I have repeatedly asked John Nissen to remove my name from AMEG website and he has not complied with my requests.

[Ken Caldeira]

I have repeatedly asked to have my name removed from AMEG website and they have not complied with my requests.

I think this is entirely inappropriate and highly unprofessional behavior on the part of AMEG

I am not a supporter or member of AMEG and never have been.

They asked me a question and I answered. This does not give them the right to list me as an adviser.

Below is copies of emails I have sent to John Nissen:

I ask John to remove my name from the AMEG web site today.

I request that member of AMEG google my name and AMEG and send an email to every site associating me with AMEG saying that I do not now and never have had any association with AMEG (other than answering questions as I would for nearly anyone), that I am not a member of AMEG, that I do not consider myself to be an adviser of AMEG, that AMEG never obtained permission from me to list my name on their web site, and that they kept my name on their website despite my repeated requests to remove my name.

I would like to be cc'd on all of these emails.

--------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>	5/2/12
to John, Thomas, Michael

John,

I see I am listed on the page:   http://ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg 

While you are literally correct in saying that my advice was sought and obtained, listing my name is giving people the impression that I approve of AMEG statements.

Please remove my name from your web site as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Regards,

Ken Caldeira

------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>	5/2/12
to John

In general, you should contact people and seek their approval before listing their names on your site in any capacity.  Some people might be willing to give advice without wanting to be seen as "advisers" to your group

-------------------------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>	5/3/12
to John, Thomas, Michael

John,

I do not think the evidence for a powerful feedback involving arctic warming and catastrophic methane release has been established, nor do I think there is substantial evidence supporting this perspective.

I do not think it has a zero chance, but in IPCC parlance I would suggest it is very unlikely, if not exceptionally unlikely. 

However, I do not pretend to great expertise in this area, so my assessment of probabilities should bear little weight.

In any case, I already make enough reckless statements myself that I do not see benefit to myself of being associated with other people's reckless statements.

I find you to be a sympathetic man and I bear you no ill will. I have plenty of friends with whom I disagree, but I don't want to be associated with their comments either.

Regards,

Ken

------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>	May 29 (9 days ago)
to John

John,

This page has been brought to my attention. People are inferring from it that I share the views of AMEG.

http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg/contributors

In the preparation of the 2010 workshop report and AGU conference poster presentation, scientific and/or engineering advice was sought and obtained from the following people:
 
Ken Caldeira, Professor of Environmental Earth System Sciences, Stanford University, US

People are inferring from this that I share the views of AMEG.  I earlier requested that my name be removed and it was not.  I already have enough trouble with the ChemTrails folks and other nutters. They are using your site as further evidence that I am advocating geoengineering when I am in fact advocating only its research.

Thank you,

Ken

------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>	Jun 1 (6 days ago)
to John

John, 

Here is another site confusing me for an AMEG member: 

 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2013/05/29/climate-crisis-radical-action-or-a-new-battlefront-in-the-war-on-nature

Please remove my name from the AMEG web site ASAP.

Thanks,

Ken

------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

On 02/05/2012 17:00, Ken Caldeira wrote:

John,

I do not think the evidence for a powerful feedback involving arctic warming and catastrophic methane release has been established, nor do I think there is substantial evidence supporting this perspective.

I do not think it has a zero chance, but in IPCC parlance I would suggest it is very unlikely, if not exceptionally unlikely. 

However, I do not pretend to great expertise in this area, so my assessment of probabilities should bear little weight.

In any case, I already make enough reckless statements myself that I do not see benefit to myself of being associated with other people's reckless statements.

I find you to be a sympathetic man and I bear you no ill will. I have plenty of friends with whom I disagree, but I don't want to be associated with their comments either.

Regards,

Ken

------------------------------------

SUBJECT:  Please remove my name from AMEG web page

On 02/05/2012 11:00, Ken Caldeira wrote:

John,

I see I am listed on the page:   http://ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg 

While you are literally correct in saying that my advice was sought and obtained, listing my name is giving people the impression that I approve of AMEG statements.

Please remove my name from your web site as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Regards,

Ken Caldeira

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science 

Dept of Global Ecology

260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html

Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered

[John Nissen]

Hi Ken,

Please do not get upset with me.  I have been moving house, from London to Bath, and have not yet got round to dealing with all the emails. 

