And exactly where is Mount Meru. Wikipedia offer this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology) --interesting, but not very practical help.
Best, Mike On 8/8/09 10:19 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio" <[email protected]> wrote: > First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and John getting this excellent > publicity. > > "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. 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." > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece> > > > I just would like to draw your attention, whose effort and idea it was to > bring Meriaura into the picture and introduce Atmosmare Foundation? I.e. their > leading geoengineering researchers Risto Isomaki, coordinator Esko Pettay and > Auramare's Lauri Malkia to John and Steve in this picture. So ... John, > Stephen and Risto, remember me too and prepare to give me a brush so that I > can come to brush off the salt from your deck (if the Indianice melts away > before Clinton finds us sponsors...). > > Risto Isomaki worked for many years in solitary isolation in Finland fostering > relationships to gain practical support to his geoengineering ideas as a > handyman-inventor and environmentalist. I really hope all these efforts are > coming to fruition. > > I suggest as this matter has come hot that the research proposal is presented > in the Oceanology International that is coming. I am more inklined towards > this as all the ice related schemes fail because of the ice simply vanisihing > by melting ever faster. > > > Alvia's etc idea should be considered, I think aerosols spreading is quite > easily doable. > > I think that the cooling, or, use of cloud-forming aerosols could be first > tested from high oceanic mountains by piping gas upto the high mountain top > and then releasing it to the winds (the pumping of gas don't cost fortunes as > the pipes are not expensive). I was asked to help fund a pipeline to Mount > Meru to 4,500 metres, you can have a large throughput even through plastic > pipes. > > There are also almost always a strong upwards windrafts in oceanic mountains > as the windward sides accummulate stream of rising air, this then continues > over the top of whichever side the wind blows. Pumping of water so high is > expensive but sulphur dioxide gas etc does not accummulate very much pressure > in hoses when pumped uphill few kilometres. > > Balloon tests must continue to get a full geoengineering community support as > the technology is so readily existing one. > > > Kind regards, > > Albert > > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & > Copenhagen study on Climate Response > Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 05:17:47 -0400 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide > _to_Global_Warming > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guid > e_to_Global_Warming> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg> > > Lomborg is a de facto denier, cleverly framing his ever changing arguments > in a way that misleads and misdirects. If he truly believes global warming > is a serious problem, then how does he reconcile his statements that we > don't need to reduce CO2 emissions? Those of us in favor of geoengineering > research and deployment with few exceptions agree it is a stop gap, not an > alternative to reducing emissions which he refers to as "politically > correct." > > Economic analyses have a role to play in selecting the technologies to use, > not just for geoengineering, but also for emissions reduction. Above a > certain threshold, cost is important, but effectiveness always trumps cost > and that has to be established first. Then let the econ profs go to work. > And try not to let Lomborg's specious arguments get in the way. Otherwise, > Mark the Pie Man may have to make a repeat appearance, with additional pies > as needed. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Green, Prof." <[email protected]> > To: "Kelly Wanser" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:09 PM > 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/ <http://fixtheclimate.com/> , and the paper by > Bickel and Lane is located here: > http://fixtheclimate.com/#/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-engi > neering/ > <http://fixtheclimate.com/#/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-eng > ineering/> . > > 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/ > <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]<mailt > o:[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. > > > Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary‹get free winks and > emoticons. Get Them Now <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
