SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren

[John Nissen]

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

[William Fulkerson]

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 RD&D 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 RD&D 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

[Guy Lakeman]

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

///

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@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

[John Latham]

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 R&D 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).

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>

--
John Latham

lat...@ucar.edu   &    john.l...@manchester.ac.uk

Tel. 303-444-2429 (H)    &  303-497-8182 (W)

[Tom Wigley]

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.

+++++++++++++

[Veli Albert Kallio]

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: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com; pw...@cam.ac.uk; gor...@waitrose.com; albert...@hotmail.com; sam.c...@gmail.com; S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lin...@apl.washington.edu; ser...@kryos.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren

---

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

[Guy Lakeman]

since the industrial revolution 200  years ago bringing all that carbon that was locked away by nature a long time ago has caused a load of eco problems to our existence ...

///

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Guy Lakeman <guy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

CERN is a HQ of dedicated thought for knowledge with MANY academic participants due to teh huge data availability

same is required for global geo climate, from what i understand moreso

my studies in astrophysics seem to pale into insignificance when it comes to down to earth problems (pun or no pun intended)

the localised chaos theory associated with the life balance of this planet are immense

////

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Guy Lakeman <guy.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

agreed!

--

[John Nissen]

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

---

[David Schnare]

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.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[Veli Albert Kallio]

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: xben...@gmail.com
To: dwsc...@gmail.com
CC: wig...@ucar.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengi...@googlegroups.com; pw...@cam.ac.uk; gor...@waitrose.com; albert...@hotmail.com; sam.c...@gmail.com; S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lin...@apl.washington.edu; ser...@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.

---

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.

[oli...@nmt.edu]

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:

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now. --

[John Nissen]

Dear Oliver,

We have already been waiting too long.  The ice volume is way down, according to PIOMAS.  And read Albert's email - many ice experts are extremely concerned about the general trend.  However the person I trust most is Peter Wadhams, because years ago he helped to highlight the problem of positive feedback which is causing the acceleration of Arctic warming.

BTW, I don't want to make too much of the Manhattan analogy, because I'm not a historian, but one of the reasons for referring to Manhattan, was that the project was to counter a particular threat, which could have altered history - namely Hitler developing the atomic bomb before US.  By the nature of the threat, the US didn't know how long they had.  In the Arctic, we are against powerful forces that could overcome us, if we don't get our skates on and fight with a concerted effort.  Because we don't know how long we've got, we've just got to work like fury to reduce the risk of catastrophe.  That's how I see it.  Our most precious comodity is time - delay will be our ultimate downfall.

Cheers,

John

---

[Veli Albert Kallio]

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: dwsc...@gmail.com
To: wig...@ucar.edu
CC: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengi...@googlegroups.com; pw...@cam.ac.uk; gor...@waitrose.com; albert...@hotmail.com; sam.c...@gmail.com; S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lin...@apl.washington.edu; ser...@kryos.colorado.edu

[John Nissen]

Dear Ron,

The letter argues that geoengineering is now our only hope - our only option to avoid sea ice disappearance and the possibility of catastrophic methane release - since only geoengineering can act quickly enough to cool the Arctic.  Procrastination will reduce chances of success, as well as increase chances of unmanageable side effects.

Cheers,

John

---

Ron Lindsay wrote:

Please do not add my name to the letter.  I think geoengineering is a false hope and highly prone to unintended consequences.

    -- Ron

[Yousif Masoud]

On 13/07/10 23:43, John Nissen wrote:

Dear Ron,

The letter argues that geoengineering is now our only hope - our only option to avoid sea ice disappearance and the possibility of catastrophic methane release - since only geoengineering can act quickly enough to cool the Arctic.  Procrastination will reduce chances of success, as well as increase chances of unmanageable side effects.

Cheers,

John

---

In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only option" (precisely like Software Development).  There are always plenty of options.  You are making bold claims to a problem you have not provided an adequate quantitative examination of.

At this juncture, there is a lack of peer-reviewed scientific observations that corroborate your claims.  Consequently, stating that a specific solution is our "only hope" to solve a problem that not everyone in this group is convinced exists is not going to be considered favorably.

