I agree with Stephen, a hypothetical fleet of spray vessels would be relatively secure. In practice, such a fleet would constitute a global CCN navy that would likely never be deployed without the consent of the great powers, including the few major naval powers (US, Russia, UK, ~China). These ships would be numerous, dispersed, and protected by the international community. No private group or corporation would possess the resources necessary to significantly disrupt their operations - indeed, the only governments with such a capability would have to sign off on the idea in the first place.
Beyond this, as Kelly notes, sulfur and CCN is not an either/ proposition - they may well serve as complementary intervention strategies. Josh Horton On Feb 12, 5:50 am, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew > > I think that you may be mistaken about the vulnerability of spray > vessels. They will be widely dispersed in remote parts of the ocean. It > will be slow and expensive to knock out large numbers of them. Their > loss will take some time to hurt. Attacking ships will be visible on > radar for a day or so before they get close. Attacking aircraft can be > intercepted on their return flight. Either will be much more expensive > that a spray vessel. If I wanted to destroy human existence I could > think of much more damaging ways to do it. > > During WWII the Americans were building three 14,000 ton Liberty ships a > day which was faster than the U boats could sink them. Mean construction > time was seven weeks but one was built in less than 5 days. Spray > vessels will be only 300 tons each and we can get the Chinese to help. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering and Electronics > University of Edinburgh > Mayfield Road > Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > tel +44 131 650 5704 > fax +44 131 650 5702 > Mobile 07795 203 195 > [email protected]http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > > > > Andrew Lockley wrote: > > There's another fairly critical issue about cloud ships that's rarely > > considered, and that's their vulnerability. Let's image we're 50 > > years into a geoengineering programme, with either CCN or sulfur, and > > let's say we've got an 8C warming effect. In the sulfur world, we'll > > be using a firehose, tanker fleet, or gunnery to shift the sulfur. > > You won't be able to get near any of that infrastructure if you fancy > > throwing a spanner in the works. > > > Not so the cloud ships. They will be floating about autonomously in > > the sea, and if anyone doesn't like them, they're quite free to set > > fire to them, blow them up, or just hack their software. Trying to > > build them all again in a hurry when we're already in the midst of 8C > > warming could be a serious problem. They won't be terribly expensive, > > but would a few months/years of 8C be highly damaging, or would the > > heat capacity of the ocean save our bacon? > > > It's a point that needs to be clarified. If they're worth keeping > > then it's worth someone blowing them up, Dr. Evil style. > > > A > > > On 11 February 2010 22:26, Kelly Wanser <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > A number of recent high caliber dicussions of Solar Radiation > > Management research, governance and deployment have focused > > exclusively on stratospheric aerosol dispersal. It may be useful > > for any who are thinking about solar radiation management to > > include tropospheric techniques, particularly the (relatively) > > mature proposed method of SRM via Marine Cloud Brightening > > (Latham-Salter technique) in policy and research considerations. > > > There are important reasons to include marine cloud brightening as > > a component of any SRM research program. > > > 1. *The global cooling potential may be similar to > > stratospheric aerosols*. More work is needed, but early > > studies by Latham et. al. and more recent studies from Rasch > > et. al. and Caldeira et.al <http://et.al/>. indicate > > potential cooling/ CO2 offset effects and ice retention that > > compare favorable to forecasts for stratospheric aerosols. > > 2. *The primary risk profile is different from stratospheric > > aerosols. *The techniques have differing precipitation > > effects and atmospheric chemistry. > > 3. *The deployment profile is different. *Marine cloud > > brightening supports local /regional testing and deployment > > possibilities vs inherently global distribution in the > > stratosphere. > > 4. *The duration of the effect is different. *Marine cloud > > brightening has a 2-3 day dissipation of the effect vs > > months or years for stratospheric aerosols. > > 5. *The research profile is different. *Cloud-aerosol dynamics > > are an important gap in atmospheric science and cloud > > models, and aspects of early research in marine cloud > > brightening are similar or identical to studies of these > > general questions. In addition, it is possible to study > > engineered effects on cohorts of clouds or regions of > > climate in a way that is difficult or impossible to do in > > the stratosphere. > > 6. *Policy and public perception are different.* Local or > > regional cloud-aerosol research is likely to have fewer > > international regulatory considerations and a more benign > > public perception. > > 7. *Experience and knowledge transfer*. There is likely to be > > very useful knowledge sharing across teams working on > > scientific, modeling and technical issues for both the > > stratosphere and the troposphere which should lend to more > > rigor, transparency and better informed regulation and > > monitoring of each. > > 8. *Inadvertent tropospheric/cloud brightening effects are > > already occurring*, and require additional research. Large > > scale reduction in emissions may have warming effects in > > which albedo offset alternatives may be desirable. > > 9. *The optimum approach may be to use multiple techniques*. > > The risk-benefit profiles of the two most mature methods of > > solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol dispersal > > and marine cloud brightening, suggest the possibility that > > the use of multiple sources of radiative forcing may reduce > > overall side-effects. > > > A large collaborative effort is underway that includes researchers > > at Manchester University, Leeds University, the University of > > Washington, the University of Edinburgh, NCAR, PNNL, PARC, Purdue > > University and elsewhere, to continue to analyze cloud aerosol > > effects in marine clouds and their impact on climate. This > > research will advance both understanding of currently poorly > > understood dynamics in the climate system (clouds and aerosols, > > boundary layer effects etc) and to advance knowledge relevant to > > marine cloud brightening as a form of geoengieering. > > > Kelly Wanser > > Silver Lining Project > > > -- > > -- > > Kelly Wanser > > CEO > > eCert, Inc. > > One Market Street, Suite 3500 > > San Francisco, California 94105 > > p. +1 (415) 734-6790 > > f. +1 (415) 651-8932 > > e. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > eCert - Trust the Message > > http://www.ecertsystems.com > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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.