Your request is rather baffling, since you have been extremely supportive of me, and have produced papers showing how SRM geoengineering could be used for cooling the Arctic - which is the basis of the hope from AMEG that something can be done to save the sea ice. 

As you know, there is a clear exponential trend for September sea ice volume to zero by 2015, indicating the strong likelihood of little sea ice remaining during September 2015.  There is strong and growing evidence that the vicious cycle of warming of the Arctic and retreat of the sea ice is causing a non-linear decline in the temperature gradient between tropics and Arctic, which drives the polar jet stream.  This disruption of the jet stream, with more meandering and a greater tendency to get stuck in blocking patterns, contributes to the weather extremes and weather unpredictability which amount to abrupt climate change. 

The unpredictability makes it more difficult for farmers to plan ahead and one can observe that the weather extremes are leading to widespread crop failures. The situation is liable to get worse over the coming years if the Arctic continues to warm, with mass starvation in prospect.  Such changes, which climate scientists have warned about for the end of the century, are happening now.

Geoengineering has always been advocated, by yourself and others in the geoengineering group, as an emergency measure - only to be deployed when the risks involved in the deployment are significantly outweighed by the risks of not geoengineering.  We now have such a situation, where the risks of geoengineering to cool the Arctic pall into insignificance compared to the risks associated with disappearance of the Arctic sea ice.

So I have assumed, Ken, that you would continue to support the central aim of AMEG, which is to advocated measures that can save the sea ice and prevent a climate catastrophe.

If you really want to disassociate yourself with this aim, please let me know.  But I sincerely hope that you will remain supportive of AMEG, as you have been in the past.

Cheers,

John

P.S. I don't think that there has been anything on the AMEG site to suggest that you are, or have been, a member of AMEG, only that you have contributed expertise (and that reference has already been removed from the ABOUT AMEG page).  But if there is, I will gladly remove it. 

--

[Nathan Currier]

Hi, Ken - 

If you didn't see it, I had posted the following comment on that article yesterday, underscoring that you were certainly not part of AMEG. Funnily, I just looked

at the page you referenced, and saw that in fact I wasn't listed there as being part of it, which I might have assumed I would have been. Go figure. Anyhow, 

aside from all the issues with AMEG, I really don't think that these authors were working too hard on their fact checking, and were "having fun" with 

being able to draw you in to the mix in their zeal to bash the whole topic......thus my somewhat different focus than yours.....cheers, Nathan 

nathan currier says:

Today at 3:47 pm (32 minutes ago)

The authors write, “Personally, we much prefer to hear climate scientist James Hansen speak of a ‘planetary emergency’ (in view of last year’s record low Arctic sea ice cover),” and they go on to contrast Hansen’s desire to prevent further fossil fuel expansion with AMEG’s desire only for geoengineering.

I quoted Hansen, in a Huffington Post article last year, saying, on the very day of that lowest sea ice cover, during a presentation given for Greenpeace –

“If you need a rescue package, to some degree it inherently is geoengineering.”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-currier/saving-the-arctic-ice-gre_b_1960151.html)

The question is really, how far along are we now, and do we need the rescue package? If not, how bad will it get, and when?

To say that these authors don’t really know what they are talking about is actually a polite understatement. Almost every “factual” statement in the piece seems incorrect – for example, David Keith and Ken Caldeira are not remotely part of AMEG, and are in no direct contact that I am aware of with AMEG members, but are listed as though they were members of it. That kind of thing.

Everyone associated with AMEG obviously wants cuts in carbon emissions to near zero, although it is described in the piece as a group for which continued emissions are “fine.” You get the picture – this is grossly embarrassing and unprofessional stuff, replete with ludicrous photos of contrails, and probably not even worthy of the time it takes to respond to it.

But let me, while I’m about it, address a primary error or two. The authors do not seem to understand how the climate system works, and how near-term concerns can become vital to long-term interests as one approaches tipping points in the climate system. The kind of comprehensive, combined emissions reductions they mention are, without question, 100% vital, but don’t act quickly at all to reduce radiative forcing.

Now, Hansen, in fact, chose his words very carefully – such a rescue package is not, inherently, ONLY geoengineering. That is, indeed, a problem that is frequently not well articulated in these discussions – from either side. Therefore, I recently started 1250, at 1250now.org, to emphasize the kinds of things, outside of geoengineering, that can also come to the rescue for relatively quick temporary relief from a spiraling climate emergency like ours.

