I was not making a normative statement. I was only trying to clarify the Copenhagen consensus on climate change process.
________________________________________ From: Oliver Wingenter [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:48 PM To: Christopher Green, Prof.; 'Kelly Wanser' Cc: 'Alvia Gaskill'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response I guess it is better to have economist evaluate climate change issues than politicians. However, economists are still not the decision makers. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher Green, Prof. Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:10 PM To: Kelly Wanser Cc: Alvia Gaskill; [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response Thanks. The panel of expert economists (three of them Nobel Prize winners) will be evaluating a set of proposals for dealing with climate change. Geoengineering is one of them. The papers on which the proposals are based will be posted on the Copenhagen Consensus website over the next few weeks. The evaluation of the various proposals by the expert committee will take place next month. ________________________________ From: Kelly Wanser [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:57 PM To: Christopher Green, Prof. Cc: Alvia Gaskill; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response 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-en gineering/. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Green, Prof. <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Kelly Wanser [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:14 PM To: Alvia Gaskill Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]<mai lto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mail 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
