Re: [geo] Death of Stephen Salter

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Thanks Rob and I hereby Express my heartfelt condolences to the family of
Prof Salter.
He was very pragmatic and patient while solving the difficult equation of
global warming. He leaves a legacy in the field of solar geoengineering,
which
I personally benefited during the few  one on one interactions we had. We
will miss his from his advice and expertise.
R.I.P. dear Prof. S.S.

Cush

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 03:00  wrote:

> Emeritus Professor Stephen Salter MBE died peacefully on Friday morning,
> aged 85.
>
>
>
> Stephen Salter was a remarkable pioneer and leader in solar
> geoengineering.  As Professor of Engineering Design at the University of
> Edinburgh, he had a long history of provocative and innovative research,
> first in wave energy, designing the Salter Duck
> ,  and then
> in Marine Cloud Brightening.  Stephen worked closely with John Latham and
> many other scientists to develop the MCB concept of submicron monodisperse
> sea salt generation, as proposed in their 2012 article
>  published
> by the Royal Society.  This article used general circulation model
> computations to argue that cooling from MCB could balance the heating from
> a doubling of CO2 while also delivering targeted local cooling.
>
>
>
> Stephen was in excellent health until late last year, actively engaging in
> discussions about how to take forward his designs to test MCB.  In 2023 he
> purchased a 3000 m2 engineering workshop in Loanhead to establish the
> Lothian School of Engineering, where a number of his former engineering
> students are developing innovative technologies.  The Lothian School will
> be used to research Stephen’s proposal for a spray tunnel to test wafer
> nozzle technology for the generation of submicron MCB salt spray,
> potentially in collaboration with the Cambridge University Centre for
> Climate Repair.  Stephen established Ocean Cooling Technology Ltd as the
> owner of the Lothian School to take forward his vision.
>
>
>
> He hoped to supervise a team of young engineers  to work in R for MCB at
> the Lothian School, proving the concepts needed to eventually deploy his
> design for remotely controlled oceangoing MCB vessels. This technology was
> recently endorsed by Dr James Hansen et al in their celebrated article
>  *Global
> Warming in the Pipeline* as the most innocuous way to research solar
> radiation management.
>
>
>
> It was a source of immense frustration and regret for Stephen that the
> climate establishment treated him as a pariah due to his advocacy of
> planetary cooling.   He was excluded from the British delegation to the
> Glasgow COP26 climate conference, prompting him to observe that just the
> security budget for that event could have been enough to start cooling the
> planet with MCB.  Similarly, he compared the costs of World War Two
> warships against the transfer prices paid for top footballers as a model
> for MCB costs, to illustrate how badly humanity fails to get our priorities
> right. As Stephen explained in a 2022 interview with Nick Breeze
> , a primary constraint for
> effective action to mitigate climate change is lack of funding for MCB
> research.  This situation highlights the need for media, academic and
> government discussion of the major planetary security and ecology risks
> created by the political refusal to allow action to reflect more sunlight.
>
>
>
> Perhaps if more people had taken a scientific view on climate policy much
> of the extreme weather of recent years could have been mitigated with MCB,
> which offers the best available way to cut hurricane intensity, while also
> offering a rapid way to help refreeze the poles.  Stephen had the foresight
> to arrange his affairs through the establishment of the Lothian School, so
> when humanity comes to reason and understands the urgent need to cool the
> planet, the technology could be well advanced to limit the ongoing damage
> of global warming.
>
>
>
> Robert Tulip
>
>
>
> *From:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Clive
> Elsworth
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2024 9:17 AM
> *To:* Healthy Planet Action Coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* [HPAC] Fwd: End of an era
>
>
>
> Please see below.
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: Daniel 
>
> To: Planetary Restoration 
>
> CC: Clive Elsworth , Douglas Grandt <
> answerthec...@mac.com>
>
> Date: 23/02/2024 22:08 GMT
>
> Subject: Fwd: End of an era
>
>
>
>
>
> Please see below sad news about Stephen. Morag let me know it is ok to
> share the news, and I also received the following email from Ally Price
> this evening. Please see below.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
> -- 

Re: [geo] Geoengineering is needed asap. Public doesn't like it. So...

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Colleagues

What's your take on this: "There is no climate emergency; Our physical
climate models are wrong" (John Clauser, Nobel Prize 2022).

Professor John Clauser won last year's Nobel Prize for physics. He's become
the 2nd Nobel laureate to sign the climate declaration joining 1600 other
scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis."

FULL EPISODE: 
*https://watch.adh.tv/alan-jones-full-shows/season:3/videos/aj-2023-09-05
*

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 18:05 Andrew Song  wrote:

> Thanks for the mention Jeff. If people want to follow along, here is a
> link to our blog where we share monthly, how much money we have in the
> bank, how much money we spent in a month, our runway, and progress to help
> cool Earth: https://makesunsets.com/blogs/news
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 8:20 AM Jeff Suchon  wrote:
>
>> Besides, tell your friends  spread the word, demonstrate, write your
>> congressman, any laptopping it away do you think we can do? I personally
>> like the public displays .. the "shock and awes" like Make Sunsets.
>> Is there anything that you think can be a bell ringer for your niche of
>> climate restoration?
>>
>> --
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0d425a94-6c2a-481b-96b2-fc2a44bf618an%40googlegroups.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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CANjZVEPfnj%3DesS6FUkJuyaexDE%3DcYaubLUJApr--S_htFgU7xQ%40mail.gmail.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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7arXpCPK0znXW%2BD%2BstKFqB4XWGci8jmaYx14br6NYTqtuA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Key impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems, with priorities for future research