We’ll see whether these authors at least sign and spread around the petition at the 1250 homepage. As I said in a recent HuffPost piece about the group, those environmental groups that dislike geoengineering should be buzzing about 1250′s prescriptions like bees around honeysuckle. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t…..

[nathan currier]

Dear Albert - 

Of course you're right that the statement is untrue! Please read what I wrote once again! I was, in what you quoted, trying to paraphrase the authors' erroneous point of view! 

Then, in pointing out how terribly written the piece was, and wanting to give examples of this, I mentioned that, in fact, Ken and David Keith are not at all part of AMEG, and then went on to say - 

Everyone associated with AMEG obviously wants cuts in carbon emissions to near zero, although it is described in the piece as a group for which continued emissions are “fine.” You get the picture – this is grossly embarrassing and unprofessional stuff, replete with ludicrous photos of contrails, and probably not even worthy of the time it takes to respond to it.

cheers, Nathan 

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Veli Albert Kallio <albert...@hotmail.com> wrote:

This statement is utterly untrue:

The authors write, “Personally, we much prefer to hear climate scientist James Hansen speak of a ‘planetary emergency’ (in view of last year’s record low Arctic sea ice cover),” and they go on to contrast Hansen’s desire to prevent further fossil fuel expansion with AMEG’s desire only for geoengineering.
 

It is totally opposite what is the reality. At AMEG meetings there has never been  - any time - suggestion that there is a preference to geoengineering. The farthest I could think of that line of suggestion is that we may have discussed that due to economic realities, "realpolitik", the economic systems will not respond to the climate change due to economic costs of clean energy being more expensive in comparison to fossil fuels - to deliver profits - forcing geoengineering as second best option.
 
It has always been the "disgusting" option, Plan B. Not something that has been actively advocated as the best course of action. It is obvious that Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) does not make any sense if there are coal fired power stations digging more coal from soil. No one is prepared to bury carbon at great financial cost as long as others are digging it up at will.
 
The AMEC focus has been planning for emergency situations where the Arctic sea ice cover rapidly disintegrates with thawing Arctic permafrost soils and the Arctic Ocean's methane clathrates from sea bed becoming a rapid emitter of powerful greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) in large quantities and major hydroxyl reduction in the Arctic airmass as a result of inreased methane presence.

Arctic sea ice remains very fragmented and being pulverised by a persistent depression system that has been remaining around the North Pole since May, and still continuing. This causes vertical upwells and the pulverised ice has larger 3-dimensional surface area to mop up sun's heat. Also Russia has seen the earliest ever snow cover loss this year. Since the last year various sources has suggested that the Arctic Ocean ice cover might go as early as this summer, but AMEC suggests 2015.

I have been toting the North Pole ice cover break up to occur sometime after the year 2010 since 2005 when I set up the Frozen Istmuses Protection Campaign. Some of my conference highlights on this matter are World Water Week 2006 where I raised the matter on my presentation, and then in September 2007 (the following year) at the RSE Symposia organised by Kofi Annan and Jose Manuel Barroso when my previous years projections were going my way against 2100-2150 projections of the Arctic Council / IPCC. Even in February 2007 the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact Report", suggested that sea ice would go sometime 2100-2150, in any case no earlier than 2070. I am also advocate of the First Nations post-1992 Rio Earth Summit UN General Assembly investigation request motion that both the marine and terrestrial ice covers will respond very rapidly to any sustained warming of the polar regions with both land ice and sea ice destabilising very rapily. This is, of course, also raised by the ABC countries who are appalled by the dogmatism of the Western EU/US academia on "the slow ice cap responses".   

Regards,

Veli Albert
 

---

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:47:55 -0700
From: natcu...@gmail.com
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
CC: kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
Subject: [geo] Re: I have repeatedly asked John Nissen to remove my name from AMEG website and he has not complied with my requests.

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This statement is utterly untrue:

The authors write, “Personally, we much prefer to hear climate scientist James Hansen speak of a ‘planetary emergency’ (in view of last year’s record low Arctic sea ice cover),” and they go on to contrast Hansen’s desire to prevent further fossil fuel expansion with AMEG’s desire only for geoengineering.
 

It is totally opposite what is the reality. At AMEG meetings there has never been  - any time - suggestion that there is a preference to geoengineering. The farthest I could think of that line of suggestion is that we may have discussed that due to economic realities, "realpolitik", the economic systems will not respond to the climate change due to economic costs of clean energy being more expensive in comparison to fossil fuels - to deliver profits - forcing geoengineering as second best option.
 
