RE: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering
Jim, There is much that I agree with you about, and I find it frustrating that what could perhaps be construed by some as shrillness on your part produces an alienation which prohibits your receiving the support that you deserve. You say, for example:- Technology and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. I agree. In my opinion it is probably nonsense, and you are right to draw attention to this. But you also seem to condemn studies of the possible weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB), by cooling the associated oceanic surface waters and thereby reducing the strength of hurricanes developing in those regions? Would it be a bad mistake to examine the possibility of cooling oceanic surface waters in such regions via the downwelling idea, or via MCB? Or preventing the bleaching of coral reefs? The geo-engineers [terrible word] that I know ask only to be able to test possibly helpful ideas, that hopefully would never have to be considered for deployment. In my perverted view, there is little virtue in doing nothing and dying – with many others – with a clear conscience. We have been engaging in geo-engineering for over 200 years now, albeit inadvertently. The possible consequences are terrible. Isn’t it acceptable to try to remedy, as far as possible, the damage that we have caused? Best Wishes,John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2013 00:10 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: rez...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it as local climate? Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather control or an unintended side-effecthttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J? Do you consider creation of artificial cloudshttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515 weather control or climate modification? Those are just wordshttp://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html. Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable: Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patentshttp://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete: Hurricane Protection for Cash! * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173386.html • Water alteration structure applications and methods * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173404.html • Water alteration structure and system * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090175685http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0175685.html • Water alteration structure movement method and system * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090177569http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html • Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods * January 30, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173801http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173801.html • Water alteration structure and system having below surface valves or wave reflectors * February 6-7, 2008 • Department of Homeland Security's Hurricane Modification Workshophttp://rezn8d.net/2013/04/16/cloud-seeding-from-pluviculture-to-hurricane-hacking/ * April 21, 2008 • Weather Modification Association Conference “New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramificationshttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm” * Atmospheric heating as a research toolhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTQj2qX1ZM * On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cottonhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4 * Reducing hurricane intensity using upwelling pumpshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA * May 29, 2009 • US Patent Application 20100300560http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0300560.html • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit * May 29, 2009 • United States Patent 8348550http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8348550.html • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit [Bill Gates - Hurricane steering and protection patent]http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html * Assigned to: The Invention Science Fund I,
[geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
A lot of geoengineering discussion has the common feature of looking only at the atmosphere. Well, the CO2 that creates warming is part of a carbon cycle that includes reservoirs much larger than the atmosphere: the ocean is the biggest, but another very big place to store carbon is the world's soils. And interestingly, there are manifold environmental problems that can be addressed by restoring carbon to soils. This should include reversing many practices of industrial agriculture which have been responsible for depleting a lot of that carbon. Mr. Keith seems to draw a fence around the problem as if cutting emissions were the only alternative to depriving ourselves of sunlight. I don't buy that. -- Brian Cartwright On Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:11:27 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions. And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world's superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it's really unclear what would - how such a thing would be controlled.TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence. The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research. And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer. Basically, how much damage there would be and how we could fix it. And that
[geo] Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks:Amazon:Books
