[geo] Geoengineering Techniques Assessment: Arctic, Antarctic and Amazonian Regions

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Frozen Isthmuses Protection Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans 
(FIPC) has proposed several geoengineering techniques to manage Arctic sea ice, 
its formation and concentrations as well as ice bergs. We at FIPC have also 
worked on geoengineering in the Amazon region and presented at World Water Week.

Sea Ice Management:

https://www.academia.edu/116595854/SEA_ICE_GROWTH_MANAGEMENT_further_information_to_Arctic_compendium
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]
SEA ICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT (further information to Arctic 
compendium
SEA ICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT (further information to Arctic compendium) 
Introduction: Methods in Use by the Russian Federation v. Novel Method Proposed 
The Sea Ice area can be manipulated and has been manipulated in the past under 
favorable conditions
www.academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/116573805/Sea_Ice_Growth_Management_an_assessment_in_Compendium_of_interventions_to_slow_down_halt_and_reverse_the_effects_of_climate_change_in_the_Arctic_and_northern_regions_pp_36_37?email_work_card=reading-history
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]
Sea Ice Growth Management (an assessment in Compendium of interventions to slow 
down, halt, and reverse the effects of climate change in the Arctic and 
northern regions), pp. 
36-37.
Sea Ice Growth Management (an assessment in Compendium of interventions to slow 
down, halt, and reverse the effects of climate change in the Arctic and 
northern regions). pp. 36-37. FROZEN ARCTIC: Compendium of interventions to 
slow down, halt, and
www.academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/4302181/Rowe_Mark_and_Kallio_Veli_A_Can_space_mirrors_save_the_planet_As_it_becomes_ever_clearer_that_simply_cutting_back_on_carbon_emissions_isn_t_going_to_save_the_poles_
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]
Rowe, Mark & Kallio, Veli A.: “Can space mirrors save the planet? As it becomes 
ever clearer that simply cutting back on carbon emissions isn’t going to save 
the 
poles"
Proposals to block the ice fjords of Greenland with reinforced high-tension 
cables to prevent icebergs from moving into the sea is impractical, because the 
force of the ice would ultimately snap the cables and rapidly release a large 
quantity of
www.academia.edu
Ice Berg Management:

https://www.academia.edu/116573431/Iceberg_Management_an_assessment_in_Compendium_of_interventions_to_slow_down_halt_and_reverse_the_effects_of_climate_change_in_the_Arctic_and_northern_regions_pp_23_24?email_work_card=reading-history
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]
Iceberg Management (an assessment in Compendium of interventions to slow down, 
halt, and reverse the effects of climate change in the Arctic and northern 
regions), pp. 
23-24.
Iceberg Management (an assessment in Compendium of interventions to slow down, 
halt, and reverse the effects of climate change in the Arctic and northern 
regions), pp. 23-24. Iceberg management pp. 23-24. FROZEN ARCTIC: Compendium of 
interventions to
www.academia.edu
Amazonian Geoengineering:

https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A_and_Lappalainen_M_Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]
Kallio, 

Re: [geo] PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic loss of global wetlands over past two decades

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Alan,

Did you say it seriously, that we could induce a new ice age.

I simply do not believe that. I think models are skewed for too little rather 
than too much considering long term background forcings already in place (as 
CO2 stays in air for circa 1000 years).

New Scientists just published yesterday a pretty damning graphics showing it 
almost impossible to stay within +1.5C rise.

Albert

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Alan Gadian 
Sent: 16 June 2022 15:43
To: Stephen Salter 
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER ; John Nissen 
; Planetary Restoration 
; Shaun D Fitzgerald ; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: [geo] PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic loss 
of global wetlands over past two decades

Dear Renaud and Stephen,

Truth often gets lost in the story.  If you believe the climate models (which I 
have concerns about),  but are the basis of the ICCP6 results, the simulations 
of MCB can easily provide 4W/m^2 cooling with < 10% of the clouds, (only the 
stratocumulus).  If you seed more, you can induce an ice age, so says the 
climate models.  If you look at the cloud models for small scale regions 
(resolution 20m which I strongly believe are correct), the increases in the 
albedo match the climate model values.  There are side effects for all  
interventions.  Please don’t ignore the fact that we use NWP rather models 
everyday and they do work.   Stratospheric Sulphur has been shown to work, with 
other very significant side effects and inability to switch off.  The aerosol 
would reach polar stratosphuric regions within ~ 4 weeks.