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

I realize that both Zanerstke et al. (2021) and McCormack et al. (2016)
record a high level of uncertainty of solar GE technologies on ecosystems
and biodiversity. But unlike the recent paper, the former one suggest new
avenues of research to reduce the gap in knowledge. I actually buy the idea
that researchers working on ecology and natural resources management shall
focus on these pending issues to reduce the uncertainty of climate
intervention. Otherwise, it can easily be weaponized by superpowers and
destroy entire nations. In such case, we would have contributed to this
moral hazard.
Cush

Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Director of Postgraduate Studies (Francophone Africa Virtual Campus)
Ballsbridge University
WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
Website: www.fr-acedu.org
E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022, 14:23 Gideon Futerman  wrote:

> Your article was published 5 years after the article Andrew posted which
> is probably why! 
>
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, 12:13 Alan Robock ☮, 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm amazed that they did not even reference our recent article on the
>> same topic:
>>
>> Zarnetske, Phoebe L., Jessica Gurevitch, Janet Franklin, Peter Groffman,
>> Cheryl Harrison, Jessica Hellmann, Forrest M. Hoffman, Shan Kothari, Alan
>> Robock, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Jin Wu, Lili Xia, and Cheng-En
>> Yang, 2021: Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by
>> reflecting sunlight to cool the Earth. *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.*, *118* (15),
>> e1921854118, doi:10.1073/pnas.1921854118.
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/15/e1921854118.full.pdf
>>
>> The abstract says, "A literature review was carried out to identify
>> details of the potential ecological effects of climate engineering
>> techniques." but it was clearly incomplete.
>>
>> Alan Robock
>>
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
>> Rutgers UniversityE-mail:
>> rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
>> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>>
>> [image: Signature]
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2022 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>>
>> Abstract
>> Climate change has significant implications for biodiversity and
>> ecosystems. With slow
>> progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate engineering
>> (or
>> ‘geoengineering’) is receiving increasing attention for its potential to
>> limit anthropogenic
>> climate change and its damaging effects. Proposed techniques, such as
>> ocean fertilization for
>> carbon dioxide removal or stratospheric sulfate injections to reduce
>> incoming solar radiation,
>> would significantly alter atmospheric, terrestrial and marine
>> environments, yet potential sideeffects of their implementation for
>> ecosystems and biodiversity have received little attention.
>> A literature review was carried out to identify details of the potential
>> ecological effects of
>> climate engineering techniques. A group of biodiversity and environmental
>> change
>> researchers then employed a modified Delphi expert consultation technique
>> to evaluate this
>> evidence and prioritize the effects based on the relative importance of,
>> and scientific
>> understanding about, their biodiversity and ecosystem consequences. The
>> key issues and
>> knowledge gaps are used to shape a discussion of the biodiversity and
>> ecosystem implications
>> of climate engineering, including novel climatic conditions, alterations
>> to marine systems and
>> substantial terrestrial habitat change. This review highlights several
>> current research priorities
>> in which the climate engineering context is crucial to consider, as well
>> as identifying some
>> novel topics for ecological investigation.
>>
>>
>> Keywords
>> biodiversity, carbon dioxide removal, climate engineering, ecosystems,
>> geoengineering, solar
>> radiation managemen
>>
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1159578
>> --
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07gFqi3ATMb%2BZ00NjcS2EoBu

Re: [geo] Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in the United States

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Surprise
This is as well a surprise to our community of researchers, as one could
naively think that there is no conflict of interest in GE research. No
wander that these GE Philosophies hit the wall of negative attitudes from
policy-makers, who do not see their economic interest in our undertakings.
Capitalism, communism, socialism, eugenism, Judaism,  christianism,
bouddhism, shintoïsm, africanism, etc. also have their say in the current
context of GE research. This does ipso facto affect the final result of the
researches, which are still at a early stage of implementation. Shall we
keep blaming policy-makers for not allowing open-door experiments of some
forms of GE? Or shall we first with the ethics of GE, while perfecting our
tools and approaches?
This is just food for thought.
Thanks

Prof. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Director of Postgraduate Studies/ Francophone Africa (Dist./Online)
Ballsbridge University
WFG (jombi), Mesing 14, Willemstad, Curacao, The Netherlands
WhatsApp: +243 970 649 946
Website: www.fr-acedu.org
E-mail: lc...@fr-acedu.org

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 16:26 Andrew Lockley  wrote:

>
>
> https://www.solargeoeng.org/economic-interests-and-ideologies-behind-solar-geoengineering-research-in-the-united-states/
>
> Economic interests and ideologies behind solar geoengineering research in
> the United States
>
>- KEVIN SURPRISE AND J.P. SAPINSKI
><https://www.solargeoeng.org/author/kevinandjp/>
>
>
>- October 27, 2022
>
> *Solar geoengineering research – also discussed as solar radiation
> management or stratospheric aerosol injection – is often thought of as a
> futuristic climate emergency measure, or as a tool of the fossil fuel
> industry to push back energy transitions as much as possible. In this post,
> we show that solar geoengineering is mostly now supported by interests
> aligned with technology and financial sectors, and advanced by researchers
> as a key part of near-term climate policy. This blog is based on a recent
> paper by the authors, which can be found here
> <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03098168221114386>, with pdf
> here: Whose climate intervention? Solar geoengineering, fractions of
> capital, and hegemonic strategy.
> <https://www.academia.edu/89265578/Whose_climate_intervention_Solar_geoengineering_fractions_of_capital_and_hegemonic_strategy>*
>
> There is a persistent false dichotomy animating the politics of solar
> geoengineering. On one hand, proponents of research and development argue
> that solar geoengineering could serve as both a near-term intervention to
> reduce climate impacts for the most vulnerable, and a way to “buy time” for
> mitigation, adaptation, and carbon removal to take effect. On the other
> hand, critics tend to couch solar geoengineering as nothing but a
> smokescreen to perpetuate fossil fueled
> <https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuel-to-the-fire-how-geoengineering-threatens-to-entrench-fossil-fuels-and-accelerate-the-climate-crisis-feb-2019/#:~:text=Click%20to%20read.-,Fuel%20to%20the%20Fire%3A%20How%20Geoengineering%20Threatens%20to%20Entrench%20Fossil,and%20promoting%20key%20geoengineering%20technologies.>
>  business-as-usual <http://www.etcgroup.org/content/big-bad-fix>. The
> truth lies somewhere in between (though critics are much closer to the
> mark). That is, solar geoengineering is not a humanitarian endeavor, nor is
> it a direct ploy by the fossil fuel industry. It is being advanced –
> funded, researched, and governed – by institutions and individuals broadly
> aligned with or connected to Silicon Valley and Wall Street, so-called
> green capitalists within the technology and financial industries operating
> under ideologies of philanthrocapitalism
> <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-with-charitable-billionaires-philanthrocapitalism>
>  (or
> effective altruism) and ecomodernism <http://www.ecomodernism.org/>.
> Solar geoengineering is being advanced by these interests as a way to “buy
> time” for the same staid, gradual, neoliberal climate policies that have 
> failed
> for decades <https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0265>:
> market mechanisms, policy tweaks, and technological innovations. There
> appears to be a faction within climate politics willing to push for
> extreme, potentially dangerous, likely centuries-long technological
> interventions to alter the climate system so that we can ultimately
> change…nothing at all. Or, more accurately, to actively save capitalism
> from a climate crisis of its own making
> <https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-10-13/solving-the-climate-crisis-requires-the-end-of-capitalism/>
> .
>
> We explore this paradox in a recent
> <https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168221114386> pape

Re: [geo] SG and Tropical Monsoons

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Bala et Al.
These predictions are acurate and concur with many recent experiments
following the famous Robock (2008): ''Twenty reasons why Geoengineering is
a Bad idea''. Now We need strong policy measures to prevent Such
catastrophies at a global scale.
Kudos!

Le dim. 9 janv. 2022 à 07:03, Govindasamy Bala  a
écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> In this paper that came out last week in Climate Dynamics
> , we looked at the changes in
> mean precipitation in tropical monsoon regions for sulfate injections at
> different latitudes.
>
> Key message: India could experience persistent droughts if aerosols are
> injected at 15 or 30 deg N. The result is interpreted from planetary
> energetics and interhemispheric asymmetry in energy balance.
>
> Many of you may be aware that Ben Kravitz, Doug, Simone and others have
> worked on ideas such as controlled injections at several locations
> simultaneously to avoid such catastrophes, but I am not sure we can really
> have such precise control on the climate system
>
> --
> With Best Wishes,
>
> ---
> G. Bala
> Professor
> Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
> Indian Institute of Science
> Bangalore - 560 012
> India
>
> Tel: +91 80 2293 3428; +91 80 2293 2505
> Fax: +91 80 2360 0865; +91 80 2293 3425
> Email: gb...@iisc.ac.in; bala@gmail.com
> Google Scholar 
> ---
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAD7fhVk1OSANz7esABWgM%2BNFG9P%2BAo57Nuvecx27k9VF_Duvwg%40mail.gmail.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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7aoUOtkNrtFAFMV-TnUZDy%3DQu5EH1XgW0mmY56ABWufi%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Keith
I do really like this opinion article.
It's really wholesome.
Keep it up !

Le ven. 12 nov. 2021 à 17:15, Keith, David  a
écrit :

> Enclosed. All three articles. Please feel free to forward to the Google
> group as I think my email won't post there from this address.
>
>
>
> D
>
>
>
> *From:* Janos Pasztor jpasz...@c2g2.net
> *Sent:* Friday, November 12, 2021 9:19 AM
> *To:* Keith, David david_ke...@harvard.edu
> *Subject:* FW: [geo] Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> This looks very interesting.  Would you be able to share a version of this
> article that is not behind a paywall?
>
>
>
> many thanks
>
>
>
> Janos
>
> ===
> Janos Pasztor 
> Executive Director
> *Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G)*
> Geneva, Switzerland
>
> Email: jpasz...@c2g2.net | Mobile: +41-79-7395503 | Twitter: @jpasztor |
> Skype: jpasztor
>
> [image: signature_933326256]
> 
>
> www.c2g2.net
> 
>
> Follow C2G on
> [image: signature_1172462308]
> 
>  [image: signature_1421365155]
> 
>  [image: signature_22151]
> 
>
>
>
> *è Help us improve our efforts! Please take 5 mins to tell us what you
> think in our 2021 C2G Stakeholder survey: 
> **https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LHL5WPS
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of Geoeng Info <
> infogeo...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"infogeo...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:13
> *To: *"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
> *Subject: *[geo] Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering
>
>
>
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj1587
> 
>
>
> Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering
>
>
>
> DAVID W. KEITH
>
>
> Abstract
>
> The divergence of expert opinion about solar geoengineering (SG) may be
> sharper than in any other area of climate policy. As with other contested
> technologies, disagreement sometimes conflates divergent scientific and
> political judgments with divergent normative stances. It is impossible to
> cleanly disentangle the technical, political, and ethical aspects of the
> debate. But it is possible to disagree in ways that better serve the
> public’s interests. Disaggregation of judgments about SG may allow experts
> to disagree more constructively and better serve policy-makers and diverse
> publics. An organized list of concerns about SG could serve as a tool to
> encourage disaggregation of complex disagreements while discouraging their
> conflation into an unhelpful “good versus bad” dichotomy.
>
> --
> You received this message 