It has always been the "disgusting" option, Plan B. Not something that has been actively advocated as the best course of action. It is obvious that Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) does not make any sense if there are coal fired power stations digging more coal from soil. No one is prepared to bury carbon at great financial cost as long as others are digging it up at will.
 
The AMEC focus has been planning for emergency situations where the Arctic sea ice cover rapidly disintegrates with thawing Arctic permafrost soils and the Arctic Ocean's methane clathrates from sea bed becoming a rapid emitter of powerful greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) in large quantities and major hydroxyl reduction in the Arctic airmass as a result of inreased methane presence.

Arctic sea ice remains very fragmented and being pulverised by a persistent depression system that has been remaining around the North Pole since May, and still continuing. This causes vertical upwells and the pulverised ice has larger 3-dimensional surface area to mop up sun's heat. Also Russia has seen the earliest ever snow cover loss this year. Since the last year various sources has suggested that the Arctic Ocean ice cover might go as early as this summer, but AMEC suggests 2015.

I have been toting the North Pole ice cover break up to occur sometime after the year 2010 since 2005 when I set up the Frozen Istmuses Protection Campaign. Some of my conference highlights on this matter are World Water Week 2006 where I raised the matter on my presentation, and then in September 2007 (the following year) at the RSE Symposia organised by Kofi Annan and Jose Manuel Barroso when my previous years projections were going my way against 2100-2150 projections of the Arctic Council / IPCC. Even in February 2007 the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact Report", suggested that sea ice would go sometime 2100-2150, in any case no earlier than 2070. I am also advocate of the First Nations post-1992 Rio Earth Summit UN General Assembly investigation request motion that both the marine and terrestrial ice covers will respond very rapidly to any sustained warming of the polar regions with both land ice and sea ice destabilising very rapily. This is, of course, also raised by the ABC countries who are appalled by the dogmatism of the Western EU/US academia on "the slow ice cap responses".   

Regards,

Veli Albert
 

---

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:47:55 -0700
From: natcu...@gmail.com
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
CC: kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

Subject: [geo] Re: I have repeatedly asked John Nissen to remove my name from AMEG website and he has not complied with my requests.

[Jim Lee]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:

It is totally opposite what is the reality. At AMEG meetings there has never been  - any time - suggestion that there is a preference to geoengineering. 

This statement is false.  AMEG not only has a preference for geoengineering, but appears to endorse methane hydrate fracking as an alternative to a clathrate gun doom scenario.

In AMEG's strategic plan, they urge funding the Silver Lining cloud brightening boats and deploying them by March 2013, as well as using commercial flight contrails to cool the arctic, relaxing bunker fuel restrictions on boats for the same purpose, stockpiling SRM chemicals, and outfitting planes to spray them to reflect sunlight now.  See this Strategic Plan:

1. Consider practices and regulations that are having, or risk having, a heating effect on the Arctic.  A postponement of drilling in the Arctic would be sensible, because of inevitable escape of methane but also because of the risk of blowout with or without oil spill.

2. Try to maintain or even enhance the current cooling effect from currently emitted sulphate aerosols in the troposphere at mid to high northern latitudes.  For example the regulation to ban bunker fuel for ships should be relaxed while encouraging continued use of bunker fuel where the resulting aerosol emissions might be beneficial.  Reduction of sulphate aerosol ‘pollution’ will be unpopular with many environment groups, but the priority to cool the Arctic has to be established.

3. Establish the positive and negative net forcing from contrails, and encourage flight paths of commercial airplanes to reduce positive or increase negative net forcing.  The ban on polar flights, lifted recently, should be reintroduced.
   (Editors Note: Weather and Climate Engineering – William Cotton at the AMS )

4. Reduce black carbon into Arctic.  Make for preparedness to fight tundra fires in Arctic and sub-Arctic.

5. Find ways to remove black carbon from coal fired power stations, while allowing or compensating for the cooling effect that their aerosol emissions would be producing without the scrubbing out of sulphur compounds.

GEOENGINEERING ACTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE REFLECTION OF SUNLIGHT BACK INTO SPACE AND FOR INCREASING THE THERMAL ENERGY EMITTED INTO SPACE.

