To the extent this comment is responding to anything that I wrote, let me just clarify: while I have already voiced my opposition elsewhere to a fair number of the items on the lists you reprint, none of that negates what I just wrote, which is that, for the members of AMEG, all of their proposals are of course intended to be complementary to GHG emissions reductions.
best, Nathan On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jim Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:29:11 AM UTC-4, Veli Albert Kallio wrote: > >> It is totally opposite what is the reality. At AMEG meetings there has >> never been - any time - suggestion that there is a *preference to >> geoengineering*. >> > > This statement is false. AMEG not only has a preference for > geoengineering, but appears to endorse methane hydrate fracking as an > alternative to a clathrate gun doom scenario. > > In AMEG's strategic plan, they urge funding the Silver Lining cloud > brightening boats and deploying them by March 2013, as well as using > commercial flight contrails to cool the arctic, relaxing bunker fuel > restrictions on boats for the same purpose, stockpiling SRM chemicals, and > outfitting planes to spray them to reflect sunlight now. See this Strategic > Plan <http://ameg.me/images/ameg-strategic-plan.pdf>: > > >> 1. >> >> Consider practices and regulations that are having, or risk having, a >> heating effect on the Arctic. A postponement of drilling in the Arctic >> would be sensible, because of inevitable escape of methane but also >> because >> of the risk of blowout with or without oil spill. >> >> 2. >> >> Try to maintain or even enhance the current cooling effect from >> currently emitted sulphate aerosols in the troposphere at mid to high >> northern latitudes. For example the *regulation to ban bunker fuel >> for ships should be relaxed while encouraging continued use of bunker fuel >> where the resulting aerosol emissions might be beneficial*. >> Reduction of sulphate aerosol ‘pollution’ will be unpopular with many >> environment groups, but the priority to cool the Arctic has to be >> established. >> >> 3. >> >> Establish the positive and negative net forcing from *contrails, and >> encourage flight paths of commercial airplanes to reduce positive or >> increase negative net forcing.* The ban on polar flights, lifted >> recently, should be reintroduced. >> (Editors Note: Weather and Climate Engineering – William Cotton at >> the AMS <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3rAZ8Fmc0Q&t=15m53s> ) >> >> 4. >> >> Reduce black carbon into Arctic. Make for preparedness to fight >> tundra fires in Arctic and sub-Arctic. >> >> 5. >> >> Find ways to remove black carbon from coal fired power stations, >> while allowing or compensating for the cooling effect that their aerosol >> emissions would be producing without the scrubbing out of sulphur >> compounds. >> >> >> GEOENGINEERING ACTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE REFLECTION OF SUNLIGHT BACK INTO >> SPACE AND FOR INCREASING THE THERMAL ENERGY EMITTED INTO SPACE. >> >> 1. *Prepare the supply and logistics for spraying aerosol precursor >> in large quantities, preferably into the lower stratosphere, for >> deployment >> by next March or April* (not sooner because the risk of ozone >> depletion). Of course, possible negative impacts have to be considered >> before large scale deployment, but it is worth being fully prepared for >> such deployment on the assumption that this technique can be made to work >> effectively. >> 2. Develop and test the deployment of suitably reflective particles, >> of such materials as TiO2, as alternative or supplement to sulphate >> aerosol. *Prepare for large scale deployment. * >> 3. Finance the development of, and deployment capability for, *marine >> cloud brightening, with a view to deployment on a large scale in spring >> 2013 >> * – assuming that is the earliest conceivable time. The main >> technical problem seems to be with the jets, so experts from major >> companies in the ink-jet technology field need to be brought in. Boats >> and >> land installations need to be kitted out. >> 4. Finance the development and deployment capability for cirrus cloud >> removal, since this is a promising technique. *Suitable chemicals >> need to be identified/confirmed, with stock-piling of these cloud seeding >> chemicals. Aircraft need to be kitted out to spray these chemicals.* >> 5. Finance brainstorming sessions for geoengineering, with top >> scientists and engineers, such as to suggest further measures, >> improvements >> to above techniques and the development of other intervention ideas. >> 6. Finance the research and trials of all promising techniques for >> helping to cool the Arctic, including the three geoengineering techniques >> above. Update Earth System models to deal with the actualities of sea ice >> retreat, such that the effects of different techniques can be modelled and >> optimum joint deployment strategies established. >> >> MEASURES TO REDUCE MORE SPECIFIC RISKS FROM ARCTIC WARMING: >> >> 1. Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for >> dealing with methane, especially the reduction of methane from wetlands >> draining into the Arctic. Use of diatoms to promote methanotrophs (and >> healthy conditions for fish) is one such technique. >> 2. Finance the research and trials of promising techniques for >> dealing with surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and for >> reducing >> the speed of ice mass discharge. The latter is accelerated by warm water >> at the sea termination of glaciers; therefore consideration should be >> given >> to techniques to cool this water. >> 3. Consider techniques for reducing Arctic storms and their strength. >> Techniques should be developed for reducing the frequency and severity of >> tropical storms, such as to minimise damage, especially to agriculture and >> low-lying conurbations. >> 4. *Consider techniques for un-sticking of blocked weather patterns*. >> 5. Consider techniques for improving surface albedo of sea, lakes, >> snow and ice by brightening water with bubbles, covering snow and ice with >> white granules or sheets to prolong albedo, draining pools on ice, forming >> ice on pools, depositing snow on ice (as fresh snow has a higher albedo) >> and on land, discouraging growth of plants with low albedo, etc. >> >> Note that a new idea for improving surface albedo has been suggested in a >> paper to the AGU 2012, supported by AMEG founder member, Peter Wadhams.. >> His research on iceberg calving has led to ideas for reducing discharge of >> ice from the GIS. >> >> A word of warning about finance of research, development and field >> trials: it is important that the results of such activities are >> independent, unbiased and* free from financial interest.* >> >> *Food security actions* >> Immediate actions to be initiated: >> >> 1. Overall there is an immediate requirement for all major >> governments to establish an emergency ‘watchdog’ committee for internal >> and >> world food security issues. This committee should have direct access to >> the >> leadership of individual nations and include their UN Ambassador. The >> associated costs, in terms of humanitarian impacts alone, should warrant >> this move. When the assessed cost of the potentially associated national >> economic factors are weighed, there should be little disagreement >> regarding >> the necessity for establishing this ‘watchdog’ committee. >> 2. The US Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”), a provision of the US >> Energy Policy Act of 2005, should be evaluated for a temporary stay. >> Depending entirely on the US corn harvest, this could transfer between 4 >> to >> 5 billion bushels back to the food market. That would reduce upward price >> pressure in the cereals markets and further assist by suppressing >> speculation in that area of food commodities. >> 3. The European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC should >> similarly be reviewed and measures put in place to temporarily divert all >> relevant crops from the fuel to the food market. >> 4. In both cases outlined in points 3 & 4 the emphasis should be on >> ‘temporary emergency measures’ and should only be applicable to crops that >> can be diverted to the food chain. >> 5. A general directive should be agreed between all nations at the UN >> to prohibit the sale of OTC derivatives, in any nation, by any ‘seller’, >> that have any content relative to food commodities. This action will >> assist >> in dissuading institutional investors speculating in food commodities. >> 6. If the crisis deepens point 4 should be further reinforced by >> prohibiting futures contracts in food commodities being sold to any entity >> who will not take actual delivery of the contracted goods. Great care will >> be necessary with this proposal as it is known that hedge funds, and >> investment banks, have established warehousing to control certain >> commodity >> pricing. Typical examples are the attempted 2010 cornering of the world >> cocoa market by a UK hedge fund and the current Goldman Sachs control of >> the US aluminium market. >> 7. An alternative international seed bank must be created to provide >> seeds for subsistence farmers; ones that are devoid of the ‘terminator’ >> gene. In periods of high crop failure the inability to harvest seeds for >> the coming year has a crippling impact on subsistence farmers. Note that >> it >> is estimated 160,000 Indian farmers alone have committed suicide since >> 1967 >> due in part to this situation. >> >> *Following the launch of AMEG’s ‘Strategic Plan’ the above actions will >> be communicated to all world leaders and relevant parties in the form of an >> ‘Essential Action Plan’ to match the pending circumstances of the change in >> the world’s weather patterns. *For further details, see the website of >> the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at AMEG.me <http://ameg.me/> or >> contact AMEG Chair John Nissen at: [email protected] >> >> AMEG sent this letter to world >> leaders<http://www.ameg.me/index.php/letter-to-world-leaders> > : > > "A runway effect… We cannot go there." The only way to prevent this >> critical situation from developing into a global