There are a few responses to this online. Please see Gardner: http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/07/24/quantitative-evaluation-of-the-public-response-to-climate-engineering-a-reply-critique-guest-post-meryl-p-gardner-university-of-delaware/
which is again replied to by Wright et al http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/08/13/a-quantitative-evaluation-of-the-public-response-to-climate-engineering-reply-to-gardner-guest-post-malcolm-j-wright-damon-a-h-teagle-and-pamela-m-feetham/ A possibly comparable study (Kniebes et al) is below, which I believe also suffers from the problem identified by Ken - in that it's all down to how you tell the story. https://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/informed-and-uninformed-opinions-on-new-measures-to-address-climate-change/KWP%201936.pdf Personally, I don't much care for public opinion about technologies that are half developed. I'd rather find out if they actually work. A On 14 January 2014 17:40, Jim Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >>> 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: > >> Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and >> atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on >> key characteristics” [1]. >> Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly >> updates on atmospheric activities. >> 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] 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, 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]. >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> > -- > 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. -- 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/d/optout.