1. Prepare the supply and logistics for spraying aerosol precursor in large quantities, preferably into the lower stratosphere, for deployment by next March or April (not sooner because the risk of ozone depletion).  Of course, possible negative impacts have to be considered before large scale deployment, but it is worth being fully prepared for such deployment on the assumption that this technique can be made to work effectively.
2. Develop and test the deployment of suitably reflective particles, of such materials as TiO2, as alternative or supplement to sulphate aerosol.  Prepare for large scale deployment.   
3. Finance the development of, and deployment capability for, marine cloud brightening, with a view to deployment on a large scale in spring 2013 – assuming that is the earliest conceivable time.  The main technical problem seems to be with the jets, so experts from major companies in the ink-jet technology field need to be brought in.  Boats and land installations need to be kitted out.
4. Finance the development and deployment capability for cirrus cloud removal, since this is a promising technique.  Suitable chemicals need to be identified/confirmed, with stock-piling of these cloud seeding chemicals.  Aircraft need to be kitted out to spray these chemicals.
5. Finance brainstorming sessions for geoengineering, with top scientists and engineers, such as to suggest further measures, improvements to above techniques and the development of other intervention ideas.
6. Finance the research and trials of all promising techniques for helping to cool the Arctic, including the three geoengineering techniques above.  Update Earth System models to deal with the actualities of sea ice retreat, such that the effects of different techniques can be modelled and optimum joint deployment strategies established.

MEASURES TO REDUCE MORE SPECIFIC RISKS FROM ARCTIC WARMING:

1. Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for dealing with methane, especially the reduction of methane from wetlands draining into the Arctic.  Use of diatoms to promote methanotrophs (and healthy conditions for fish) is one such technique.
2. Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for dealing with surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and for reducing the speed of ice mass discharge.  The latter is accelerated by warm water at the sea termination of glaciers; therefore consideration should be given to techniques to cool this water.
3. Consider techniques for reducing Arctic storms and their strength.  Techniques should be developed for reducing the frequency and severity of tropical storms, such as to minimise damage, especially to agriculture and low-lying conurbations.
4. Consider techniques for un-sticking of blocked weather patterns.
5. Consider techniques for improving surface albedo of sea, lakes, snow and ice by brightening water with bubbles, covering snow and ice with white granules or sheets to prolong albedo, draining pools on ice, forming ice on pools, depositing snow on ice (as fresh snow has a higher albedo) and on land, discouraging growth of plants with low albedo, etc.

Note that a new idea for improving surface albedo has been suggested in a paper to the AGU 2012, supported by AMEG founder member, Peter Wadhams..  His research on iceberg calving has led to ideas for reducing discharge of ice from the GIS.

A word of warning about finance of research, development and field trials: it is important that the results of such activities are independent, unbiased and free from financial interest.

Food security actions
Immediate actions to be initiated:

1. Overall there is an immediate requirement for all major governments to establish an emergency ‘watchdog’ committee for internal and world food security issues. This committee should have direct access to the leadership of individual nations and include their UN Ambassador. The associated costs, in terms of humanitarian impacts alone, should warrant this move. When the assessed cost of the potentially associated national economic factors are weighed, there should be little disagreement regarding the necessity for establishing this ‘watchdog’ committee.
2. The US Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”), a provision of the US Energy Policy Act of 2005, should be evaluated for a temporary stay. Depending entirely on the US corn harvest, this could transfer between 4 to 5 billion bushels back to the food market. That would reduce upward price pressure in the cereals markets and further assist by suppressing speculation in that area of food commodities.
3. The European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC should similarly be reviewed and measures put in place to temporarily divert all relevant crops from the fuel to the food market.
4. In both cases outlined in points 3 & 4 the emphasis should be on ‘temporary emergency measures’ and should only be applicable to crops that can be diverted to the food chain.
5. A general directive should be agreed between all nations at the UN to prohibit the sale of OTC derivatives, in any nation, by any ‘seller’, that have any content relative to food commodities. This action will assist in dissuading institutional investors speculating in food commodities.
6. If the crisis deepens point 4 should be further reinforced by prohibiting futures contracts in food commodities being sold to any entity who will not take actual delivery of the contracted goods. Great care will be necessary with this proposal as it is known that hedge funds, and investment banks, have established warehousing to control certain commodity pricing. Typical examples are the attempted 2010 cornering of the world cocoa market by a UK hedge fund and the current Goldman Sachs control of the US aluminium market.
7. An alternative international seed bank must be created to provide seeds for subsistence farmers; ones that are devoid of the ‘terminator’ gene. In periods of high crop failure the inability to harvest seeds for the coming year has a crippling impact on subsistence farmers. Note that it is estimated 160,000 Indian farmers alone have committed suicide since 1967 due in part to this situation.