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1107023939 Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks:Amazon:Books Product Description The international community is not taking the action necessary to avert dangerous increases in greenhouse gases. Facing a potentially bleak future, the question that confronts humanity is whether the best of bad alternatives may be to counter global warming through human-engineered climate interventions. In this book, eleven prominent authorities on climate change consider the legal, policy and philosophical issues presented by geoengineering. The book asks: when, if ever, are decisions to embark on potentially risky climate modification projects justified? If such decisions can be justified, in a world without a central governing authority, who should authorize such projects and by what moral and legal right? If states or private actors undertake geoengineering ventures absent the blessing of the international community, what recourse do the rest of us have? Book Description In this book, eleven prominent authorities on climate change consider the legal, policy and philosophical issues presented by geoengineering. The book asks: when, if ever, are decisions to embark on climate modification projects justified? If they are justified, in a world without a central governing authority, who should authorize such projects and by what moral and legal right? About the Author Dr Wil Burns is the Associate Director of the Energy Policy and Climate Program at The Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. He also serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy and as Co-Chair of the International Environmental Law Committee of the American Branch of the International Law Association. He is also the former Co-Chair of the International Environmental Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law, and Chair of the International Wildlife Law Interest Group of the Society. He has held academic appointments at Williams College, Colby College, Santa Clara University School of Law, and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, Middlebury College. Prior to becoming an academic, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs for the State of Wisconsin, and worked in the non-governmental sector for twenty years, including as Executive Director of the Pacific Center for International Studies.Andrew Strauss is the Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law. Professor Strauss is co-author of the fourth edition of International Law and World Order, and his articles have appeared in international journals such as Foreign Affairs, the Harvard Journal of International Law and the Stanford Journal of International Law. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School and taught on the law faculties of the National University of Singapore and Rutgers Camden Law School. In addition, he has been a lecturer at the European Peace University in Austria, served as the Director of the Geneva/Lausanne International Law Institute and the Nairobi International Law Institute and been an Honorary Fellow at New York University School of Law's Center for International Studies. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering
Jim, What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the heading: Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patentshttp://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete : *Hurricane Protection for Cash*! 1. Is your implication that Bill Gates sees geoengineering as an easy way to pick up a little extra cash, and that he is acting out of self interest? Do you really believe this? 2. A headline like this implicitly questions motivations. Is there a chance that Bill Gates is consistent in trying to explore ways to reduce suffering and improve well-being, especially among the poorest in the world and that this might be a primary motivation for his work in this area? 3. Exactly who are you referring to as world's top Geoengineers? As far as I know it, nobody in the world is engaged in geoengineering. Would you say the worlds top tennis players if nobody ever played tennis? There could still be tennis researchers, but a tennis researcher is a far cry from a tennis player. 4. When you send out a post with a headline like this, what are your motivations? I see two main possibilities: (i) Your intent is to give people false impressions, so as to advance a political position you hold; (ii) Your intent is to give people accurate impressions; you actually believe that the headline gives an accurate impression of both Bill Gates's motivations and the character of the people he has worked with, and that the false impression given is thus a consequence of your false beliefs. So the question is: Are misleading intentionally, or are you misleading inadvertently? Best, Ken On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:35 PM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote: Jim, There is much that I agree with you about, and I find it frustrating that what could perhaps be construed by some as shrillness on your part produces an alienation which prohibits your receiving the support that you deserve. You say, for example:- Technology and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather. I agree. In my opinion it is probably nonsense, and you are right to draw attention to this. But you also seem to condemn studies of the possible weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB), by cooling the associated oceanic surface waters and thereby reducing the strength of hurricanes developing in those regions? Would it be a bad mistake to examine the possibility of cooling oceanic surface waters in such regions via the downwelling idea, or via MCB? Or preventing the bleaching of coral reefs? The geo-engineers [terrible word] that I know ask only to be able to test possibly helpful ideas, that hopefully would never have to be considered for deployment. In my perverted view, there is little virtue in doing nothing and dying – with many others – with a clear conscience. We have been engaging in geo-engineering for over 200 years now, albeit inadvertently. The possible consequences are terrible. Isn’t it acceptable to try to remedy, as far as possible, the damage that we have caused? Best Wishes,John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 August 2013 00:10 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: rez...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics Politics of Geoengineering If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it as local climate? Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather control or an unintended side-effect https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J ? Do you consider creation of artificial clouds http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515 weather control or climate modification? Those are just words http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html. Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable: Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete: Hurricane Protection for Cash! * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173386.html • Water alteration structure applications and methods * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173404.html • Water alteration structure and system * January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application