The weather is global.  The atmosphere’s role is solely to take heat from the 
equator to the pole.  With just MCB seeding any one of the three main 
sub-tropical stratocumulus cloud decks would affect the WHOLE planet, not just 
a region.  The biggest signal would be in the polar regions. This is often 
forgotten when discussing climate.  With a reduced AMOC, Western Europe will 
cool, but the ramifications around the globe are huge.

My personal view that a combination of measures may well be required; relying 
on one seems foolhardy as each has limitations. The consequences of MCB are 
global and one has to understand planetary meteorology to appreciate this.

The CCRA3 report (June 2021) is a far better assessment (in my opinion) than 
the IPPC6 WG1 report (July 2021)which is “concensusly” bland. The draft ONR 
document for the UK  
https://www.onr.org.uk/consultations/2021/external-hazards/ns-tast-gd-013-annex-3.pdf
 is a far more accurate assessment in my opinion and makes stark reading - but 
then I would say that as I was a co-author . Ukraine has shown that world 
leaders are incapable of realising the consequence of their actions. One 
suspects climate change is not on the radar at all, but being ready when is 
does hot will be significant.

Alan

Alan Gadian
alangad...@gmail.com



On 16 Jun 2022, at 15:07, SALTER Stephen 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:

Renaud
I think that the reason for good cooling from spray under clear skies is that 
they were taking a long term average and spray under clear skies has longer to 
spread and a longer life.  Double the drop number means a bit over 5% more 
reflectivity.   Because of this log term in Twomey we want the low dose over a 
wide area that we get if we spray under clear skies.  It is even better if we 
spray just after rain which has cleaned the air which will eventually get to 
somewhere with a high enough relative humidity. We are not in a hurry.
Stephen


From: Renaud de RICHTER 
mailto:renaud.derich...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 2:22 PM
To: SALTER Stephen mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
Cc: John Nissen mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>>; 
Planetary Restoration 
mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>>;
 Shaun Fitzgerald mailto:sd...@cam.ac.uk>>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: PRAG meeting and SLR: Satellite images reveal dramatic 
loss of global wetlands over past two decades

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email 
is genuine and the content is safe.
Don't forget also Ahlm, L., Jones, A., Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., & 
Kristjánsson, J. E. (2017). Marine cloud brightening–as effective without 
clouds. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(21), 13071-13087.  
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/13071/2017/

Sulfates from ships (and from fossil fuels power plants) are also effective 
without clouds!

Le jeu. 16 juin 2022 à 11:46, SALTER Stephen 
mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> a écrit :
Hi All
John Nissen writes below that marine cloud brightening is not so scalable as 
cloud coverage is limited.
Below is a table from Jones Haywood and Boucher of the UK  Hadley Centre in the 
Journal of Geophysical Research 2009 

[geo] How to make things much whiter?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

According this newly invented pigment the secret of whiter than white lies on 
particles being different sizes to suit sunlight wavelengths

"And we use lots of different sizes of particles, because sunlight has 
different colours at the different wavelength."

How much each particle scatters light depends on its size, "so we deliberately 
used different particle sizes to scatter each wavelength".

The uniform particle size seems to increase absorption on sunlight. Can cloud 
droplets be made on engineered sizes to raise reflectivity?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56749105
[https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/branded_news/46CD/production/_118052181_prof20ruan20with20whitest20white.jpg]
'Whitest ever' paint reflects 98% of sunlight - BBC 
News
Vantablack's developers, a company called Surrey NanoSystems, said the 
exclusivity deal with Mr Kapoor would not preclude the whitest white being 
displayed alongside the blackest black in a museum.
www.bbc.co.uk

-- 
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/DB9P194MB148391E4DDF7AEF6C29064FE904B9%40DB9P194MB1483.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

Re: [geo] Sea level rise

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I have been invited to give evidence at the UK Houses of Parliament on three 
occasions so far.

Like abrupt climate change, there may be also abrupt sea level rise. The 
long-standing paradigm has been of gradual sea level rise by the glaciers and 
ice sheets melting peacefully in situ to oblivion. This has been against 
historic and traditional sources citing often very violent sea flood.