Following the launch of AMEG’s ‘Strategic Plan’ the above actions will be communicated to all world leaders and relevant parties in the form of an ‘Essential Action Plan’ to match the pending circumstances of the change in the world’s weather patterns.  For further details, see the website of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at AMEG.me or contact AMEG Chair John Nissen at: johnnis...@gmail.com

AMEG sent this letter to world leaders:

"A runway effect… We cannot go there." The only way to prevent this critical situation from developing into a global catastrophe is through international recognition of the issue, and collaboration on the immediate and urgent intensification of scientific inquiry and the emergency scale development of countermeasures such as geoengineering to cool the Arctic.

UK Government Response to AMEG’s call for Geoengineering | Link

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT BASED ON NON-EXISTING OBSERVATIONS, SAYS AMEG | Link

AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, hereby formally complains to the UK government that the observations to which they refer in their statement [1] do not exist. The observations taken directly from the ice and recently from satellite, support a very simple model of sea ice behaviour – that the melting, as reflected by the volume average for particular months, is closely following an exponential trend, towards zero for September 2015.

Behind AMEG's public calls for geoengineering, are close ties to a methane blowout in the North Sea, the ANGELS proposal calling for drilling methane hydrates, and Project Lucy calling for microwave generators to turn atmospheric methane into noctilucent diamond SRM clouds.  References below:

• Natural Gas and the Invisible Spill: How Much Methane Is Reaching the Atmosphere? | Total SA North Sea Platform blowout releases 350,000,000 cubit feet of methane gas. Official Response | Video

• The ANGELS Proposal – Arctic Natural Gas Extraction Liquefaction Sales: A Proposal for the Prevention of Arctic Methane | Link
  

View this document on Scribd

• A Proposal for the Prevention of Arctic Methane Induced Catastrophic Global Climate Change by Extraction of Methane from beneath the Permafrost/Arctic Methane Hydrates and its Storage and Sale as a Subsidized “Green Gas” Energy Source | Arctic News Blog | After 2015, when the Arctic Ocean becomes navigable (Figure 5 above, Carana 2012b) it will be possible to set up a whole series of drilling platforms adjacent to, but at least 1 km away from the high volume methane eruption zones and to directionally drill inclined wells down to intersect the free methane below the sealing methane hydrate permafrost cap within the underlying fault network (Figure 18 above).

June 2012

• Project Lucy: Radio Transmitter to decompose methane v2
• Project Lucy Extended Version 4, Arctic News Blog | Link
• GEOENGINEERING ARCTIC COSTS
  1. R&D and testing (this proposal)
  2. Political negotiations (could be covered under existing diplomacy financial budgets)
  3. Transport and installation (could be covered under existing military budgets)
  4. Energy supply (could be provided by nuclear submarines)
  5. Operational cost (could be part of military budgets)Project Lucy is part of a range of geo-engineering efforts to reduce warming in the Arctic. Other methods include:
  - Methane capture in the Arctic
  - Spraying particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space
  - Pyrolysis of organic waste and carbon burial, to reduce atmospheric CO2 and soot The need to act on methane in the Arctic is such that, most likely, a range of methods will need to be deployed in parallel. Lucy has the potential to be very effective, as it can decompose methane while any resulting nano diamond powder could also reflect sunlight back into space.Project Lucy therefore aims to design, build and test a microwave transmission system targeting low-altitude methane clouds with the aim of breaking the first C-H bond as soon as the methane erupts into the atmosphere from the Arctic Ocean. The transmitters can be mounted on submarines, planes and after 2015 on boats and drilling rigs when the Arctic ice cap has melted (Arctic News, 2012).

 Meanwhile, Japan is already fracking "fire ice" methane hydrates:

Japan achieves first gas extraction from offshore methane hydrate

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-methane-hydrates-japan-idUSBRE92B07620130312

So much for the clathrate gun?