Re: [geo] First African SRM research paper

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

 the first SRM research papers to
>>>> come from South America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, West Africa,
>>>> and
>>>> Southeast Asia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/61d7a535-01ec-41da-bcb4-5446aabbab42%40googlegroups.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/61d7a535-01ec-41da-bcb4-5446aabbab42%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> --
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/76b02e31-a3c1-4a76-b0b9-92921a0ead62%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/76b02e31-a3c1-4a76-b0b9-92921a0ead62%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07OBerk%3D27GyRNA6eg_mrbLZ-W6JGogpfSCxwDR5pGyFg%40mail.gmail.com.
>


-- 
| Prof. Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD *|* Director General*| Health College
of Kenge (ISTM Marie Reine de la Paix de Kenge)| BP 8631 KIN 1**|**
Democratic Republic of Congo | Mobile: +243826875668
|Associate Professor: Economics & Environment| University of Kwango (UNIK)
|BP 9457 KIN 1|Kenge, Democratic Republic of Congo|
Mobile: +243899912090

|Member of the WMO Research Board on Weather, Climate, Water and the
Environment | Regional Association I (RAI, Africa) | World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) |  Geneva 2, Switzerland|
|Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) | Climate Research for
Development (CR4D) program| United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
(UNECA)| Addis Ababa, Ethiopia|

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKo_7arS8P-WsH0m-Kb15hi3DtdBNP7CrE4M2RW%3DvhPsM7rZPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [geo] Fwd: DECIMALS Fund – call for proposals opens today

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

 major new SRM modelling fund for developing
>>> country scientists: the DECIMALS Fund (Developing Country Impacts
>>> Modelling
>>> Analysis for SRM). DECIMALS will support scientists from the Global South
>>>
>>> who want to analyse how SRM geoengineering might affect their regions.
>>>
>>> DECIMALS is the first fund of its kind and it features in a Comment
>>> <https://srmgi.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4ec4191d31f894c0e3eab90bb=bb6c71d1a4=5fd4608dde>
>>>
>>> that’s published today in Nature, where a group of eminent Southern
>>> scholars and NGO leaders call for developing countries to play a central
>>>
>>> role in SRM research and discussion.
>>>
>>> Grants of up to USD$70k will support scientists as they explore the
>>> climate impacts that matter most locally, from droughts to cyclones to
>>> extreme temperatures to precipitation changes. The DECIMALS Fund aims to
>>> go
>>> beyond research: its wider goals include capacity-building,
>>> community-building, and expanding the conversation around SRM. DECIMALS
>>> research teams will therefore receive financial support to attend
>>> conferences, to collaborate with each other and with SRM modelling
>>> experts,
>>> and to discuss their findings with their local communities at the end of
>>>
>>> their projects.
>>>
>>> Note that applicants do not need to be experts in SRM at the time of
>>> application, as there has been little research on this across the Global
>>>
>>> South to date. See here
>>> <https://srmgi.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4ec4191d31f894c0e3eab90bb=24dee0734d=5fd4608dde>
>>>
>>> for full information about the grants, applicant eligibility, and the
>>> application process. The call is open from now until *29 May 2018.*
>>>
>>> Please do pass this along contacts and colleagues who might be interested
>>>
>>> in applying, and feel free to circulate it on departmental or
>>> professional
>>> email groups.
>>>
>>> The SRMGI team
>>> This email was sent to *rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu *. Want
>>> to change how you receive these emails? You can update
>>> <https://srmgi.us17.list-manage.com/profile?u=4ec4191d31f894c0e3eab90bb=71489c76d2=5fd4608dde>
>>>
>>> your preferences or unsubscribe
>>> <https://srmgi.us17.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=4ec4191d31f894c0e3eab90bb=71489c76d2=5fd4608dde=3e3fe70479>
>>>
>>> from this list. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative .
>>> Kienitzer Str. 100 . Berlin 12049 . Germany
>>>
>>> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]
>>> <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter_medium=email_campaign=monkey_rewards=4ec4191d31f894c0e3eab90bb=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at https://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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 


| *Prof. Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD *|* Deputy Director General
(Academic)*| Health
College of Kenge (ISTM Marie Reine de la Paix de Kenge)*| **BP 8631 KIN 1*
*|** Democratic Republic of Congo **| Mobile: +243829313250*

*|**Associate Professor: Economics & Environment**| **University of Kwango
(UNIK)** | **BP 9457 KIN 1**|** Democratic Republic of Congo **| **Mobile:
+243896213049*
*|**Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) **| **Climate
Research for Development (CR4D) program**| *Africa Climate Policy Center
(ACPC)*|** United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)| Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia**| *

*Tel: 251-11-544-5000**|**Member of the Editorial Board **| **Research in
Agriculture (RA) Journal**| **Scholink Publishing, Ltd| Los Angeles, CA:
United States of America, **| **Tel: *+1-626-513-2983 <%28626%29%20513-2983>;
Fax: +1-626-333-8885; E <%28626%29%20333-8885>mail: r...@scholink.org