My second evidence-giving session at the UK Houses of Parliament focused on the 
metamorphosis of cold, dry, stable and moraine-forming ice sheets into warm, 
wet, dynamic and aggregate-forming ice sheets that suddenly collapse, before 
leaving behind dead ice sheets, odd-bit stuck ice.
https://www.academia.edu/37157851/Our_Changing_Climate_in_Action_the_Risk_of_Global_Warming_and_the_Environmental_Damage_from_the_Rising_Ocean_Water_Table_Sustainable_Seas_Enquiry_Written_evidence_submitted_by_Veli_Albert_Kallio_FRGS_SSI0121_Ordered_to_be_published_23_May_2018_by_the_House_of_Commons

Several new papers have been citing my Parliament evidence that draws on soil 
formation and surface geology processes much as climate and glaciers 
themselves. The key process driving behind the change is the switchover of Type 
1 moulins (seasonal impact moulins) into Type 2 moulins and crevasses 
(accumulative impact moulins and crevasses) where meltwater builds up within 
ice sheet and beneath it without draining out before the start of the following 
melt season.

Summer 2019 saw already some Greenland glaciers covered by up to 100 mm 
standing layer of melt water. The exhaustive ice sheet surface water cover will 
begin to form once the Arctic Ocean and the North Pole become ice-free during 
the summertime 24-hour sunlight season. The water will drain but always leave 
behind the dirt which then acts as vicious feedback loop for next melt.

My first evidence-giving 4th April gave the background onto the processes and 
the overall cotext of the rapid and often abrupt changes now occurring in the 
Arctic - some of which have not been foreseen and forethought. 24th April, 
referenced text includes the sources (due to Parliament protocols that 
truncated the 5th April text). The referenced text gives many good text sources.
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]<https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx>
(DOC) MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 2017.docx | 
Veli Albert Kallio - 
Academia.edu<https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx>
The draft paper as at 24th April which is updated from the draft made for the 
oral presentation session (5th April 2017 does not contain any references and 
text errors needed corrections). The paper is still being worked on with more 
sections being
www.academia.edu
However, my 3rd evidence-giving session I was not able to put out because in 
the mean time I was given task to prepare a long presentation at the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the Bonn conference 
preparing for the next UN Conference of Parties (COP).

The key elements of the third evidence-giving session at Parliament would have 
been as follows:

1) the role of melting permafrost mountain and sea bed structures held together 
by frost, and the resulting melting from sustained higher air temperatures 
compromising continental margins both above and below sea level. This poses 
dangers like the recent tsunami in Greenland when coastal mountain collapsed 
into sea throwing off 95 metre tsunami wash, with one town affected with 
fatalities. The additional danger being a Storegga type slide below water line 
when permafrost melts and weakens.

2) furthering the concerns risen by the Loma Linda Geoscience Institute report 
which was attached exhaustively as part of my second evidence-giving at UK 
Houses of Parliament. This described a huge Schollen erratic boulder which at 
one point had had dimensions of miles being pushed by warmed and melted glacier 
as the Ice Ages came towards its end in Europe. The furthering look at the 
concepts of "cabracan", "zipcana", and "three heart-stones" processes on the 
deglaciation. In particular the role of ice penetration into geological faults 
and its effect of fracking and lubricating large pieces of rock becoming 
separated and behaving as if coated with teflon-life lubricant as a possible 
reason for the north side of the Laurentide Ice Sheet occurring with multitude 
islets.

3) look at the further papers following my evidence on the new inputs on the 
rapid erosion processes (cavitation, plucking, kolking, planing, subglacial 
turbidic rock currents) which have taken my points and furthered them in 
certain aspects.

4) look at the i

[geo] LARGE WATER BODY OXYGENATION (SEAS, OCEANS) IN FOCUS (ENGINEERING OCEAN FOR CLIMATE WARMING)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Besides reporting on the recent developments at United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)s annual roadshow UN Conference of Parties 
25 (COP25) currently meeting in Madrid, Spain, there is also a passage of sad 
news item - just emerged - which I must pass as first:


IN MEMORIAM: DR MATTI K. LAPPALAINEN

Dr. Matti K. Lappalainen, Councellor of the State of Finland on Environment 
('Ymparistoneuvos'), the world's foremost expert in large water body 
oxygenation (oceans, seas, the Amazon river etc) has died in a research-related 
accident. As a Vice-President, Environmental Affairs at Sea Research Society, I 
was often doing projects with him and he was my co-author on research on 
mitigation of the Amazon ecosystems for the changing climate which we presented 
at the World Water Week, Stockholm, August 2007. More recently Matti worked to 
oxygenate the Baltic Sea. In Tammisaari, Finland he rehabilitated 28km2 pilot 
plot and another anoxic sea area near Stockholm, Sweden of slightly smaller 
size. Future plans held for oxygenation of anoxic sea area east of Gotland, 
Sweden and in various other locations around the Baltic Sea. Before Dr 
Lappalainen, no one had ever attempted or succeeded in recovering anoxic seas 
and oceans by the breakthrough Mixox technology. He also made dissertation of 
his work for the University of Oulu. The world has lost one of its greatest 
minds and unique expert who is near impossible to replace. 
https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241

[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]<https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241>
(PDF) Kallio, Veli A. & Lappalainen, M.: Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for 
the Changing Climate, pp. 240-241. | Veli Albert Kallio - 
Academia.edu<https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241>
"A catastrophic draught event was reported across much of the north of South 
America during August - December 2005. This resulted in extensive and 
irreversible damage in parts of the Amazon river network. The 2005 Amazon 
draught followed very
www.academia.edu
The issue is absolutely important, the United Nations Conference of Parties 25 
is just debating on the matter: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=501=s-C9RfKdiow=emb_logo
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/s-C9RfKdiow/hqdefault.jpg]<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=501=s-C9RfKdiow=emb_logo>
Prof Dan Daffoley - IUCN Deoxygenation of Oceans - 
YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=501=s-C9RfKdiow=emb_logo>
"We are now seeing increasingly low levels of dissolved oxygen across large 
areas of the open ocean. This is perhaps the ultimate wake-up call from the 
uncon...
www.youtube.com
The most recent research and PhD dissertation of Matti Lappalainen1,2 (268 
pages)
1University of Oulu Graduate School
2University of Oulu, Faculty of Technology, Environmental Engineering

The dissertation was publicly defended at the East Finland University in Kuopio 
on large water body oxygenation (in this case the Baltic Sea) and analysis of 
the problem (with the Baltic Sea's anoxic situation) is downloadable here as 
electronic version:


http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789526219417

http://jultika.oulu.fi/Record/isbn978-952-62-1941-7

http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526219417.pdf
C 663 ACTA - jultika.oulu.fi<http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526219417.pdf>
Lappalainen, K. Matti, A renewed diagnosis and paradigm for eutrophication of 
the Baltic Sea. University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty 
of Technology
jultika.oulu.fi

The eutrophication of the Baltic Sea continues despite decrease of the external 
phosphorus load by as much as 80% of the target confirmed by HELCOM. The aim of 
this thesis is to investigate this paradox, critically evaluate previous 
explanations for the persistent eutrophication, and to introduce a new 
diagnosis and paradigm for the causes and processes behind eutrophication of 
the Baltic Sea.

According to the current consensus, anthropogenic nutrient loading is nearly 
the sole cause of eutrophication and regular cyanobacterial blooms. However, 
this study shows that the areal phosphorus loading rate, when modeled properly, 
is surprisingly low, and unlikely to be the primary cause of eutrophication. 
Instead, the frequency of the salt water pulses has decreased dramatically 
during the past 40 years. This is the root cause of eutrophication, via the 
hyper-vicious cycle of the hypoxic and finally anoxic conditions of the deeps 
causing internal phosphorus loading, denitrification, and nitrogen and carbon 
fixation. Furthermore, this work confirms that nitrogen fixation increases in 

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I agree Adam Sacks that utilisation of desertified biosphere needs to be done. 
I would add even more that there is a need to utilise arid land masses far 
better with drip water irrigation which would allow reforestation in some areas 
where forests can be restored and build more robust food supply system that is 
resilient against shocks by climate change and normal weather events and other 
types of crises. However, I would disagree that there is a necessary either - 
or situation for geoengineering versus desert reclamation. Some deserts should 
be used for solar farms as well to reduce fossil fuel.

Indeed, why do we always need to stand against each other in opposing of 
things, when there is market and space for both kind of activity to steer the 
earth from its disastrous current trajectory? Let's pull the rope together from 
the same end, rather than competing each other by pulling the ropes from the 
opposing ends to get results...