Jim Lee

http://terraforminginc.com/

[nathan currier]

To the extent this comment is responding to anything that I wrote, let me just clarify: while I have already voiced my opposition elsewhere to a fair number of the items on the lists you reprint, none of that negates what I just wrote, which is that, for the members of AMEG, all of their proposals are of course intended to be complementary to GHG emissions reductions.  

best, Nathan 

[John Nissen]

Dear Ken,

I never received a reply on the geoengineering list to explain your lack of support for AMEG - which has recently amounted to a condemnation.

AMEG has always stood by the strength of its science, and the scientific basis for its arguments.  This is how it has maintained its integrity. 

As you know, AMEG has been challenged on its science by certain organisations.  You have not supported the AMEG science.  AMEG has Peter Wadhams among its founder members, and has consulted other top experts on Arctic sea ice science.  AMEG considers that there is very strong scientific evidence for there being a vicious cycle of warming and melting in the Arctic, producing an exponential trend in the sea ice volume towards zero for September sea ice by 2015.  AMEG also considers that Jennifer Francis has strong scientific argument and evidence for the influence of the sea ice decline on Northern Hemisphere weather, producing weather extremes and crop failures.  AMEG has put two and two together, to argue that there is a planetary emergency and the urgent requirement to cool the Arctic, break the vicious cycle and save the sea ice.  AMEG has calculated that it will require hundreds of terawatts of cooling power to save the sea ice, therefore some kind of geoengineering will be required. 

So we challenge you to find counter evidence to show where our science, our maths or our logic is wrong.

Best wishes,

John Nissen

Chair AMEG

P.S. I trust this will be posted on the geoengineering list.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AMEG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to arcticmethan...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

John

If your argument is sound, publish it in a scientific journal.  Ken is under no obligation to respond to your unpublished and non-peer-reviewed speculation.

I suggest you refer to Lenton's work on the Arctic, which fits the data well. By my understanding, it does not necessarily point to an entirely ice free arctic, but rather to a new, stable low ice state.

A

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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.

[Veli Albert Kallio]

As per AMEG's position we gave the attached recommendations to start the geoengineering this year, if it were possible, with the objective of saving the Arctic Ocean's sea ice cover and preventing sunlight exposure to the Arctic Ocean sea bed where there are plenty of melting methane clathrates. 

I understand that for some like Jim it is easier to kick the cat (AMEG), while others like IPCC and the Arctic Council prefer "to kick the can along the road" with their time setting for ice disappearance to year 2100, or whatever, in the false hope that the immediate problem would somehow "fade away".

The fact remains that the Arctic Ocean sea ice cap is now being pulverised by (1.) ice cover that is thinned to the point that the internal strength of the sea ice was no longer able to resist (i) forces of the ocean waves during storms, (ii) the pulling effects of the ocean currents, (iii) the drafts by wind.
 
I am, therefore, enclosing the very latest images of the pulverising ice cover in the Arctic Ocean as per the images provided by the University of Bremen of sea ice (13th June 2013). The degree of ice cover pulverisation on the Arctic Basin, or the Central Arctic, or the North Pole (choose whatever term you wish), but the fact remains that the entire Arctic Ocean ice cover is put at immediate risk.
 
This is NOT within the attached 18-88 year time bar provided by Professor Sir John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Advisor on behalf of Rt. Hon. David Cameron, MP, the UK Prime Minister to AMEG on 30th May 2012 which suggested that the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover will melt up to 88 years, and in no case it would melt earlier than some time after 2030 (still for another 18 years).
 
The above statement was contradicted in a leak just three weeks later from the US government files on 26th June 2012 to UK publishers saying that "watery" Arctic was the key event of the coming year, further giving instructions to the US diplomatic corps to prepare for political storm over the matter between July and before September when the Arctic Ocean presumably would start re-freezing. It specifically advised that there was a likely confrontation between world powers (US, EU, Russia and China) over the melt away of the "eternal" ice cap from the North Pole due to our greenhouse gases.
 
This leak and headline section of the US political plan had separately reached Russia as well.

I underline once again that the storm surges flushing now warm waters over methane clathrates over the seas north of Russia is a virtual nightmare scenario in climate change emission planning to curb global warming. (i) The storm surge damage is coupled with (ii) sunlight penetration to seabed and (iii) local vertical overturning of seas due to pack ice, topographic constrains and topology of sea bed.

When AMEG stated that geoengineering needed to start this year, it merely stated the plain fact that according to some models (that the US military wished to keep out of spotlight) there were strong anticipation that the overall thickness of the Arctic Ocean ice cover was about to fall this summer BELOW the critical point where the surviving sea ice cover would provide a reliable and robust cover for their nuclear submarines hiding under it. As expected by the US Navy the ice cover now pulverises.
 