As has been pointed out by various members of this list, what is required is more data so that a strong scientific report could be produced that provides a *quantitative* measure of our current situation.  Once this is understood, I'm sure it would be possible to suggest more solutions.  Perturbing a chaotic dynamical system should only be considered as a last resort.

When the Manhattan Project was commissioned, there was a clear and present danger.  In your case you are requesting (very) large scale action based on qualitative arguments, predictions and models (many of which are strongly contested).

I would like to emphasize that I am just as concerned as all of you about pollution and climate change.  Homo Sapiens must respect nature much, much more.

Regards,
Yousif

[Glyn Roberts]

Two comments on the letter proposal...

1. "Only a few scientists predicted this event for the coming decade,
and they were ridiculed". This sour grapes statement does not
strengthen a case for geoengineering. Then 'many more' scientists
now agree with the more severe assessment -- that implies the number
is still in the minority. Do you really expect action until you can
say that the vast majority of scientists now agree with the direction.

2. I think the tone of the request should be explicitly to urgently
*prepare* a SRM deployment capability, not for its ASAP deployment as
implied. Deployment would be a second gate. We will lose precious
time to develop a viable system if we try to pass the deployment gate
first. At the same time a governance framework needs to be
established and the holistic long-term consequences of any deployment
need to be far better quantified - how safe is it. This work should
be acknowledged as part of the process.

A comment to Jousif...

You say: "In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only
option"". That's a fine motivational cliche but it is not hard coded
into science that N=>2, where N is the number of options. It is of
course entirely possible that SRM is the only thing we could do to
stop catastrophic climate change. That's not to say that this has yet
been adequately established within the scientific community.

Best regards,

Glyn

[Yousif Masoud]

On 14/07/10 20:59, Glyn Roberts wrote:
> 2. I think the tone of the request should be explicitly to urgently
> *prepare* a SRM deployment capability, not for its ASAP deployment as
> implied. Deployment would be a second gate. We will lose precious
> time to develop a viable system if we try to pass the deployment gate
> first. At the same time a governance framework needs to be
> established and the holistic long-term consequences of any deployment
> need to be far better quantified - how safe is it. This work should
> be acknowledged as part of the process.
>
> A comment to Jousif...
>
> You say: "In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only
> option"". That's a fine motivational cliche but it is not hard coded
> into science that N=>2, where N is the number of options. It is of
> course entirely possible that SRM is the only thing we could do to
> stop catastrophic climate change. That's not to say that this has yet
> been adequately established within the scientific community.
>

Developing SRM capabilities should be considered very seriously.

Here's my formulation of the original letter:

Let S = {x : x is a solution to a potential problem that is going to end
life as we know it}

Can you prove that the cardinality of S is 1?

I would argue that funding is necessary to establish a rigorous, widely
accepted definition of the problem. Spoken languages (the ones I know
at least) are not expressive enough.

Regards,
Yousif

[Glyn Roberts]

It's impossible to *prove* S = 1. In fact, coaxing the Earth out to a
higher orbit might work, but that's not something we could conceivably
do. Meanwhile an undiscovered 'practical solution' doesn't help us,
and there are probably a lot of people scratching their heads looking
for one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "establish a rigorous, widely accepted
definition of the problem." If I were to take a stab at that it would
be:

Climate change could, before the end of this century, through loss of
arable land and migration of insects and pathogens, cause 'permanent'
(>1,000 years) disruption of the global food production capability,
cause the fragile global economy to collapse, and greatly reduce the
human population that the planet is able to support. And a large,
rapid change to the climate may exceed the adaptive capability of
ecosystems and biomes, and therefore trigger massive extinctions.
Mitigation alone may not be sufficient to prevent this outcome, and
CDR may prove not to be viable.

As you expertly expressed "Developing SRM capabilities should be
considered very seriously."

Glyn

[John Nissen]

Dear all,

I have tried to summarise the arguments various people have made for not supporting the letter, listing six main issues below.

If this letter is successful in drawing the attention of John Holdren, then one would expect him to refer to the experts in various areas to check out the evidence and the arguments.  The recipients of this email include top experts on Arctic sea ice, climate modelling and geoengineering.  Other recipients have access to such experts.  So no doubt Holdren will get back to several of you and your colleagues.
 