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] RE: Having to decide

[Prof. cush ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Andy and Irvine, Wil and Doug,
I shall admit that your discussion on the risks associated to termination of 
SRM was very healthy and thanks to Parker and Irvine (2018).
Here is my take-home message, but I may also be wrong:
(1) SRM research is necessary for climate policy and planning but the 
technology is not sufficient enough to curb the long term effects (centennial 
and millennial effects) of climate change;
(2) SRM shall not be seen, at least FOR NOW, as the central climate policy 
option, as no clear scientific evidence, indication and agreement dictates so; 
thus no-SRM climate policy shall not be considered "irrationality";
(3) The available studies on SRM are mostly based on philosophical assumptions 
rather than verifiable hypotheses, since there are scanty  counterfactuals 
(e.g. Mt pinatubo for SAI), or   simply none.
(4) More predictions based on scientific modeling (e.g. Caldeira, Crutzen, 
Keith, Robock et al.) are required and needed to inform both science and policy 
on the SWOTs of alternative climate interventions that may exist beside 
mitigation and adaptation;
(5) Finally, climate engineering shall be developed alongside 
mitigation+adaptation frameworks to increase its reliability among 
policy-makers,  and feasibility among decision-makers as well as the risk of 
its termination due to technological failure.

This is my take-home message from your discussion and I wish you well in all 
your endeavors.
Best regards,
Cush



Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung par
Prof. Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD



 Original message 
From: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> 
Date: 13/03/2018  13:18  (GMT+01:00) 
To: 'Oliver Morton' 
<olivermor...@economist.com>,geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: 'Wil Burns' <w...@feronia.org> 
Subject: [geo] RE: Having to decide 
 
Apologies for being too quick and conciliatory in my attempt to find common 
ground with Wil.  

 

Also realize, for the record, I meant to agree with Wil in acknowledging that 
those advocating for SRM research can inadvertently come across at times as 
painting a future story in which non-SRM is unacceptable, and therefore come 
across as biased, I did not mean to suggest in any way that Andy or Pete were 
guilty of that, I was just agreeing that the discourse can at times come across 
that way (and I might point out that Wil is doing exactly the same thing, just 
with the opposite sign).   Specific to Andy and Pete’s work, I don’t get how 
recognizing that a risk can be reduced constitutes advocacy of SRM.  Ultimately 
we need to think seriously about all of the risks on both sides.

 

Regarding my turn of phrase, best is probably to just delete it rather than 
over-think it. 

1.  I don’t think that the climate changes similar to what we are 
experiencing today being likely to trigger anyone justifying deploying SRM, no 
matter how much we know about SRM.  That is, I don’t see anyone being faced 
with feeling pressure to decide today, or ever if climate change doesn’t get 
worse (which, of course, it will).

2.  Yes, it is plausible that some mix of luck and a vast immediate change 
in policy then climate changes might be kept to a point where at least for my 
lifetime they won’t be too bad.  I happen to think this is pretty unlikely, but 
my assessment of probability is irrelevant.  If it becomes clear that we will 
stay below 2C without SRM, then maybe (depending on what a 2C world actually 
looks like) no-one ever thinks seriously about deploying SRM.

3.  What I think is more likely is that some mix of (i) it is clear we 
won’t keep CO2 levels sufficiently low and (ii) climate damages are going to be 
much more substantial than they are today, is the trigger that causes “people” 
to take SRM more seriously.   

4.  So my guess would be “having to decide” has far more to do with what 
not-doing-SRM looks like than what doing-SRM looks like.

5.  And, like 100% of other things in the world, there is no one actor who 
decides things.  Maybe it goes through UNFCCC.  Maybe it’s more analogous to 
multiple developed countries agreeing to put sanctions on Iran. 

 

Sure, it would be great if there was some nice consensus based approach where 
everyone in the world had their voice and participated and everyone came to a 
rational evidence-based agreement on how much to do and how, but I don’t think 
that’s the way much of anything gets done in the world, and don’t see why this 
would be any different.  Or, for that matter, why we should wring our hands 
about that and say that if we can’t imagine a perfect governance system then we 
should throw out SRM.  

 

Bottom line, as Andy pointed out to me a few weeks ago, is that we try (or some 
of us do) on the physical-climate-impacts side to be clear about whether we’re 
comparing climate impacts with SRM to (i) the same temperature achieved with 
lower atmospheric CO2 or (ii) the same atmospheric CO2 wit

[geo] Snowing in the Sahara Desert's Dunes: Is that an opportunity or a threat to Geoengineering Deployment?

[Prof. cush ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear colleagues,
I would first and foremost like to wish a happy and successful year 2018 to all.
I have just read on Gentside website that there was some significant but rare 
snowing in the Ain region of Algeria, in the Sahara desert in december 2016 and 
early 2017. This phenomenon has only occured 4 times since 1979  in a region 
where mean temperatures can reach 50 oC. So the question is: if this trend 
continues and based on recent developments in SRM and CDR research, what 
opportunities and challenges do you foresee from the sahara desert snowing?
For more information, kindly translate this French edition of the Gentside 
Link: 
http://www.maxisciences.com/sahara/la-neige-est-tombee-au-sahara-et-a-recouvert-les-dunes-du-desert_art40134.html

Best regards,
Cush


^---^---^---^---^---^---^---^---^---^
Prof. Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD
Associate Professor
Depart. of Economics and Environment
Faculty of Economics and Management
University of Kwango
Kenge, DRC
-
 Board member
UN Scientific Advisory Committee on Climate Research for Development in Africa 
(CR4D)
UN Economic Commission Africa (ECA)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Question: In what possible ways can BE- CCS / Biochars be used for the restoration of degraded soils within arid and hyper-arid lands like the Sahara and the Atacama deserts?