That is the end of the hide and seek games for US submarines which now will be increasingly easy to spot (just like those of their eternal adversary, the Russian Navy).

AMEG has NEVER had any interest in trying to keep the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover strong in order to provide reliable cover for the American, or Russian, or even English submarine fleets, but AMEGs position has been that snow and ice over the North Pole reflects sunlight away and so cools Greenland and the rest of the Arctic due to albedo effect snow and ice. The sea ice, furthermore, hides the methane clathrates under ice cover from the direct sunlight and atmospheric heat, plus provides the ocean a "lid" which constrained storm surges and the vertical overturning of the ocean due to winds, waves, ice floes, pack ice and sea bottom topographic constraints that mix surface and bottom water.
 
As per the UK Government, the Hadley Centre, had suggested a maximum melt away time of 68 years when we were presenting evidence at the UK Houses of Parliament Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) in February 2012 session. However, the UK Government spin doctors intentionally, or inadvertently spin doctored the wording such a way that 2080 could now be read as "by the end of 21st century", thus adding another possible 20 years more time for the Arctic sea ice cover melting from that 2080 provided by the Hadley Centre. Whether this was intentional, or accidental extension of time cannot be proven, but however it seems rather odd that on the other side of the Atlantic pond US Navy was preparing for watery year 2013 in the Arctic Ocean as the critical ice thickness was lost.
 
Thus AMEG recommendations below were appropriate action at the time given to the government:

1. Prepare the supply and logistics for spraying aerosol precursor in large quantities, preferably into the lower stratosphere, for deployment by next March or April (not sooner because the risk of ozone depletion). Of course, possible negative impacts have to be considered before large scale deployment, but it is worth being fully prepared for such deployment on the assumption that this technique can be made to work effectively.
 
3. Finance the development of, and deployment capability for, marine cloud brightening, with a view to deployment on a large scale in spring 2013 – assuming that is the earliest conceivable time. The main technical problem seems to be with the jets, so experts from major companies in the ink-jet technology field need to be brought in. Boats and land installations need to be kitted out.
 
HOWEVER, many thanks for Jim Lee once again pointing our above recommendations at AMEG out. We have always wanted an effective action to save the Arctic sea ice, to keep methane clathrates and permafrost safe, as much as Greenland Ice Sheet which will flood world's coastal towns and agricultural lands when it probably collapses sometime soon after all sea ice has first melted away.
 
As per the terrestrial ice cover loss in the Arctic (Greenland Ice Sheet) I readily point out the ABC countries repeated warnings at the United Nations of the polar ice sheets may collapse suddenly. See the enclosed due diligence investigation by the UN Secretary-general's office called by the Republic of Chile and Her Excellency President Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007 after the pleadings of their and Argentinean glaciologists had gone unheeded since 1995 in the scientific press headed by the EU/US led academia (copy enclosed).

I am also enclosing the statement by the Argentinean glaciologists which finally appeared as a fringe mention on July 2012 issue of The Scientific American on the "ice sheet thrust". Melville Bay coastal fringes and the Independence Fjord in the North East Greenland represent similar risks to the perimeter. Melville Bay area is already seeing (i) exponential intensification in glacial earthquakes as the wet ice sheet slabs slide now more over bedrocks triggering old dormant faults in them, (ii) the ground subsidence as the warming and increasingly watery ice gets ever heavier on ground, (iii) the evidence of ancient turbidic mud and rock falls off-shore, (iv) silt filled crevasses and faults off shore where bedrock appears fragmented in the area, (v) topografic deformations on surface rocks. 
 
AMEG simply states we need Arctic sea ice to keep methane clathrates, permafrost and Greenland safe. Once the Arctic Ocean is without ice cover and Greenland surrounded by dark open oceans everywhere, the problems are just going to multiply and intensify - not to stop at the loss of sea ice.  

So, AMEG was only just stating the fact that we needed geoengineering this year to secure the sea ice.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this important issue from all sides of the aisle on this debate!!!
 
Kind regards,

Veli Albert
 

---

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:31:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: I have repeatedly asked John Nissen to remove my name from AMEG website and he has not complied with my requests.
From: natcu...@gmail.com
To: rez...@gmail.com
CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.com; kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.