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Adam Sacks 
Sent: 11 December 2018 13:31
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Andrew Lockley; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Carbon Dioxide Removal
Subject: [geo] Re: [CDR] COP24: here's what must be agreed to keep warming at 
1.5°C

There is no technology anywhere close to photosynthesis.  It's available today 
and it's cheap to implement and we have 12+ billion anthropogenically 
desertified acres.  We have plenty of knowledge of how to do it, and there are 
currently practitioners on millions of acres.  Geoengineering is a distant and 
unproved set of options, fraught with unintended consequences.  The mainstream 
climate science doesn't understand the power of biology as they're mostly 
physical scientists, and even biologists are caught in the assumptions of the 
dominant paradigm.  Studies of the potential of biological carbon capture and 
the many many other positive effects of eco-restoration are mostly conducted on 
desertified land and the baseline of the possible is grossly underestimated.  
We know this from studies of positive variants.

If we're serious about addressing climate we will have to shift paradigms, and 
recover from our extreme technophilia.  Every time my cell phone or computer 
screw up, I marvel that we think for a moment that technology will save us - 
have we learned anything from dams, large cities, synthetic agricultural 
assault on soil life, etc.?  We don't know more than Nature, we're the global 
sorcerer's apprentice and we're not catching on.

When will we ever learn?

Check out our Compendium (links below), watch some of our videos, explore some 
of the many regenerative land management websites (you can start with 
Regeneration International).

Cheers!

Adam



===

Check out Bio4Climate's Compendium of Scientific and Practical Findings 
Supporting Eco-Restoration to Address Global 
Warming, 3 issues, free download.

===

Adam Sacks, Executive Director
Biodiversity for a Livable Climate
P.O. Box 390469
Cambridge, MA 02139
781-674-2339

===

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, 
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Buckminster Fuller

===



On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal 
mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>
 wrote:
“Globally we emit around 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, so net zero CO₂ by 
2050 will require CO₂ removal of this scale, starting immediately.”

Not quite.  Net Zero requires that carbon removal equal total emissions.  While 
the primary focus of the IPCC remains reducing total emissions, the hope is 
that the NET task could be smaller if emissions can be cut.

Unfortunately, all the emission trends seem to be in the wrong direction, so it 
looks like the NET task will actually be bigger.  As well, the equation must 
include CO2 equivalents.  The IPCC projections are that by 2030 total CO2e 
emissions will be 60 billion tonnes (gigatons or GT) under Business as Usual, 
and that full implementation of the Paris Accord would cut that by 10% to 54 GT 
(New York Times 6 Nov 2017, World Emissions Far Off Course).

Therefore, the projected task for NETs to achieve net zero is to remove 54 GT 
of CO2e annually by 2030, unless emissions come down faster than agreed at 
Paris.

Further to this massive task, climate restoration requires an even bigger goal. 
 In order to steer the planet away from the hothouse precipice, NETs should aim 
to remove double total emissions, 100 GT. And in the meantime, solar radiation 
management should be deployed to help avoid unforeseen dangerous tipping 
points.  These are the primary planetary security problems.

Robert Tulip



From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>; 

Re: [geo] climateanalytics_srm_brief_dec_2018.pdf

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to Michael MacCracken's comment, I also spotted another erroneous (or 
at least a misleading statement) which reads as follows:

"Solar radiation management does not halt, reverse or address in any other way 
the
profound and dangerous problem of ocean acidification which threatens coral 
reefs
and marine life as it does not reduce CO2 emissions and hence influence 
atmospheric
CO2 concentration."

This statement is misleading because of the time scale error of two magnitudes. 
The present problem with the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, for example, is 
the coral bleaching from heat stress that can occur within just a few weeks of 
excessively hot weather and sunshine. The stated threat of ocean acidification, 
though real one, is a chronic and long term one. The coral does not dissolve 
instantaneously even if SO2 load and further CO2 load added to sea water 
acidity. In addition there are other pollution and silting from marine 
aggregate extraction that are major stresses to the Great Barrier Reef. It 
would be rather beneficial to use short term geoengineering to dim sunlight 
during periods of heat stress for limited areas and periods as deemed 
beneficial.

