Hello again Dan, Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight missive to you below, namely that you are not the originator of the comments I responded to, but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that I screwed up.
All Best, John. Quoting John Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello Dan, > > Briefly to respond to points in your 3 messages today (9/1). > > 1. Our cloud-albedo global temperature stabilisation scheme does not > involve the creation of clouds (fake or otherwise). Nor is it > accurately represented by your "shooting various things into the > clouds .....". If you were to read the 2 papers we produced for the > Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you would find that it is > concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of existing clouds by > introducing seawater particles into them in order to increase their > droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos. The principle > is the same as that involved in the formation of ship-tracks. GCM > computations made by leading groups in the UK and the US (2 separate > models) suggest that this technique could produce a controllable > cooling sufficient to hold the Earth's temperature constant for at > least 50 years. Although there exists some experimental / > observational support for these predictions more work is required > before a categoric statement can be made about the efficacy of this > scheme, and a full study of its possible ramifications - should it > ever be deployed - has yet to be made. > > 2. At the recent workshop on geo-engineering held at Harvard, the > participating economists (half of the total group, the rest being > scientists) stated unanimously that the estimated costs of deploying > the Crutzen stratospheric sulphur scheme or our atmospheric > cloud-albedo one are so trivial in comparison with those associated > with unbridled CO2 emissions that they should be regarded as zero. The > funds we need for definitive testing of these ideas are comparable > with those of middle-range NSF grants. > > 3. The word geo-engineering has highly negative connotations. I think > it important that we counterbalance or overcome these by stressing > much more often that our goal is to achieve significant restorative > effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from > perfect, but it could be significant. > > Cheers, John. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Quoting Dan Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225094/pick-tab-climate-tinkering >> >> Who will pick up the tab for climate-tinkering technologies? >> >> As scientists call for more funding for geo-engineering pilot studies, >> experts warn risks could be too great to attract investors >> James Murray, BusinessGreen, 01 Sep 2008 >> >> While the rewards may one day prove mind blowing, the risks inherent >> to the development of geo-engineering technologies that many >> scientists believe are now necessary to combat global warming are so >> huge that proposed pilot projects are struggling to find funding. >> >> According to a series of papers published today by the Royal Society, >> the failure to address soaring carbon emissions means that the world >> should be preparing geo-engineering techniques capable of artificially >> lowering temperatures, such as dumping iron into oceans to improve >> plankton's ability to soak up carbon or seeding clouds to bolster >> their ability to reflect the sun's rays. >> >> Writing in the preface to the collection of papers, Brian Launder of >> the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of >> Cambridge argued that, "While such geo-scale interventions may be >> risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky >> than doing nothing." >> >> However, several of the scientists who contributed work for the Royal >> Society series have today admitted that with no commercial model >> currently in place to monetise geo-engineering projects, they are >> struggling to raise the funding required to move beyond the planning >> stages. >> >> "There is no money to be made from saving the planet," said Stephen >> Salter, emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of >> Edinburgh, who is proposing a project to seed marine clouds to >> increase the amount of energy they reflect. "You can make vast sums >> from wrecking it, but not the other way round, unfortunately." >> >> Salter claimed that his team could undertake a working pilot project >> for about £20m, a sum he describes as less than the security budget >> for the UN's series of international climate change negotiations. But >> he admitted that attracting the investment was proving difficult. >> >> "At the moment there is no commercial return on these [geo- >> engineering] projects for bringing the temperature down," he said. >> "The people working in carbon markets don't want these type of >> projects included and unless someone works out a way to put a value on >> cooling, there is no commercial proposition." >> >> Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Launder agreed that geo-engineering >> projects were facing huge difficulties in raising the funding >> necessary to move their proposals into the pilot stage. "The funding >> could come from government, but it is difficult prising out the >> necessary development money," he said. "For businesses, we are talking >> about technologies that have to be ready to go, but you hope you will >> never have to use… that requires a new business model to anything we >> have currently." >> >> The commercial risks associated with such projects are simply too >> large for most investors, according to David Metcalfe, director at >> independent green business research firm Verdantix. "There is a >> growing sense among scientists that we will need some of these big >> bets as part of the portfolio for tackling climate change," he said. >> "But for most investors, even projects such as carbon capture and >> storage are too risky a bet, so [geo-engineering] will really struggle >> [to attract funding]." >> >> The risk associated with geo-engineering projects was highlighted >> earlier this year when almost 200 countries imposed a moratorium on >> ocean iron fertilisation projects. >> >> Iron fertilisation is believed to help lower carbon dioxide >> concentrations in the atmosphere by stimulating the growth of >> phytoplankton, which trap the carbon dioxide on the ocean floor when >> they die. However, many environmentalists have criticised the >> approach, claiming it could do huge damage to delicate marine >> ecosystems. >> >> The ban on fertilisation projects throws into doubt the future of a >> number of startups already working on the technology, such as US firm >> Climos and Australian outfit Ocean Nourishment Corp, which announced >> plans for a pilot project off the coast of the Philippines earlier >> this year. >> >> Salter is confident that his proposals for cloud seeding could avoid >> many of the environmental risks associated with more controversial and >> costly projects such as ocean fertilisation, and is continuing to seek >> financial backing. >> >> "The advantage of seeding clouds to make them whiter is that you can >> try it on a small scale and it is reversible," he said. "You can also >> use satellites to measure how much energy is reflected and prove it is >> working." >> >> But Metcalfe warned that commercial backing for geo-engineering >> projects will remain very difficult to secure. "The problem with any >> project in the R&D phase is that an investor has to ask when it will >> start delivering," he said. " And with these projects that is just not >> clear." >> >> > >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