We have had considerable discussion about the issues during the course of the past few years, particularly since the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice in September 2007.  It was at that time that I became extremely concerned about the positive feedback building up in the Arctic, and my concerns were confirmed in a briefing by David Wasdell and Peter Wadhams entitled “Accelerated Global Warming” at Tomorrow’s Company in February 2008 [1].  David impressed me by his understanding of the nature of positive feedback, and how it had been largely neglected by climate scientists, particularly in the 2007 IPCC report.  Peter added his knowledge and understanding of the Arctic sea ice, to present a very alarming picture of the situation.  David was keen to distinguish being alarmist from being honest about an alarming situation.  And the more I have looked into the science, the more alarmed I have become.
 
But I have been most puzzled by the reaction from scientists.  There has been a refusal to accept the danger of the situation and what can be done about it.  Perhaps I have been fundamentally wrong about some critical piece of evidence or crucial part of the argument.   I wish, I wish, that somebody could prove me wrong.  But I refuse to be comforted by a cosy consensus that seems to propagate the idea that there’s nothing to worry about.  For example it has been said, by a past government adviser at a House of Commons seminar, that we won’t need geoengineering for at least 30 years [2].  The Royal Society study on geoengineering didn’t address the Arctic sea ice problem at all [3].
 
So where could I be wrong?  What arguments are there against the letter to Holdren?
 

1. Sea ice retreat could be much slower

 
This is the argument that the sea ice could last till well beyond 2050.  Certainly this is possible.  But can we bank on it, given the current evidence of sea ice volume decline?  Isn’t it wiser to take the precautionary approach and work on the assumption that the sea ice retreat will happen quicker than expected, rather than slower?
 

2. Methane not a menace

 
Tom Wigley was concerned with this passage:
 
"... 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."
 
It is now generally recognised that there is a vast amount of carbon locked in frozen structures within the Arctic region, and, as temperatures rise, it will emerge in ever increasing quantities. 
 
I replied to Tom in detail on 12^th July, 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 accelerating 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].

 
[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
 

3. Best to wait until things get worse

 
When you are fighting a fire, you don’t wait to see if the fire has taken hold.  If a patient is ill, with a significant chance of cancer, you don’t delay treatment.  The longer we wait to apply geoengineering, the less likely it is to succeed in cooling the Arctic.
 

4. Geoengineering is too dangerous

 
One has to balance the risks of geoengineering against the risks of not geoengineering.  The latter are clearly so high that they almost certainly dwarf the possible adverse effects of geoengineering.  We’ve had a long discussion about this on the geoengineering list.  In particular, a few people have argued that SRM could adversely affect monsoons, but the modelling seems inconclusive as to the possible size of this effect and even its direction.
 
Again the fire-fighting analogy comes in: if a building is on fire, your main concern is putting out the fire, not worrying about the damage to contents from fire extinguisher fluid.  However you will try to use effective extinguishing techniques that avoid damage to the furniture.  And you will certainly avoid techniques that could fan the flames.
 

5. Geoengineering can’t be the only option

 
Unfortunately geoengineering does seem to be the only option to cool the Arctic and save the Arctic sea ice.  In the letter we say that “even if emissions could be cut to zero, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to warm the planet for many decades.”  Therefore there can be no cooling effect from emissions reduction.  CO2 removal would have to bring the level down below pre-industrial level to have a negative forcing on the climate – and that clearly cannot be done in the necessary time-scale.  So we are left with geoengineering as the only option.  Note that geoengineering can be defined as “deliberate intervention to change climate”, and this is what we need to do in the Arctic to cool it.
 

6. We need more research on geoengineering

 
Having a project “of the intensity of the Manhattan project” does not rule out further research.  But it does stress that time is of the essence, to reduce the risk of being too late.  The risk of being too late is growing with all delay, due to growing effects of positive feedback.  Thus first task of the project would be work out a plan of attack, to maximise chances of success.  Research can continue in parallel with preparations for deployment.  A mix of different techniques will no doubt be considered – some more ready for deployment than others.  
 
