Fascinating couple of pages about the bromine bomb in Fleming FIXING THE SKY
https://books.google.com/books?id=zmdBon09PY0C&lpg=PA220&ots=WFitxrgPu2&dq=bromine%20bomb&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q=bromine%20bomb&f=false ᐧ On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Adrian Tuck < [email protected]> wrote: > Anyone interested in some history here might like to look up:- > John von Neumann, Collected Works, Volume VI, Macmillan, New York, 1963, > pages 499-525. > Herman Hoerlin, United States high altitude test experiences, Technical > Report LA-6405, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1976. Page 35 especially, > has remarks about affecting weather and climate by injecting condensation > nuclei in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. > > Sidney Chapman, no less, said in 1934 in his presidential address to the > Royal Meteorological Society that if UV astronomers wanted to make a hole > in the ozone layer they would need to deploy a catalytic agent. > > I remember Michael McElroy speculating about a “bromine bomb” to destroy > the ozone layer above an enemy’s territory, some time around 1975-6. As far > as I know though, he had no connection to the intelligence agencies. > > As was recognised as long ago as 1958, atmospheric motions and turbulence > would rapidly degrade any hole made by weapon bursts. > > > 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 15 Feb 2015, at 20:49, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Greg, > > Yes, those are the questions. And I would like to know how much money > each agency put into the report. There should be a public record of that. > > With respect to Ken's claims: > > 1. There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has > any interest in climate intervention for anything other than > defense-related informational purposes. > > *Why would you expect there to be evidence? It's the CIA.* > > 2. Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate > intervention could be used effectively as a weapon. > > *I agree that it would be hard to target, given what we know now. But if > cooling the planet gives agriculture in my country an advantage over > agriculture in your country, there might be pressures to proceed. Anyway, > as the research goes on, it might be clearer how to weaponize control of > climate. Is that a motivation for supporting research?* > > 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 2/15/15, 12:38 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > > Relatedly, I must say I felt a little chill when reviewing the NAS > report where support from "US intelligence community" was acknowledge > without providing any specifics as to what agencies. More importantly, > there was no subsequent discussion in the report as to the reason the > intelligence community might be interested in doing this. This support was > again acknowledged by Marcia McNutt at the AAAS session yesterday without > any details. At least support by DOE and NOAA, the "US energy/environmental > community"?, was clearly stated, while Depts. of Agriculture, Interior and > EPA were conspicuously absent given the heavy emphasis on land ecosystems > in the report. > Anyway, it would be nice to know to what extent my research or anyone > else's in this field is serving the intelligence community and how. I have > no doubt that there are national security implications for successfully or > unsuccessfully dealing with climate change, but then should these > implications be classified, which ones, and who decides? What role does the > NAS and as well as ordinary US scientists have in this, and are they > serving US interests or global interests? > > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jamais Cascio <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Alan > Robock <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Mick West > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:56 AM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail > Online and BBC interview > > 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. > > > -- > 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.