There appears to be a partisan and political tint in the statement that is 
untrue and misleading. I have proposed other ways to rehabilitate and stabilise 
heat stresses. One of them could be guiding  a cold deep sea water current onto 
the reef area to keep it cool, or pump cold water from deep sea to reduce heat 
stress to the coral reefs. In addition, we have proposed large water body 
oxygenation as the warmer waters have a difficulty to retain dissolved oxygen. 
Our paper was published at World Water Week with Dr. Matti Lappalainen my 
co-author (the Finnish Councillor of State on Environment). He has also 
conducted oxygenation of the Baltic Sea to reduce phosphorus load coming from 
the sea bottom sediments and recently published his Ph.D thesis on the subject.
https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241

Yours faithfully,

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
Vice-President, Sea Research Society
Environmental Affairs Department
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Sea_Research_Society%27s_first_headquarters.jpg/1200px-Sea_Research_Society%27s_first_headquarters.jpg]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society>

Sea Research Society - 
Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society>
The Sea Research Society (SRS) is a non-profit educational research 
organization founded in 1972. Its general purpose is to promote scientific and 
educational endeavors in any of the marine sciences or marine histories with 
the goal of obtaining knowledge for the ultimate benefit to mankind. It does 
both archival research and underwater expeditions in search of historic 
shipwrecks.
en.wikipedia.org



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: 09 December 2018 15:45
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] climateanalytics_srm_brief_dec_2018.pdf

Why geoengineering is not a solution to
the climate problem

This briefing addresses grave scientific concerns in relation to proposed
geoengineering techniques such as solar radiation management (SRM).
“Geoengineering” as used here does not refer to negative emissions technologies 
that
remove CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal or CDR) as part of the
energy system or through ecosystem restoration and afforestation or 
reforestation.
Here we specifically address the risks posed by SRM.
Fahad Saeed, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, William Hare
Summary
Solar radiation management is not a solution to the climate problem
Solar radiation management does not address the drivers of human-induced climate
change, nor does it address the full range of climate and other impacts of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. Solar radiation
management aims at limiting temperature increase by deflecting sunlight, mostly
through injection of particles into the atmosphere. At best, SRM would mask 
warming
temporarily, but more fundamentally is itself a potentially dangerous 
interference
with the climate system.
Solar radiation management would alter the global hydrological cycle as well as
fundamentally affect global circulation patterns such as monsoons. Substantial
monsoon disruptions induced by SRM cannot be ruled out. SRM may not halt ocean
warming around Antarctica and would fail to counteract the increasing 
contribution
of Antarctic melt to sea level rise.
Solar radiation management does not halt, reverse or address in any other way 
the
profound and dangerous problem of ocean acidification which threatens coral 
reefs
and marine life as it does not reduce CO2 emissions and hence influence 
atmospheric
CO2 concentration. SRM 

Re: FW: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

eKbIxVpLtZSVR19GTsK6F_vw?sz=48]
Ken Caldeira 
mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>>


Mon, Jan 8, 8:09 PM

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

to Robinson
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]


Robinson,

I think you need to talk to people who know about ice sheets, people who know 
something about material properties of "aggregate material", and people who 
know something about building structures underwater.

I am none of these and so unable to give this any kind of sensible evaluation.

Glaciers regularly plow a great deal of material ahead of them, and mountain 
glaciers routine carve wide swaths through solid rock.

My guess is that the stresses that the ice sheet would impose on a bunch of 
aggregate would be so large the ice sheet would plow right through it but I am 
not expert on such mechanical properties.

I do not have the expertise to evaluate this proposal, but I am quite skeptical.

Best,
Ken


Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology / Carnegie Energy Innovation
260 Panama St, 
<https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650=gmail=g>
 Stanford CA 94305 
USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650=gmail=g>
+1 
650<https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650=gmail=g>
 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
http://CarnegieEnergyInnovation.org
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab>

Assistant, with access to incoming emails: Jess Barker 
jbar...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:jbar...@carnegiescience.edu>





On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:37 AM Veli Albert Kallio 
mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Our Changing Climate in Action: the Risk of Global Warming and the 
Environmental Damage from the Rising Ocean Water Table | Sustainable Seas 
Enquiry | Written evidence submitted by Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS (SSI0121) | 
Ordered to be published 23 May 2018 by the House of Commons.