---

I hope everyone can now accept that the letter is grounded in good science and logical argument, as fitting to put to Professor Holdren. 

Put it another way.  Suppose this letter fails for lack of your support.  Can you imagine looking back from the future and thinking: “Wasn’t it a shame we screwed up the planet, when we knew we could have saved it, if only we’d pressed for geoengineering earlier”?

Best wishes,
 
John
 
[1] “Accelerated Global Warming”, see near bottom of this page:
http://www.tomorrowscompany.com/events.aspx
 
[2] Sir David King reported here:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/01/testing_geoengineering_a_catch_1.html
 
[3] Royal Society report ”Geoengineering the Climate”:
http://royalsociety.org/Geoengineering-the-climate/
 
--- 

[Glyn Roberts]

You say "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."

However in a 2007 review of scientific papers [1] it concluded that
permafrost methane was not a top priority tipping point issue "Recent
permafrost melt in Siberia has been described in the popular media as
a tipping point because it is accompanied by increased fluxes of
methane and carbon dioxide that contribute to the greenhouse effect.
However, existing future projections of permafrost melt, although
substantial, are quasi-linear and do not exhibit threshold behaviour
[ref provided in paper]. These projections ignore the positive
feedback from methane emissions, but it is estimated to be weak [ref
provided in paper] at the global scale and hence cannot promote a
strongly non-linear regional response. The inclusion of an estimated
∼400 PgC of methane stored in frozen hydrate reservoirs under the
boreal permafrost could strengthen the feedback somewhat. However, no
studies to date convincingly demonstrate that it is a tipping element
by our definition. "

Has their work been discredited in your opinion?

[1] "Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system", Lenton, et al
(see supporting information (SI) Appendix 1)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.long

Glyn

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

Did Glyn miss Boucher and Folberth, Atmospheric Environment 44 (2010)
3343–3345 which Ken circulated earlier this week?

Is the track record of prediction accuracy of climate scientists high
enough for us to bet the planet on them always being correct? The best
ones that I know are not that arrogant.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Glyn Roberts]

The article you/Ken cited is about methane capture. It is not a
research paper supporting the statement "we can expect permafrost to

release large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards"

I don't understand your use of the word arrogant. The danger of
climate change may exceed the scenario projections (not "predictions")
from the climate scientists. Likewise, the danger of geoengineering
may exceed the opinion of a few of those in this group. Either side
may claim arrogance. But I don't feel arrogance is the big factor --
intelligent, learned people will differ on the relative risks.

I side in favour of aggressively developing an SRM capability while
simultaneously advancing a viable governance framework and advancing
research to better quantify the environmental impact of deployment
(compared to a no-deployment baseline). I hope we could be ready with
those critical elements in a few years. That seems to me as the best
case scenario regardless of whether we have that much time to avoid
triggering tipping points.

[Nathan Currier]

Hi -

Tim Lenton is a great thinker and writer, but I imagine he might be
the first one to say that arctic methane escape has not been his own
area of expertise, and that more recent research such as the
International Siberian Shelf Sudy (Gustafsson et al, 2008) or that of
Shakhova, such as in Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 10
(Shakhova, N. et al. 2008) are most significant and suggestive. The
hydrates are becoming perforated, and clearly could become major
tipping points very soon.

At the same time, I’ve been in touch with Euan Nisbet within the last
few months, just when he was reporting to the UK parliament on the
current European methane inventory, and this year’s natural CH4
emissions estimates. Arctic release certainly is not yet a major part
of the global methane budget, and, as of a few months ago, I believe
this year had not grown greatly over last year (I’m sorry I don’t have
figures in front of me).