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear colleagues, my research program is facing a key challenge of generating
new knowledge to address issues of desertification and arable land
depletion facing smallholder farms in the Sahel and across the West African
Niger-Benue corridor. I have suggested that we explore emerging climate
intervention technologies to correct not only the warming effect but also
soil degradation. I thought that- (*kindly correct me where I am wrong*) -
The Biomass Energy with - /Carbon Capture and Storage (BE-CCS) and Biochar
technologies can assist with that regard since they are innovative
agronomic technologies for carbon sequestration and storage. For instance,
a carbon-negative technology, BECCS can take advantage of the innate
ability of trees, grasses and other plants to absorb atmospheric CO2 for
photosynthesis. Using appropriate ecosystem based approaches this CO2 can
be used to restore or at least rehabilitate degraded soils and enable
future utilization of the land for agriculture and forestry, depending on
the soil structure and moisture in the area.

I therefore request for your opinion on the questions below:

*Questions: *

(1) In what possible ways can BE- CCS and Biochars be used for
restoration / rehabilitation of degraded soils within semi-arid and arid
lands?

(2) What possible scenarios on carbon storage, nutrients and soil
moisture can be developed to test the potentials of large-scale deployment
of BE-CCS/ Biochars for the rehabilitation of degraded soils within
hyper-arid lands of the Sahara and the Atacama deserts, for instance?

(3)What progressive steps for upscaling/ outscaling their deployment
can be anticipated?

(4)Within what time scale can the land to be fit for producing
carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals?

Such an inquiry will help unveil the physical constraints and limitations
of the BE-CCS/ Biochar technologies in forestry and agronomy. It will also
enable a tradeoff analysis between climate intervention outcomes and
afforestation and other productive biomass systems.

I will be very grateful if you can provide an opinion based on substantial
literature to support their arguments.

Regards,

*Dr. Cush Ngonzo Luwesi*, PhD

 *Focal Region Manager *– *West Africa*

 *CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystem (WLE)*


 *---*

 *International Water Management Institute - West Africa Office*

 CSIR Campus, Martin Odei Block, Airport Residential Area, PMB CT 112,
 Cantonments

 Accra – Ghana

 Tel:  +233 302 784753/4;   +233 28 9109561
 Fax: +233 302 784752
 Mobile: +233 (0) 0263772520

 *Email: **c.luw...@cgiar.org* e@cgiar.org

 IWMI website: : http://www.iwmi.org

 WLE website: http://wle.cgiar.org
 Agriculture and Ecosystems blog: http://wle.cgiar.org/blogs


-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: [geo] My Op-ed in The Guardian about the CIA and geoengineering

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

This is quite obvious Prof. Spy agencies and state criminals have long used
unconventional arms to harm other people or countries, whether in time of
war or peace.A a genuine scientist, your worries are also quite genuine. I
am quite sure that some of your fellow researchers are receiving such funds
to develop climate intervention technologies that will be used for other
purposes than fixing the global warming issue. I therefore urge you to keep
up raising awareness on these issues.

Regards,










*Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD) Lecturer Department of Geography, Office G2B
Kenyatta University Main Campus, Thika Road P.O. Box 43844 - 00100 Nairobi
Tel +254 710 149 676*

*Profile: (1) *
*http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293-dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi*
http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293-dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi

*(2) **http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi*
http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi
* (3)  **www.researchgate.net/profile/Cush_Ngonzo_Luwesi*
*   (4)  *
*http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cJhl=en*
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cJhl=en


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
wrote:

  There has been a lot of publicity recently about my comments on the CIA
 and geoengineering.  Fortunately, *The Guardian* asked me to write an
 op-ed to give me a chance to explain my views using my own words.
 Unfortunately, they chose an inflammatory title, but please read the
 content.


 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/17/cia-controlling-climate-geoengineering-climate-change
 [includes links to some of the items in the text]


 *The CIA asked me about controlling the climate - this is why we should
 worry* [I did not write this title or subtitle.]

 *Geoengineering has many risks, and we don't yet know the CIA's
 intentions. But given the lack of political will on climate change, we have
 to look at it *

 Alan Robock

 Tuesday 17 February 2015 11.35 EST

 On January 19, 2011, I got a phone call from two men who told me they were
 consultants for the CIA. Roger Lueken and Michael Canes, analysts for the
 Logistics Management Institute, asked, among other things, If another
 country were trying to control our climate, would we be able to detect it?

 I told them that I thought we could, because if a cloud in the
 stratosphere were created (the most commonly proposed method of control)
 that was thick enough, large enough, and long-lasting enough to change the
 amount of energy reaching Earth, we could certainly see it with the same
 ground-based and satellite instruments we use to measure stratospheric
 clouds from volcanic eruptions. If, on the other hand, low clouds were
 being brightened over the ocean (another suggested means of cooling the
 climate), we could see telltale patterns in the tops of the clouds with
 satellite photos. And it would also be easy to observe aeroplanes or ships
 injecting gases or particles into the atmosphere.
 Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist
 fears

 At the same time, I wondered whether they also wanted to know if others
 would know about it, if the CIA was controlling the world's climate. Given
 that the CIA is a major sponsor of the recently released US National
 Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports on geoengineering (which they have
 renamed climate intervention), the question arises as to the possible
 interest of the CIA in global climate control.
 Advertisement

 Let me be clear. I completely agree with all the NAS findings. Global
 warming is real and is being caused by humans, mainly by burning coal, oil,
 petrol and natural gas, which puts carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas - into
 the atmosphere. Global warming will result in major harm to humanity if
 left unchecked. The solution is to stop using fossil fuels for our energy
 supply and switch to solar and wind power, and to adapt to some of the
 coming climate change.