Abstract:

Recently NATURE published a discussion on construction of sills in attempt to 
prevent or slow melting glaciers that are discharging ice into the ice fjords. 
Several further papers promptly followed publication of this essentially 
erroneous article in a respected NATURE magazine. Here it is pointed out that 
there is a discrepancy of several magnitudes thus excluding a long-term 
viability to manage the edges of ice fjords or continental ice shelves/sheets 
due to a phenomenon known as the mega-erratics. These are blocks of hard rocks 
that are several kilometres in size that have been dislocated by a warmed and 
wet edges of glacier/ice sheet/ice shelf. This Parliament evidence points out 
the error that was not apparent to the peer-reviewers at the time and in 
subsequent papers that followed. The Parliament was shown evidence that large 
enough obstacles cannot be possibly made to prevent ice discharges due to a 
progression of melting, that softens and lubricates glaciers, ice caps and ice 
sheets. The forces unleashed by the ice front exceeds several magnitudes from 
the conceived objects that sills were proposed. The only, and very only effect 
is temporary and limited to prevention of warm water incursion where these 
methods will work for a while in a cold, dry, and relatively stable ice 
formations. A long-term projections suggested to prevent warmed and 
water-infested glaciers from discharging ice into the ocean cannot be made as 
the forces of ice exceed many magnitudes of the sills and levies that can be 
made of concrete blocks, aggregates or other materials. Thus the prevention of 
sea level rise by this method for centuries or millennia is not functional one 
and thus the mitigation and prevention of rubbish gyros in ocean, the supply of 
housing, nuclear and food production security must be looked at as solution by 
the ocean littoral states. Several examples of various types of risk to the 
sustainability of oceans have been presented in addition to the above exposed 
misconception. This comes with much regret as it appears that one 
'hoped-for-solution' to manage the future climate change impacts has largely 
foundered on the issue that the sills cannot be made strong enough to contain 
most important, warmed glaciers or edges of unstable ice shelves. However, for 
a short-term this may offer small-scale solutions provided that costs remain 
sufficiently small. Aggressively melting ice formations with darkened surfaces, 
wide spread melt water ponds, or water filled crevasses it does not offer much, 
if any, prolonged ice stability. (The document is best viewed as a .pdf 

[geo] Geoengineering and United Nations General Assembly Motion 101292 (UNFCCC-TAL-SRS02/04/2018)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

United Nations General Assembly Motion 101292 for UNFCCC's Talanoa Dialogue

United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar issued authorization 
for the Hopi Nation to present their ethnoclimatology motion to the UN General 
Assembly, the investigation request remained languishing then in UN files for 
the next 26 years. After the Copenhagen Summit (COP15) which failed to continue 
pursuing the Kyoto Protocol route (COP3) and the Bali Road Map (COP13) - that 
led to nearly 10-year hiatus until the Paris Agreement, the UNESCO delegation 
of Bolivia in Paris and His Excellency Evo Morales asked me to present about 
the UN whereabouts of the matter at the Cochabamba Climate Summit back in 2010, 
this UNFCCC-TAL-SRS02/04/2018 is a further to ask UN to respond. This 
re-presents some of the CMPCC arguments and new ones such as the First Nations 
of Americas traditional position on geoengineering and modifications of weather:

https://www.academia.edu/36396474/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Motion_101292_for_UNFCCCs_Talanoa_Dialogue
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]

United Nations General Assembly Motion 101292 for UNFCCC's Talanoa 
Dialogue
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio de 
Janeiro Earth Summit, UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, held 3rd-14th June 1992, 
launched the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
which operates through
www.academia.edu


-- 
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] Trivalent Approach Needed to the Effective Geoengineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

We have recently been discussing here at Geoengineering group about slowing 
down the collapsing ice shelves by building barrier sills on the outlets of ice 
fjords and ice shelves - and perhaps diverting subglacial water flows from 
beneath ice sheet to keep the ice shelf fronts cooler to slow down melting 
especially near the grounding line. I draw now attention to the need of large 
water body oxygenation as pointed out by this new major study and draw 
attention to our presentation at World Water Week in Stockholm back in August 
2006.


Stabilizing glaciers (mountain glaciers, ice shelves, ice sheets), sea ice, and 
oxygenation of large water bodies to undo the effects of climate change should 
account as geoengineering - although these cannot be simply categorized as SRM 
or CDR. I suggest a new term Climate Impact Mitigation (CIM) should be added to 
classify these difficult-to-categorize approaches in the old bivalent 
geoengineering nomenclature. Indeed, important as it is like preventing the sea 
level rise, the article below is extremely important to our group discussion.

