Thanks, Christopher. I was a little confused by the site. The Copenhagen Consensus group has a panel of expert economists named here: http://fixtheclimate.com/, and the paper by Bickel and Lane is located here: http://fixtheclimate.com/#/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-engineering/ .
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Green, Prof. < [email protected]> wrote: > I find this discussion confusing and misleading. If you are referring to > the Copenhagen Consensus study on geo-engineering, the authors of the study > are Eric Bickel and Lee Lane. And, Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate change > denier. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Kelly Wanser [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:14 PM > To: Alvia Gaskill > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & > Copenhagen study on Climate Response > > The study authors< > http://fixtheclimate.com/copenhagen-consensus-on-climate/> are noteworthy > (including Nobel laureate) economists, which may be helpful on the > quantification of costs and supporting the case for investment in research. > The attempt to provide initial guidance on areas to start research > investments is important for policymakers, and would iterate as research > continues and knowledge improves. > > As you suggest, limited field experiments (brightening a few clouds), with > corresponding technological capabilities, are the next step, and economic > analysis helps support thinking about the most efficient places to begin. > > -Kelly > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > Very interesting, but anything associated with Bjorn Lomberg the notorious > climate change denier makes me a little uneasy. Note his comment about > using geoengineering instead of reducing emissions. Is he going to ask the > Nobel Laureates to vote on whether they agree with this? > > How can you vote on which solutions are most cost effective if you don't > even know if they work? Ridiculous. Why not take a poll of people on the > street? Hold a "Town Hall," or just make a wild guess? > > I don't know where the $230 billion figure came from for stratospheric > aerosols, but no calculations I've seen or run come anywhere close to that > unless they are summing costs over decades. Also, it's important to compare > apples to apples when evaluating costs. Costs of building and launching the > Flettner Fleet are not the same as operating it. So there would be ongoing > costs, although most of the cost would be upfront. And if the remote > control turns out to not be possible, which is likely since this has never > been done before, manned vessels would drive the costs up considerably. > > The issue of "switching off" technologies if there are unintended adverse > impacts must take into account all impacts. If the aerosols caused droughts > that were unacceptable, that would probably show up early on and the program > could be stopped immediately and the effects gone within a year. The cloud > whitening could be stopped much sooner, but it is doubtful that would make > much of a difference in terms of impacts as its impact would still be felt > over a couple of seasons. Remember, both of them reduce SST and water has a > much higher specific heat than air! > > As to "sea trials" of the cloud whitening technology, it is still worth > noting that not a single cloud has ever been whitened by this method and > until this can be shown to be possible, it's getting a whole lot a ahead of > things to be crowning it "the geoengineering technology of choice." As far > as not having an impact on rainfall, note that El Nino is a weather pattern > in the Pacific that affects large parts of the globe. So just whitening > clouds away from land may not prevent distant impacts. Whatever happened to > using this in the Arctic to slow sea ice and ice sheet melting? > > Who is the "rival American team" seeking funding? General Motors? I > understand they are very experienced with "bailouts," so this should be > right up their alley. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kelly Wanser<mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > > > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:53 PM > Subject: [geo] Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & > Copenhagen study on Climate Response > > The Copenhagen Consensus Center, in their newly published study on the best > climate response options, has weighed in favor of cloud brightening. It > looks like a prestigious group on the paper. The article also hints that > the Royal Society will weigh in favor of the approach. (Congratulations John > and Stephen.) > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece > http://fixtheclimate.com/ > > Cloud ships on course to beat climate change, says Copenhagen study > > (Marc Aspland/The Times) > > It is hoped that the clouds produced by the "cloud ships" could cancel out > the greenhouse effect > > Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Hannah Devlin > > They sound like ideas from a Jules Verne novel, but giant engineering > schemes designed to alter the climate offer the cheapest way of avoiding > catastrophic global warming, according to a growing number of scientists and > green-minded entrepreneurs. > > Most of the schemes have been dismissed as impossibly expensive or > impractical, such as the proposal to create a space sunshade by using > rockets to deploy millions of mirrors in the stratosphere. > > One relatively cheap solution, however, is gaining favour among many > different groups and is endorsed today by an independent study that compares > the costs and benefits of all the main ideas. A wind-powered fleet of 1,900 > ships would criss-cross the oceans, sucking up sea water and spraying it > from the top of tall funnels to create vast white clouds. > > These clouds would reflect a tiny proportion, between 1 and 2 per cent, of > the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean. This would be enough to > cancel out the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The > ships would be unmanned and directed by satellite to locations with the best > conditions for increasing cloud cover. They would mainly operate in the > Pacific, far enough from land to avoid interfering with rainfall. > > The idea has been circulating for a decade but until now has merely been > one of many climate engineering pipedreams. A study commissioned by the > Copenhagen Consensus Centre< > http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx>, a think-tank > that advises governments on how to spend aid money, found that the fleet > would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years. > This is a fraction of the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are > considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions. > > The Royal Society is expected to announce next month that cloud-forming > ships are one of the most promising ideas. > > The Copenhagen study also looked at a scheme to mimic the effect of major > volcanic eruptions, which have a global cooling effect lasting a year or > more. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 sent > billions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide and other particles into the > atmosphere. These formed a haze that shielded the sun’s rays and reduced > global average temperature by about 0.5C. > > The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 had an even more > dramatic effect: 1816 became known as the year without summer. > > Many scientists have proposed different methods of injecting particles, or > aerosols, into the atmosphere, including using squadrons of air tankers, > possibly based in the Arctic to focus on protecting the ice cap. > > The study concluded that the scheme would cost $230 billion and would be > much harder to control than cloud-producing ships, which could be switched > off if shown to have adverse effects. The study dismissed the space sunshade > idea after calculating that the costs of launching the mirrors would be $395 > trillion. > > “The space sunshade is really just science fiction but cloud whitening > ships deserve serious scrutiny,” said Bjorn Lomborg, director of the > think-tank. He argues that, although global warming is a huge problem, there > might be better ways of addressing it then simply cutting CO2 emissions. “We > need to have a debate about all of the options, not just the politically > correct one of reducing CO2,” he said. > > He is hosting a conference in Washington DC next month at which a panel of > Nobel laureates will vote on the most cost-effective solution. > > Rival teams of British and American scientists are seeking funding for sea > trials of prototype cloud-forming ships. The Carnegie Institute has donated > several hundred thousand dollars to the US team. The British team, led by > John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Manchester, and > Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is working with > a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura. > > > > -- > Kelly Wanser > +1 415 734 6790 > > > > > -- > Kelly Wanser > +1 415 734 6790 > > > > -- Kelly Wanser +1 415 734 6790 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