So, this is why I have hesitated to sign John Nissen’s letter to
Holdren in its current form (I'd be happy to sign if it is
appropriately altered, by the way): while I think greatly increased
research into SRM is absolutely vital, his letter makes it sound as
though some such program should actually be undertaken as soon as
possible, and is the only thing that can be done now – and that is
flat out wrong-headed, I believe. I’ve posted before here about
methane emissions. Simply put, the best, quickest way to staunch those
increasing natural CH4 emissions is probably still at this point by
rapidly reducing our own anthropogenic CH4 emissions. Despite talk of
how cheap SRM can be (Keith, etc.), I think that over time the best
value in total –RF/per $ could be shown to be methane emission
reductions. A total of ~250B$ could lead to a decline of human
emissions by about 33% (equal to some 60% of current global natural
emissions), and while the change would certainly not be felt over
months (taking fully ~15 yrs to reduce the methane RF by about 50%,
and equal to about one quarter of the net human RF since
industrialization), it demands no new research at all like
geoengineering does, and the effects should begin to be felt within a
few years of major emission declines. It would, of course, have zero
negative side effects, gets more to the root of our problem than any
geoengineering could, and should bring relief at a time scale
commensurate with the current growth of the arctic problem, which is
not taking place on a scale of months as of this time. It is further
politically much easier to do than any comprehensive GHG policy or
geoengineering, and it is utterly necessary that these emissions be
cut as soon as possible in any case. Robert Watson, former head of the
IPCC, started the Global Methane Fund during Copenhagen with much this
same logic in mind.

I would also like to mention something else. I think that there is a
mistakenly simplistic faith in arctic SRM’s immediate effectiveness
for the particular methane hydrate problem in the minds of Nissen and
some others posting at this site. I believe I’ve written about this
here before, without any response at all, but perhaps you would like
to consider it: a comparison of Wieslaw Maslowski’s more volume-based
ice modeling with that of others suggests that, if Maslowski is right,
warm water getting in through the Bering Strait is worth at least a
couple of decades of life for the summer arctic ice cover (i.e., the
year when the minima is more than 80% reduced from the 20yr average,
coming some decades earlier in his modelling than in most others). One
can only imagine how important that warmer water coming in through the
Bering Strait must be to the rapid destabilizing of the hydrates
currently underway, which are on the bottom of the shelf not far from
the Strait, compared to just the conditions at the surface above,
which is the focus of most SRM plans. Thus, since the warmer water
would still be coming in unimpeded and not need to travel very far, it
could be that such "arctic SRM" plans will not be nearly as effective
as hoped for this particular problem, at least not on a short time
scale. That is why I suggested a project – probably much easier to see
effectuated, in any case – to research the use of reflective floats
just south of the Strait to help cool the waters as they are coming
in. One year’s waste stream from the US alone of EPS and polyethylene
should be enough to cover the area. I am certainly not suggesting that
this idea could or should in any way replace sulfur-based or cloud
albedo-enhancing approaches, but that it might be useful in any case
to help deal with this most urgent question of methane hydrates, and
seems like as good a place to start as any.

Cheers,


Nathan

Nathan Currier
280 Ortman Rd.
Greenwood, VA 22943 US
540.456.8544

[David Schnare]

Time for a reality check.

It has been the slowest July Arctic melt in the eight year JAXA record.

Ice extent has declined at less than half the rate of 2007, and total ice loss has been more than 200,000 km² less than the previous low in 2004.

DMI now shows Arctic ice extent as second highest for the date, topped only by 2005.

Closeup below.

Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.

The modified NSIDC map below shows in green, areas where ice is present in 2010 but was not present in 2007.

The modified NSIDC map below shows (in red) ice loss over the last week. Note that ice extent has increased slightly in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, while it has declined slightly in the East Siberian Sea.

The modified NSIDC map below shows the record low ice loss since the first of the month.

The modified NSIDC map below shows ice loss since early April.

The graph below shows PIPS ice thickness over the last five years. Average ice thickness in 2010 continues to track a little below 2006. It should bottom out in the next week or so between 2006 and 2009.

The low ice loss is consistent with the low Arctic temperatures we have seen this summer.

The North Pole webcam below shows that the meltponds are frozen over. Temperatures have been below -5°C this week. Very cold for July.

David Schnare

[Glyn Roberts]

Arctic sea ice heading for new record low

"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average. That ignited a flurry of interest on climate change skeptic blogs.

But much of that ice was thin and new. The warmest April on record in the Arctic made short work of it." ... [Dr. Serreze's] data could be underestimating the collapse of summer ice cover, said David Barber of the University of Manitoba. Researchers can't learn anything from satellite data about the state or thickness of the ice."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/arctic-sea-ice-heading-for-new-record-low/article1575212/