Darren McGavin is dead.  For a more tangible treatment of how Hollywood, 
specifically the people who brought you Stargate and BSG, view climate 
modification, check out Stargate Atlantis tonight at 11pm on the SciFi Channel. 
 

Bill Nye, the Geoengineering Guy and his pals including a Stephen Hawking 
lookalike, attempt to shut down their own interdimensional effort to stop 
global warming that instead causes ice lightning to strike their research 
facility and freeze the research and the researchers. 

http://www.scifi.com/atlantis/episodes/episodes.php?seas=5&ep=0516&act=1

When the Atlantis team is given two weeks of vacation leave, Dr. Rodney McKay 
reluctantly accepts an invitation by his former rival, Malcolm Tunney. Tunney 
wants McKay to attend a scientific demonstration that he claims will be the 
solution to global warming. Feeling bold, McKay asks Dr. Jennifer Keller to 
accompany him and she accepts. Upon reaching Earth, they are flown, by private 
leer [You'd think the Sci Fi Channel website people could spell, but nooooo!  
It's Lear Jet.]  jet, to a top-secret facility in the middle of a desert. 

Once there, McKay is shocked by Tunney's brazen claims that he's invented a 
device that can cool the Earth by venting excess heat from our space/time into 
another space/time - an idea McKay had already pursued two years earlier. 
Despite Rodney's mounting concerns over its safety, Tunney activates his new 
technology, dropping the heat contained inside the facility by 10 degrees. But 
when the device reaches this goal and will not disengage, McKay realizes he has 
to work fast or everyone trapped inside the premises will freeze to death 
within the hour. 

The people responsible for Discovery Project Earth and Walking with Dinosaurs, 
Impossible to Work with Pictures also recycle their prehistoric monsters on 
Primeval at 10pm on Sci Fi, while on Discovery Planet Green, it's Roger Angel's 
Space Sunshield.  

Keeping the real stuff and the fake stuff straight is important as the fake 
stuff influences public opinion just as much if not more and serves as the 
platform on which journalists base their objections.  Science experiments in 
sci fi movies and TV are almost never successful, except for the ones that stop 
the original one, usually after the deaths and destruction have already 
occurred.  And in keeping with the spirit of the long expired Hays Code, the 
creators usually pay the ultimate price for violating the natural law.  

Note:  now that the Google appears to be working again for me (the tubes and 
trucks are running), I'll provide the report on the Owning the Weather Movie, 
also delayed by some dental engineering gone bad (root canal antibiotic 
allergic reaction followed by split tooth resulting in extraction leading to 
bone graft--side effects are part of the price for advances in technology).

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Schnare 
  To: [email protected] 
  Cc: geoengineering 
  Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:49 AM
  Subject: [geo] Re: EGU meeting, April 19-24


  I've obtained movie rights.  Here's the current "The Pinatubo Option" casting 
line-up:

  Tom Hanks playing David Keith

  Paul Giamatti playing Ken Caldeira

  George Clooney playing Alan Robock

  and Darren McGavin (in his persona as Carl Kolchak) playing David Schnare.

  It will be easier to get funding for the movie than it will be to get 
research dollars.  Hence, we can require all action sequences to be actual 
field tests.

  We still need a female lead.  Please advise.

  ;-))) 
  d.



  On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ray Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:


    Hi Ken

    I searched the archive and web and note this is
    the first time anyone used the phrase:

         "Pinatubo option".

    Are you happy for this to become a fixed
    phrase for deliberate injection of stratospheric
    aerosols? It sounds good - like a movie title.

    And it might be a good benchmark vid:

    "This is what we have to start doing in Copenhagen,
    to avoid having to resort to the Pinatubo option."

    Ray

    On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
    > For future sulfur emissions, 
seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/5-20.htm

    >
    > For past sulfur emissions, see the attached paper.
    >
    > Current sulfur emissions are on the order of 50 Tg/yr and for this half
    > century is likely to be in the range of 50 to 100 Tg/yr.
    >
    > The EGU abstract 
(http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf) foresees
    > emissions rates of 5 to 10 Tg/yr for the first half of the century, which 
is
    > roughly the 10% range of current emissions, with this percentage scaling 
up
    > if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and tropospheric
    > sulfur emissions decline.
    >
    > So, this is not negligible, but it is unlikely to be a game changer 
either.
    >
    > It is my view that there would need to be some mighty compelling reasons 
to
    > deploy a stratospheric aerosol system, if not only because people who
    > experience bad weather in subseuqent years might be incented to sue (or 
even
    > attack militarily) parties engaged in aerosol release.
    >
    > So, if we in an emergency situation acid rain, ozone loss, etc would be
    > among the costs taken into account before making a decision, but these 
costs
    > may not be decisive.
    >
    > I still think Mt Pinatubo is the poster child for stratospheric aerosols
    > approaches:  We know it can cool the Earth, we know it can do this 
quickly,
    > and we know it does not immediately cause a global catastrophe. Were we
    > faced with a real climate emergency, there could be a lot of pressure to
    > exercise the Pinatubo option. I do not see that the abstract by Eliseev et
    > al markedly changes this picture.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Ken
    > ___________________________________________________
    > Ken Caldeira
    >
    > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
    > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
    >

    > [email protected]; 
[email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab

    > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
    >

    > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> 
wrote:
    > >  **
    > > *Some items from the EGU programme*
    > > **
    > > *Cryosphere - how much longer?*
    >
    > > This should be an interesting session:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/142
    >
    > > Also on cryosphere is the session chaired by Peter Wadhams:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/196
    >
    > > And some potentially interesting presentations here:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/702
    > > and here:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/706
    >
    > > *Geoengineering, session CL27*
    >
    > > There seems to have been a disappointing response for this session.
    > > However the session does include a poster presentation from Russians on
    > > SRM using stratospheric sulphur aerosols:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf
    > > I'd be interested in Ken Caldeira's comments on this.
    >
    > > *Carbon stock management*
    >
    > > In "carbon-constrained future", I see no mention of geoengineering:
    > >http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/oral_programme/143
    > > For example, there is this presentation:
    >
    > > ----
    >
    > > Can we control climate change risks and what does it cost?
    >
    > > B. Metz
    >
    > > Fellow, European Climate Foundation and former co-chair IPCC Working 
Group
    > > on Mitigation
    >
    > > For controlling climate change risks to manageable levels global 
emissions
    > > of greenhouse gases have to start
    >
    > > declining by 2015-2020 and need to be reduced to more than 50% below 
1990
    > > levels by 2050.
    >
    > > An overview will be given of the options that exist to achieve these 
very
    > > challenging objectives. The economic
    >
    > > reduction potential of these options will be given as well as their 
costs.
    >
    > > Finally, the policies needed to realize the reduction potential will be
    > > discussed.
    > > *----*
    > > **
    > > There seems little sense of emergency, despite the looming cryosphere
    > > dangers.  Disappointing.
    >
    > > Cheers,
    >
    > > John
    >
    >
    >

    >  Stern_Chemosphere_2005.pdf
    > 562KViewDownload




    -- 
    David W. Schnare
    Center for Environmental Stewardship

    

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to