Oliver, The reference is: S Chapman, 1934, The gases of the atmosphere, Q J R Meteorol Soc, 60, 127-142.
Adrian Tuck 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 *************************************************** On 16 Feb 2015, at 10:55, olivermorton <[email protected]> wrote: > Jamais, Alan > > It seems to me that the best way to avoid geoengineering triggering tensions > which rise to the level of nuclear war is to commit oneself, as I am pretty > sure Alan is committed, to working towards a golbal zero option on nuclear > weapons. This has the added bonus of avoiding anything *other* than > geoengineering leading to the threat of war, too... > > ever, o > > On Sunday, 15 February 2015 19:03:15 UTC, cascio wrote: > It’s not a question of whether or not it's a weapon, it’s a question of > whether or not it’s perceived as a threat. > > At the Berlin event, I told some of you about the CIA Center for Climate > Change and National Security simulation exercise I was asked to do four or > five years ago. What started as a climate disruption/storms & droughts & > bears scenario evolved (as the China and US teams responded) into a potential > SRM scenario. By the final turn, the possible deployment of SRM on one side > had been perceived as a real threat to agriculture on the other, and missiles > were being put on alert. > > Perception trumps objective reality when it comes to national security. > > On that note, the CIACCCNS is no longer around, as the Republican house > determined that since climate change wasn’t real, the center wasn’t needed. > Seriously. > > -Jamais Cascio > > Proof: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamais_cascio/6214330683/ > >> On Feb 15, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Respectfully, I disagree. >> >> The status of geoengineering is perhaps more likely to be akin to trade >> sanctions. >> >> Imagine a bipolar world which is divided up purely into a Chinese superpower >> zone and an American superpower zone. There may be various skirmishes going >> on at any one time, as we see in Ukraine. Simultaneously, we may see ongoing >> trade, diplomacy and cooperation in other ways. (This pattern is common >> among 'frenemies'.) >> >> Where the parties have a clearly different CE preference, the concept of >> weaponisation becomes extremely blurred. Using CE becomes a bargaining chip >> like all others. In extremis, such a tool may cause profound food shortages >> in the counterparty's zone, or expose key infrastructure to natural >> disasters. >> >> How could we agree whether that constituted a weapon, or not? >> >> A >> >> On 15 Feb 2015 16:38, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Based on the history of our intelligence agencies involvement in secret >> kidnappings and torture, killing noncombatants with drones, spying on our >> telecommunications, etc, we can take it as a given that secret US >> governmental organizations will engage in criminal behavior. >> >> However, we should be entirely clear: >> >> There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has any >> interest in climate intervention for anything other than defense-related >> informational purposes. >> >> Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate intervention >> could be used effectively as a weapon. >> >> So, while I share Alan's contempt for the criminal behavior of our secretive >> governmental agencies, I do not think it is helpful to speculate that in >> this instance, the agencies are looking for new ways that they might inflict >> suffering on others. >> >> Best, >> Ken >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] >> http://kencaldeira.com >> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> My assistant is Dawn Ross <[email protected]>, with access to >> incoming emails. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Dear Mick, >> >> The Daily Mail article is true. >> >> But you might also be interested in the more informative BBC interview: >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31475761 >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor >> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> http://twitter.com/AlanRobock >> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 >> On 2/14/15, 10:30 PM, Mick West wrote: >>> The Daily Mail story about CIA inquiries concerning covert geoengineering >>> is interesting because I actually posed a very similar question to the >>> Geoengineering list three years ago, to which both of you (Alan and Andrew) >>> responded directly. >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/UzNzNyJIZ2g/Qvs7XFNK5doJ >>> >>> So I was wondering Alan, if is this the Daily Mail's dramatic retelling of >>> this exchange, or were there actually "CIA" men calling you asking similar >>> questions? >>> >>> Mick >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Poster's note : Robock tweeted this, so it's probably not entirely >>> inaccurate. (Members outside the UK may not be aware that the Daily Mail is >>> widely derided.) >>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2954051/Chill-factor-CIA-weather-query.html >>> >>> Chill factor at 'CIA' weather query >>> >>> By Press Association >>> 00:43 15 Feb 2015, >>> >>> A leading American climate scientist has said he felt "scared" when a >>> shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the >>> possibility of weaponised weather. >>> >>> Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men wanting >>> to know if experts would be able to spot a hostile force's attempts to >>> upset the US climate. >>> >>> But he suspected the real intention was to find out how feasible it might >>> be to secretly interfere with the climate of another country. >>> >>> The professor, from the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers >>> University, New Jersey, has investigated the potential risks and benefits >>> of using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing effects >>> of volcanic eruptions. >>> >>> Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the >>> Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, where he took part in a >>> debate on geoengineering to combat climate change, Prof Robock said: " I >>> got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA >>> and we'd like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, >>> would we know about it?"I told them, after thinking a little bit, that >>> we probably would because if you put enough material in the >>> atmosphere to reflect sunlight we would be able to detect it and see the >>> equipment that was putting it up there."At the same time I thought they >>> were probably also interested in if we could control somebody else's >>> climate, could they detect it?" >>> >>> Asked how he felt when the approach was made, he said: "Scared. I'd learned >>> of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven't followed the rules >>> and I thought that wasn't how I wanted my tax money spent. I think this >>> research has to be in the open and international so there isn't any >>> question of it being used for hostile purposes." >>> >>> Geoengineering to offset the effects of global warming could include >>> scattering sulphur particles in the upper atmosphere to re-direct sunlight >>> back into space, seeding the oceans with iron to encourage the spread of >>> carbon-hungry algae, and creating reflective areas on the Earth's surface. >>> >>> But the long-term effects of such strategies are largely unknown and many >>> experts fear they may pose grave risks. >>> >>> A further twist in Prof Robock's story concerns the CIA's alleged >>> co-funding of a major report on geoengineering published this week by the >>> prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.The report mentions the "US >>> intelligence community" in its list of sponsors, which also includes the >>> American space agency Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric >>> Administration, and the US Department of Energy. >>> >>> Prof Robock said the CIA had told one of his colleagues it wanted to fund >>> the report, but apparently did not want this fact to be too obvious. >>> >>> "The CIA is a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes >>> me really worried who is going to be in control," he added. >>> >>> He pointed out that the US had a history of using the weather in a hostile >>> way. During the Vietnam War clouds were seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail - >>> a footpath-based supply route used by the North Vietnamese - to make the >>> track muddy in an attempt to cut it off. >>> >>> The CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba "to make it rain and ruin the >>> sugar harvest".During a press conference on the potential risks of >>> geoengineering, Prof Robock was asked what its greatest hazard might be. >>> >>> He replied: "The answer is global nuclear war because if one country wants >>> to control the climate in one way, and another doesn't want it or if they >>> try to shoot down the planes ... if there is no agreement, it could result >>> in terrible consequences." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > > > This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended > recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also > contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may > monitor e-mail to and from our network. > > Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The > Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 > and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group > company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.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/d/optout. -- 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.