RE: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY
How about the dangers of the alternative: Continuing to unset the Earth's thermostat (and pH-stat)? ...the temptation to seriously consider a technological fix will become irresistible to many. Let's hope so! Are we going to solve the CO2 problem in the absence of technology - new renewable energy schemes, CO2 mitigation of fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency? And, yes, if the preceding strategies continue to fail, do we not solicit and research alternative technologies like geoengineering in the event that some ideas prove to be effective, safe, timely, and needed? What is the rational alternative if the objective is to collectively preserve our one small planet? Isn't technology an essential part of that collective? I certainly agree that we .need to strengthen global decision making institutions, and we need to do so in a way that is fair and democratic. I might add that global decision making needs also to be open-minded, objective, timely and based on facts learned through carefully conducted, open research, not based on folklore and unproven fears that blithely whitewash all technology as unnecessary, unworkable, evil, or worse. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 1:22 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2632983 by Andrew Strauss and William C.G. Burns, USATODAY Climate geoengineering is the name for the most audacious idea to master nature. Right now, energy companies, scientists, policymakers and even some environmentalists around the world are considering the possibility of attempting to manually override the Earth's thermostat to counter the effects of global warming.No, this isn't something out of Gene Roddenberry or Stephen King. This is real. In fact, it is so real that the world's most prominent body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will address its merits in the group's Fifth Assessment Report due out early next year.Geoengineering covers a range of technologies. Some are apparently quite benign such as painting roofs white so as to reflect solar energy back into space. But, such schemes are also unlikely to have a significant impact on the climate. Those with the greatest current potential also tend to present the greatest risk. The two most often discussed strategies are stratospheric aerosol spraying and ocean iron fertilization.The former option would entail spraying sulfur or a similarly reflective compound into the stratosphere via planes or balloons to reflect solar radiation back into space. The projected cost of stratospheric spraying is relatively cheap, in the billions to tens of billions of dollars a year. Proponents argue that scientists could distribute enough reflective particles in the air to return temperatures back to pre-industrial levels if we wished.Ocean iron fertilization takes its inspiration from the knowledge that algae (which absorb carbon) feed on iron. Consequently, dump iron filings in iron-poor parts of the ocean, and soon you have carbon-absorbing algae blooms. Again, the cost is low.However, both of these options pose substantial known risks to humans and ecosystems. Stratospheric spraying could substantially reduce precipitation in South and Southeast Asia, potentially shutting down seasonal monsoons that more than a billion people rely upon for growing crops, or imperil replenishment of the ozone layer. Ocean iron fertilization could result in the proliferation of algae species that won't support higher order predators, or prove toxic in the marine environment. Moreover, the Earth's ecology is vastly complex, and both of these technologies may also pose significant unknown risks that are impossible to assess before it is too late.Sensing such dangers, most people have an instinctively negative reaction to climate geoengineering. The reality, however, is that unless we deal seriously with the climate change problem (which we are not) the siren call of geoengineering will grow. And, when we get to the point where burgeoning concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing undeniable catastrophes -- tornados, hurricanes, droughts, coastal flooding, wild fires, mass extinctions -- on a scale orders of magnitude larger than we are experiencing today, the temptation to seriously consider a technological fix will become irresistible to many.What this means for us today is that we should put the mechanisms in place to deal with the serious governance challenges that geoengineering will present. No existing global institution is capable of deciding whether we as citizens of the planet should collectively assume the risk of a substantial geoengineering project, much less where to set the planet's
Re: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles? DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, What's the very most likely thing to work right now? that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done. On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.eduwrote: Mark – read more carefully; David’s comment regarding “won’t work with sulphates” was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require intentional global suicide.) He was quite explicit that in the short term, if someone actually wanted to do something, it would probably involve sulphate. ** ** Regarding engineered particles, beyond his 2010 PNAS paper on photophoretic levitation, I don’t think there has been any research here, so there isn’t any suggestion to evaluate. (But no reason to believe that something couldn’t be designed to work, sounds to me like a great research topic.) ** ** *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Massmann *Sent:* Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:20 AM *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith ** ** Dr. Keith- I was very surprised by one of your comments in the above interview with Tony Jones. Concerning the feasibility of sulphate aerosols you state:*** * ** ** So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol. ** ** Can