catastrophe is through >> international recognition of the issue, and collaboration on the *immediate >> and urgent intensification of scientific inquiry and the emergency scale >> development of countermeasures such as geoengineering to cool the Arctic* >> . >> > > UK Government Response to AMEG’s call for Geoengineering | > Link<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/858/85804.htm>GOVERNMENT > RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT BASED ON NON-EXISTING > OBSERVATIONS, SAYS AMEG | > Link<http://ameg.me/index.php/2-ameg/48-government-response-to-eac-based-on-non-existing-observations-says-ameg> > > AMEG, the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, hereby formally complains to the >> UK government that the observations to which they refer in their statement >> [1] do not exist. The observations taken directly from the ice and recently >> from satellite, support a very simple model of sea ice behaviour – that the >> melting, as reflected by the volume average for particular months, is >> closely following an exponential trend, towards zero for September 2015. > > > Behind AMEG's public calls for geoengineering, are close ties to a methane > blowout in the North Sea, the ANGELS proposal calling for drilling methane > hydrates, and Project Lucy calling for microwave generators to turn > atmospheric methane into noctilucent diamond SRM clouds. References below: > > > - *Natural Gas and the Invisible Spill: How Much Methane Is Reaching > the > Atmosphere?<http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2111562,00.html> > * | Total SA North Sea Platform blowout releases *350,000,000 cubit > feet of methane gas*. Official Response<http://www.elgin.total.com/elgin/> > | Video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r4PjbCAP3k> > > > - *The ANGELS Proposal – Arctic Natural Gas Extraction Liquefaction S > ales: A Proposal for the Prevention of Arctic Methane | > Link<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vOw215pGuiob9q-u0VRrc2Uumfxr8xU3s4Q2k_YNdsE/edit#slide=id.p4> > * > > View this document on Scribd <http://www.scribd.com/doc/136405352> > > - *A Proposal for the Prevention of Arctic Methane Induced > Catastrophic Global Climate Change by Extraction of Methane from beneath > the Permafrost/Arctic Methane Hydrates and its Storage and Sale as a > Subsidized “Green Gas” Energy > Source<http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/05/proposal-to-extract-store-and-sell.html> > ** | Arctic News Blog | After 2015, when the Arctic Ocean becomes > navigable (Figure 5 above, Carana 2012b) it will be possible to set up a > whole series of **drilling platforms adjacent to, but at least 1 km > away from the high volume methane eruption zones** and to > directionally drill inclined wells down to intersect the free methane below > the sealing methane hydrate permafrost cap within the underlying fault > network (Figure 18 above).* > > [image: The ANGELS Proposal > FIGURE18]<http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure181.jpg> > > *June 2012* > > - *Project Lucy: Radio Transmitter to decompose > methane<http://iowa-city-climate-advocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ProjectLucyExtendedVersion2.pdf> > v2* > - *Project Lucy Extended Version 4, *Arctic News Blog | > Link<http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/06/project-lucy.html> > - *GEOENGINEERING ARCTIC COSTS* > 1. R&D and testing (this proposal) > 2. Political negotiations (could be covered under existing diplomacy > financial budgets) > 3. Transport and installation (could be covered under existing* military > budgets*) > 4. Energy supply (could be provided by* nuclear submarines*) > 5. Operational cost (could be part of* military budgets*)Project Lucy > is part of a range of geo-engineering efforts to reduce warming in the > Arctic. Other methods include: > - Methane capture in the Arctic > - Spraying particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into > space > - Pyrolysis of organic waste and carbon burial, to reduce atmospheric > CO2 and soot The need to act on methane in the Arctic is such that, most > likely, a range of methods will need to be deployed in parallel. Lucy has > the potential to be very effective, as it can *decompose methane while > any resulting nano diamond powder could also reflect sunlight back into > space*.Project Lucy therefore aims to design, *build and test a > microwave transmission system targeting low-altitude methane clouds* with > the aim of breaking the first C-H bond as soon as the methane erupts into > the atmosphere from the Arctic Ocean. The transmitters can be *mounted > on submarines, planes and after 2015 on boats and drilling rigs when the > Arctic ice cap has melted* (Arctic News, 2012). > > Meanwhile, Japan is already fracking "fire ice" methane hydrates: > Japan achieves first gas extraction from offshore methane hydrate > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-methane-hydrates-japan-idUSBRE92B07620130312 > > > So much for the clathrate gun? > > Jim Lee > http://terraforminginc.com/ > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
