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 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. -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to 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/197222280/direct/01/ Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now -- 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.