you please explain why you now think that stratospheric sulphates will not work? ** ** Can you also explain what engineered aerosol(s) are being considered, what the likelihood is that they will work (i.e. offsetting a doubling of pre-industrial CO2)? ** ** Thank you- Mark ** ** On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:11:27 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions. And that fear was broke a few years ago and so now kind of all the research is pouring out really because effectively had been suppressed, not by some terrible suppressor, but by a fear of talking about it.TONY JONES: So what do you think would actually drive the world's superpowers or a collective of nations to decide to actually do this, to go ahead and begin the process of planning and preparing for a geoengineering project?DAVID KEITH: Very, very hard to guess. I mean, essential thing to say about this is that technology is the easy part; the hard part is the politics. Really deeply hard and almost unguessable. At this point we have no regulatory structure whatsoever and no treaty structure, so it's really unclear what would - how such a thing would be controlled.TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously
[geo] Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
Or one could, if so disposed, make an equivalent case for Marine Cloud Brightening, (MCB) since oceanic ships have been producing higher reflectivity ship tracks for a century or more. Cheers,John. lat...@ucar.edu John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:13 To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles? DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, What's the very most likely thing to work right now? that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done. On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edumailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Mark – read more carefully; David’s comment regarding “won’t work with sulphates” was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require intentional global suicide.) He was quite explicit that in the short term, if someone actually wanted to do something, it would probably involve sulphate. Regarding engineered particles, beyond his 2010 PNAS paper on photophoretic levitation, I don’t think there has been any research here, so there isn’t any suggestion to evaluate. (But no reason to believe that something couldn’t be designed to work, sounds to me like a great research topic.) From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Massmann Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Dr. Keith- I was very surprised by one of your comments in the above interview with Tony Jones. Concerning the feasibility of sulphate aerosols you state: So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol. Can you please explain why you now think that stratospheric sulphates will not work? Can you also explain what engineered aerosol(s) are being considered, what the likelihood is that they will work (i.e. offsetting a doubling of pre-industrial CO2)? Thank you- Mark On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:11:27 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions. And that fear
[geo] PS TO LAST!!: Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of John Latham [john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:36 To: kcalde...@gmail.com; macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Ship-Tracks!! Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith THOUGH WE WOULD USE SEA-WATER PARTICLES INSTEAD OF ONES FROM SHIP-EXHAUSTS. JL. Or one could, if so disposed, make an equivalent case for Marine Cloud Brightening, (MCB) since oceanic ships have been producing higher reflectivity ship tracks for a century or more. Cheers,John. lat...@ucar.edu John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: 12 August 2013 02:13 To: macma...@cds.caltech.edu Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles? DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, What's the very most likely thing to work right now? that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done. On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edumailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: Mark – read more carefully; David’s comment regarding “won’t work with sulphates” was in the context of whether it is theoretically possible to put enough up there to freeze the planet. (Which he then goes on to point out is not something to be worried about anyway, since it would require intentional global suicide.) He was quite explicit that in the short term, if someone actually wanted to do something, it would probably involve sulphate. Regarding engineered particles, beyond his 2010 PNAS paper on photophoretic levitation, I don’t think there has been any research here, so there isn’t any suggestion to evaluate. (But no reason to believe that something couldn’t be designed to work, sounds to me like a great research topic.) From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Massmann Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 10:20 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Lateline - 22/11/2012: One of the worlds leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Dr. Keith- I was very surprised by one of your comments in the above interview with Tony Jones. Concerning the feasibility of sulphate aerosols you state: So, you might in principle be able to put up enough reflective aerosols - probably not sulphates, actually; I think it won't work with sulphates - but some other engineered aerosol. Can you please explain why you now think that stratospheric sulphates will not work? Can you also explain what engineered aerosol(s) are being considered, what the likelihood is that they will work (i.e. offsetting a doubling of pre-industrial CO2)? Thank you- Mark On Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:11:27 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm One of the world's leading geo-engineering proponents, Harvard Professor David Keith Australian Broadcasting CorporationBroadcast: 22/11/2012 Reporter: Tony Jones Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering. Transcript TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada. David Keith, thanks for joining us. DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in
