prudent as per Tom's response. It is not a scientific statement or factual. However, to hear latest you might refer to people like Euan Nisbet on the condition of methane clathrates (but I believe these be in good order this year as the Arctic Ocean has been thowing its ice largely around its perimeter while the near areas of the North Pole have seen sea ice cove has broaken up and sea ice pushed south against the perimeter. The ice cover has been 3/4-4/5 or 70-80% on the North Pole while much of perimeter near 100%). I do believe that there are major climate problems brewing. In addition, I have been offered US$150,000 to stop talking about global warming (with a massive expendability options rising to millions of US dollars). As per LLU Geoscience institute (in the past) offering me a field trip research grant of a generous US$2,000, these sums offered by the academic reseach people including RGS don't make any economic sense to realise any research. Should I just go to see polar bears in Greenland, or join a tourist entertaining expedition to Antarctica (and pay the other half of the bill out of my own pocket.)? It seems business has lots of money, interest, and somehow it has now enlightend to me that there will always be some odd scientist making claims on contrary to mainline of man-made global warming thinking. After I sign the contract, I must stop talking about any global warming and climate change for the native americans. Anyone else willing to throw us some funds in millions to spade through Greenland's ice dome to prove or disapprove the native americans claim to the United Nations' General Assembly that "we came first, then came the ice, then then ice melted, and after that the present age came". As the native americans want to get a short life cosmogenic carbon-14 run on a mass spectrometer from a pre-glaciation era biomaterials from beneath Greenland Ice Dome (in order to prove their native recollections that the ice age resulted from mass vapurisation of ocean due to some the runaway lava floods around Icealand) and the ice therefore came and went quickly for them to recollect it. As I have not other funds promised to this undertaking, I better to take what is given and leave other academics to delibrate years and orbits of the solar system and ice. They seem to offer guarantee to install the perimeter monitoring equipment, but reserve right to disseminate information at times suitable for them (whatever that then may mean?). As per my own position, after quarter of million dollars gone in the native americans stuff, I am in no position to continue sponsoring any expeditions, promos or delegations anymore and largely given up and therefore accepting the questionnable money from the oil people. I suggest, that you consult seabed and permafrost experts in case they have any news. I have noted Yakutia has been extremely warm all summer meaning that the permafrost must have been melting all the way to the coast. There must be someone working in that area. Kind regards, Albert > Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:57:34 -0600 > From: wig...@ucar.edu > To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk > CC: 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 > Subject: 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. > > _________________________________________________________________ http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ -- 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.