 Geoengineering by blocking sunlight should not be implemented now, as its
 risks and benefits are too uncertain, but we need more research on the
 various proposed scenarios. Taking carbon dioxide out of the air is a good
 thing, but currently extremely expensive, and we need research on that, too.

 The 2014 US Quadrennial Defense Review makes clear that climate change
 poses a major threat to the US and the rest of the world. It says: The
 pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition
 while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance
 institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that
 will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation,
 political instability, and social tensions - conditions that can enable
 terrorist activity and other forms of violence.

 Certainly it is the job of the US military

Re: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote
: 
Clive naïvely asserts that we can't understand enough about how the Earth
system operates in order to take control of it.  This is a religious
argument that ignores global realities.  This statement is more religious
than Clive's. There is NOBODY in this earth who knows how best the climate
system functions for him or her to get hold of it. Our climate predictions
have long betrayed us that is why we invented the concept of climate
change. A complex system like the climate is difficult to master if not
impossible, especially at the global scale. If you cool temperatures in the
arctic, you are likely to disturb the known an unknown sub-climatic systems
in the southern hemisphere and the equatorial region. Our models are
simplistic and elusive sometimes so that we cannot claim to have mastered
the climate system. Do not be naive to believe that we can do better now
because we know it. How can you correlate atmospheric circulation in
Arizona with precipitations in somaliland? or wind pressure in Butan with
vegetation change in Brazil? At what confidence level? Here the probability
is small if not nil.  If we cannot do that, whatever climate intervention
that will be put in place in a region will improve one aspect of the
climate in that specific region and worsen other variables therein and
elsewhere in the globe, depending on the spectra of its impacts.

Regards,

Dr Cush N. Luwesi, PhD
Lecturer
Department of Geography
Kenyatta University
Nairobi, Kenya

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote:

 I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton's analysis of the politics of
 geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technology advocates he
 usefully but wrongly describes.  I would really welcome intensive
 Republican and military and big oil interest in carbon dioxide removal, as
 that is the only thing with prospect of delivering results on climate
 security and energy security.

 Multinational companies have to invest in CDR to protect their stock
 prices, their reputations and their sources of supply. CDR can deliver a
 win-win for the climate and the economy. Clive's scientific dreams falsely
 assume that the science on warming means the science is also in on workable
 responses (ie emission reduction).

 Emission reduction will not happen, and would not stabilise the climate
 even if it did, since it would only slow the upward CO2 trajectory. We need
 commercial negative emission technology on a scale bigger than total
 emissions.  Economic growth powered by coal is a freight train that no one
 will stop. Emission reduction is as likely as suggesting the French could
 have stopped Hitler by reforming their tax system.  UN emission targets,
 even if any are agreed, are nothing but a mirage that will recede as their
 dates approach.

 The entire emission reduction strategy is based on false assumptions about
 science, economics and politics.  The power of the fossil energy industry
 will easily brush aside carbon taxes and global regulations.  So rather
 than demonise Newt Gingrich as Hamilton suggests, a better strategy is to
 reach out to the right wing, to get money, political will and ingenuity to
 identify and deliver mutual goals on global scale.  The political reality
 is that anyone perceived as hostile to the oil and coal and gas industry
 cannot gain the trust of the people who make globally crucial decisions.

 As Bjorn Lomborg argues, the priority should be RD to make CDR
 commercially profitable.  My view is that we can burn coal and oil and gas
 and then mine the produced carbon using industrial algae farms at sea,
 delivering profitable commodities to fund scale up.

 Clive naïvely asserts that we can't understand enough about how the Earth
 system operates in order to take control of it.  This is a religious
 argument that ignores global realities.  Nine billion people means a choice
 between climate regulation and a runaway greenhouse.  Humans have planetary
 dominion whether we like it or not.  A Gaia Apollo project can deliver
 negative emission technology in the next decade to remove more carbon from
 the air than we add. The best target for the Paris climate conference is to
 harness private enterprise to remove twenty billion tonnes of carbon from
 the air each year within a decade.

 Robert Tulip

   --
  *From:* Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
 *To:* geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 *Sent:* Friday, 13 February 2015, 10:39
 *Subject:* [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton


 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html?referrer=
 By CLIVE HAMILTON
 FEBRUARY 12, 2015
 THE Republican Party has long resisted action on climate change, but now
 that much of the electorate wants something done, it needs to find a way
 out of the hole it 

Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

 I partly agree with Andy: Skepticism yes but realism is also needed. Alvin
Toffler (1970) predicted the future shock that change denial will cause
in the anthropocene. He used an analogy from the transmission of sound
through electrical cables, which until 1875, was unconceivable by some
while M. Bell was inventing the first telephone. Thence, he called for
improved anticipation in governance to mitigate that future shock and
ensure a smooth transition from hold practices to the new technological
environment with the pace of social and technical change (Jasanoff, 2011;
Stilgoe et al., 2013). Nonetheless, Toffler (1970) argued that not all
technological and scientific discoveries would come out from the
laboratories and take place nor would they see the light; some would just
abort while others would vanish in the impasse, owing to their
unfeasibility or fanciness or even disconnection to reality and
disconcertion. This corroborate with the recent Royal Society's *Berlin
Declaration 2014 on geoengineering.*

*Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi, PhD*
*Lecturer*
*Department of Geography*
*Kenyatta University*

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Motoko motok...@googlemail.com wrote:

  Great reference. I want to add the following sentence of von Neumann:
 All experience shows that even smaller technological changes than those
 now in the cards profoundly transform political and social relationships.

