Yes Esko, I noted myself. I think Risto Isomaki needs to be given some merit and Atmosmare. I don't like that when people call homeway excessively, like the Canadian Reuters claimed to have "discovered" the new nitorous oxide (N2O) emissions from melting permafrost as this had already been discovered last year in Russian permafrost.
I think it is partly journalistic phenomenon, I do not think Latham and Salter has no intention to discredit partners or potential partners. It is bit the same as in Russia everyone speaks about Juri Gagarin being the first man in space, while in England and America nobody calls Juri Gagarin a hero, but everyone speaks about Neil Armstrong (while the rest of the world talks about two space heroes). The same way Finns listen disproportionately Jean Sibelius' simphonies rather than Villalobos (Brazilian) composer. So, I think the emphasis is perhaps to promote for home readership, then minimising the rest, i.e whose boat, who raised funds, who has been thinking along the same lines. May be you should also push for Finnish Science Academy funding which also works different to Royal Society here in UK. Royal Society you need to be UK citizen with UK institutional affiliation and post. Tiedeakatemia grants in Finland are open tender project, not limited to established institutions or individuals, and at least in principle stands on merits of the proposals alone. But as it is open to all, you all could be participants and jointly submit a tender to Tiedeakatemia and I think you would be able to obtain funds for the operating costs. I think Tiedeakatemia grants could be a good top up and add more resources to your Atmosmare Foundations sponsors and objectives. One of the other aspect is that Latham and Salter must also account for the situation here in the UK. The Finns might not get too selective with whom to work with and be partners but here in the UK there are stiff resistance to anything environmental and could work against Latha's and Salter's financing and attainance of acceptance for research funding. In this way there is cultural difference, the systems in Britain are very old and established in certain ways. I discovered this when I asked funding from Royal Society for some project of mine, there is no resiprocity here that I can just knock the door, leave a funding proposal as a Finn and expect Royal Society to come back with feedback like acceptance, amendments, or rejection. They simply do not accept here members of the public, especially foreigners unaffiliated to institutions making proposals to Royal Society. But yet, the science progresses here in its ways too. So, the system cannot be all that bad. UK structure just different So my suggestion is that you submit a proposal to Tiedeakatemia to issue funding and keep pestering them just like Matti Lappalainen who got the funding for the large scale oxygenating for the Baltic Sea issued after 20 years of hard selling. Please note that Kaj Engblom is also looking at some vessel and operator that could come in picture. Or possibly with our research project for the First Nations' complaint at the UN for using as a base and platform to measure the coastal stability of Melville Bay section in North West Greenland if their UN claim of ice sheet destabilising enmasse could be seen materialising and pushing rocks. These are just my personal comments, speculation and observations nothing more. I will keep in touch with Kaj and especially what the meeting of the leaders decide, I will promote geoengineering solutions at our meeting with Clinton and others which remains on schedule. Kind regards, Albert Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:37:20 +0300 Subject: [fipc] Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] The idea was not to promote a shipping company. I’m not quite sure why the reporter decided to mention the shipping company and not Atmosmare –foundation. Things get mixed up so easily. But anyway I wish we will be able to proceed with this and other projects. Yours, Esko 2009/8/8 Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> 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 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/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming 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/, 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]<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]<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. Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary—get free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now -- Esko Pettay +35850-5419383 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary—get free winks and emoticons. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
