Stephen I appreciate what you are saying, and I understand the need/want to mitigate hurricanes, however:
- weather modification is already secretive enough and the "experts" claim ignorance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V32iTBNoFuE - Dr James Lee from American University said it best, we need a registry of all weather modification efforts before anything like SRM could occur http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm - Multiple scientists at the WMA conferences talk about controversial ways to modify hurricanes, and should any of these occur, the public would not notified prior to experimentation. *On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cotton - American Meteorological Society * *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4*<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4> Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification >> Association >> > Monday, 21 April 2008 > > New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm > > >> On Engineering Hurricanes > > William R. Cotton, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO; and S. M. >> Saleeby > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139450.htm > > >> In the last year there have been two papers that have proposed that >> seeding hurricanes with small hygroscopic particles, as opposed to >> conventional giant hygroscopic particle seeding, could lead to the >> reduction in their intensity (Cotton et al., 2007; Rosenfeld et al., 2007). >> The Cotton et al. (2007) paper was based preliminary results of simulations >> of the impact of African dust on hurricane intensity (Zhang et al., 2007), >> which showed that dust acting as CCN influenced the storm development by >> inducing changes in the hydrometeor properties, modifying the storm >> diabatic heating distribution and thermodynamic structure, and ultimately >> influencing the storm intensity through complex dynamical responses. Some >> simulated storm intensities showed a monotonic decrease in storm intensity >> with increasing concentrations of CCN under certain configurations of the >> model but this trend was easily modified just by introducing slight >> variations in the GCCN profile. Thus, Zhang et al. (2007) concluded that >> the physical processes responsible for the impact of dust as nucleating >> aerosols on hurricane development need to be examined in the future under a >> wide range of environmental conditions. > > >> Since then Henian Zhang has carried out more simulations that illustrate >> that the response is by no means simple. In some cases increasing CCN leads >> to a strengthening of hurricane intensity. Moreover, the results of >> introducing dust acting at CCN further in the lifecycle of the storm >> reveals that the response to CCN varies greatly depending on the stage of >> introduction of the aerosol. Thus this work illustrates that even using >> simple, rather idealized simulations the response of a hurricane to aerosol >> can be quite nonlinear. This makes the potential modification of hurricanes >> to small-particle hygroscopic seeding even more challenging than envisioned >> by Cotton et al. (2007) and Rosenfeld et al. (2007). Nonetheless we urge >> that this topic should be investigated much more extensively and in further >> detail. > > >> American Meteorological Society: > > New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm > > >> Chair: Joe Golden, Univ. of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA/GSD, Boulder, CO > > >> 2.1 Atmospheric heating as a research tool > > Lyle M. Jenkins, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation, Houston, TX; >> and B. J. Eastlund > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139228.htm > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139228.pdf > > >> 2.2 Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using >> arrays of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps > > Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm > > >> 2.3 On Engineering Hurricanes > > William R. Cotton, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO; and S. M. >> Saleeby > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139450.htm > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139450.pdf > > >> 2.4 A machine to get rid of hurricanes > > Brian Sandler, none, West Bloomfield, MI > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_137069.htm > > https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/137069.pdf > > I understand that people will continue to experiment in the skies, all we ask is that all the secrecy end so that the effects of these experiments can be peer reviewed, and the public can be fore-warned. I'm still working on this: > 1. Create a “multilateral registry of *cloud seeding, geoengineering, > and atmospheric experimentation* events with information and data > collection on key characteristics” > [1]<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm> > . > 2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with > hourly updates on atmospheric activities. > 3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry > (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric > experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should > said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or > physical losses. > > Transparency and discussion are key. ~ Jim Lee Climate Viewer News http://climateviewer.com/ (803) 450-4305 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:12:12 AM UTC-5, Stephen Salter wrote: > > Jim > > Once hurricanes and typhoons have got going, marine cloud brightening > cannot do anything to stop or steer them. However we might be able to > prevent an increase of sea surface temperatures enough stop them very young > or reduce their severity. Moderate ones are needed to produce rain on > land. Attenuating Haiyann would not have met with strong disapproval from > people in the Philippines. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University > of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland > [email protected]<javascript:>Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 > WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > On 14/01/2014 06:05, Jim Lee wrote: > > The abstract mirrors my personal opinions, I think they nailed it. > > I am firmly against any solution that involves creating more pollution. > The "chemtrail" community is up in arms over what they think is > "geoengineering SRM" and will rightly "tar and feather" anyone who's > willing to go on record as saying they want to spray the skies. The > outrage should SRM be deployed will be tremendous, and I'll be there to > lead that march. > > Thank you to this community for being so willing to openly discuss your > research. > I hope that we can focus on solutions like CDR and albedo enhancement (as > long as it isn't used to steer > hurricanes<http://climateviewer.com/2013/11/08/hurricane-hacking-the-department-of-homeland-security-enters-the-weather-modification-business/>, > > nudge nudge) > > ~ Jim Lee > Climate Viewer News > http://climateviewer.com/ > > On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> >> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2087.html >> >> A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering >> >> Published online 12 January 2014 >> >> Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with >> CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate >> change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy >> efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some >> form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, >> there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns >> before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, >> small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on >> the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A >> systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public >> reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that >> the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where >> there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) >> over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM >> techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative >> reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and >> cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to >> draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques. >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > > -- 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.