 Von Neumann could be right in assuming that climate control will change a
 lot. It will change also the relationship of science and policy.


 Am 30.01.2015 um 22:37 schrieb Jim Fleming:

  As argued in 1955:

 Present awful possibilities of nuclear warfare may give way to others
 even more

 awful. After global climate control becomes possible, perhaps all our
 present

 involvements will seem simple. We should not deceive ourselves:

  once such possibilities become actual, they will be exploited.

 -- John von Neumann, Can We Survive Technology? Fortune, June 1955,
 106-108.

 James R. Fleming
  Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Colby College
 Research Associate, Columbia University
 Series Editor, Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology,
 bit.ly/THQMcd
 Profile: http://www.colby.edu/directory/profile/jfleming/


 On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Olaf Corry toco...@gmail.com wrote:


 I agree with the basic idea that the politics of this will be likely to
 be very tricky (although - and partly for that reason - I remain
 unconvinced by the other premise of the article that SPI has been
 overwhelmingly shown to have net life-saving potential).

  Andrew, why the incredulity at a conflict scenario? The thing about
 international relations is that outcomes do not always reflect intentions
 or desired collective outcomes. History is full of consensus processes
 breaking down and collectively sub-optimal (to put it mildly) outcomes. 
 Presumably
 everybody had an incentive to avoid the chaos of WW1 and stick to a
 consensus process...

  So the authors are right in my opinion to raise this problem regarding
 SRM. I would add that by complicating/souring the international diplomatic
 situation SRM could easily affect the ability to agree and cooperate
 internationally on mitigation and adaptation too, which we agree would
 still need to happen as fast as possible.

  If we are consistently outcome-ethical about it we probably shouldn't
 put the politics in one compartment and the evaluation of the technology in
 another one.

  Best regards
 Olaf Corry




 On Friday, 30 January 2015 09:18:54 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote:

 I disagree fundamentally with the premise of this article.

 A decision on climate has to be made. Everyone knows it. Everyone has an
 incentive to avoid chaos. Therefore, people have a very large incentive to
 stick to a consensus process, because anyone who doesn't stick will
 instantly break that consensus and cause chaos - which is a guaranteed
 loser for all.

 Same reason villagers don't burgle their neighbours when police are busy
 elsewhere dealing with a major incident.

 A
 On 30 Jan 2015 08:54, Andy Parker apar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hey folks, the Washington Post just published an op ed on the messy
 politics of solar geoengineering, written by David Keith and me:
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-right-temperature-for-the-earth/2015/01/29/b2dda53a-7c05-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
  --
 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
 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

Re: [geo] 1. What are the important tractable research problems in solar geoengineering? (Help me prepare for CEC14)

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Dear Prof there are several uncertainties that geoengineers need to think
of now: (1) what is the object of CE? To control solar radiation (SRM) and
CO2 (CDR) or of the whole climate system (CE)?  (2) Is it a good idea to
control solar radiation, while it is really needed for the development and
survival of all biological systems? (3) Even so, How long will it take the
scientific community to master the climate system? (4) How long will it
take Geo-Engineers to fix the climate system? (5) How often will different
initiatives be deployed and where? (6) Where and when shall they be
deployed to enable a positive response in all the parts of the globe? (7)
What clear impacts are expected from the deployment of each technology? (8)
What unintended impacts may be projected from the deployment of each
technology? (9) When will this debate about reach the whole global
community to enable consensus about the types of technologies to be
acceptable? (10) Will there really be consensus among world leaders about
CE? (11) If this does not happen soon, will super powers use CE as a
nuclear weapon to control some parts of the globe?

Thanks.



*Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD)LecturerDepartment of Geography, Office G2B*
*Kenyatta University*
* Main Campus, Thika Road*

*P.O. Box 43844 - 00100Nairobi*

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Enough of govern-nonsense

[Cush Ngonzo Luwesi]

Hello guys, cool down. Governance is for your own good. The latin people
say Science without conscience is lethal for the soul. This is all about
governance. It is about restricting our freedom so that we may not overstep
the right of other people to life. If the NASA would take the risk of
accepting volunteers as treatment in its experiments, than we would lost
the principle of sacredness of life, especially human life. We shall not
present CE has opposed to life rather than a means of sustenance to life.
Let social scientists and governing institutions scrutinize CE motives,
goals and targets while we are deepening the modelling part for the better
living in our global society.

Cheers!!!



*Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD) LecturerDepartment of Geography, Office G2B*
*Kenyatta University*
* Main Campus, Thika Road*
*P.O. Box 43844 - 00100 Nairobi*

*Tel +254 710 149 676*

*Corporate Email: luwesi.c...@ku.ac.ke luwesi.c...@ku.ac.ke *

*Profile: (1)
http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293-dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi
http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293-dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi
*

*(2) http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi
http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi(3)  *
*www.researchgate.net/profile/Cush_Ngonzo_Luwesi  (4)
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cJhl=en
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cJhl=en   *

-- 
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/d/optout.