I would like to hear pro- and con- on enlarging the bivalent classification of 
geoengineering to a trivalent approach as geoengineering medicine to the ailing 
mother earth...


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180104153511.htm

The ocean is losing its breath -- here's the global scope: In broadest view yet 
of world's low oxygen, scientists reveal dangers and 
solutions
www.sciencedaily.com
In the past 50 years, the amount of water in the open ocean with zero oxygen 
has gone up more than fourfold. In coastal water bodies, including estuaries 
and seas, low-oxygen sites have increased more than tenfold since 1950. 
Scientists expect oxygen to continue dropping even outside these zones as Earth 
warms.

Kallio, Veli A. & Lappalainen, M.: Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for the 
Changing Climate, pp. 240-241.


"A catastrophic draught event was reported across much of the north of South 
America during August - December 2005. This resulted in extensive and 
irreversible damage in parts of the
Amazon river network. The 2005 Amazon draught followed very unusual changes in 
the Atlantic Ocean’s circulatory system that altered typical wind and rain 
patterns. Many climatic models predict the future desiccation of the Amazon 
region. This paper discusses dangers of sudden swings in the Amazon’s climate 
and how these risks can be reduced and securing the future of the river system.

The Amazon river systems’ inability to adapt to the new seasonal climate 
patterns in 2005, which led to a complete destruction of some river ecosystems, 
suggested us to look at water engineering solutions to prevent the risks of 
more tributaries of such dying. We made a case study to oxygenate the Amazon 
river to raise its draught-stress threshold during the likely future draughts 
that may be even worse than today if the Atlantic weather system generates more 
storms as the world’s temperature rises.

We studied a 100 kilometre wide section near the Amazon’s mouth. We assumed 
temperature +30C (when 100% oxygenated water contains 7,6 mg O2 / litre). The 
addition of 2,5 mg O2 / l represents 1/3 of the total, i.e. raising from 70% to 
100%. This large water body oxygenation project requires 4 million kg O2 / day. 
2,000 MIXOX units consume 80 MW / 100 km of river. 1,000 km demand is at 800 MW 
(1 power station), costing ~500 million euros p.a."


https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241

[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]

Kallio, Veli A. & Lappalainen, M.: Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for the 
Changing Climate, pp. 
240-241.
www.academia.edu
"A catastrophic draught event was reported across much of the north of South 
America during August - December 2005. This resulted in extensive and 
irreversible damage in parts of the Amazon river network. The 2005 Amazon 
draught followed very




-- 
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: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I definitely agree that there are repulsive aspects in my proposition and I 
would like to see forests stay in their natural state. At the same time, I see 
the world community driving the climate increasingly into a corner where there 
are increasingly cul-de-sac ahead whatever we attempt to do. We see coral reefs 
and shallow sea life increasingly in that dire position. Things must be thought 
of quantitatively, if someone does geoengineering, we do not have a millennia 
to use extractor fans to weed carbon out, nor we have public who is ready even 
to switch over to the renewable electricity supplies, let alone to electrify 
road, air, and sea traffic which would require trebling of electricity 
supplies. When this is projected against the constant population growth 
(children of today become tomorrow's consumer who need their houses and want 
their cars etc) even UK is seeing large population growth. School where I work 
has many large families 4-5 children, it may be anomaly for the UK, but still 
troubles me that we had to enlarge within 5 years our school from 1,500 pupils 
to 2,000. Many other places sees large or smaller population growths, even 
Finland where I come from has become more crowded since I left there were 4,7 
million people, the millennia saw baby boom raising that to over 5 million. 
Egypt and India have seen huge population rises and even Brazil is rising to 
300 million. Actions required must just match these rises, whatever they may be 
so that the quantitative response to carbon removal (CDR) would be affective, 
not just stabilizing the growth. I hope this clears the air for the thoughts.



From: Ghillean Prance <siriai...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: 08 January 2018 07:54
To: Maggie Zhou; Andrew Lockley
Cc: Albert Kallio; len2...@gmail.com; peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering; Carbon Dioxide Removal
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Re: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management 
and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Dear Albert,
 I would agree with those who've expressed doubt about cutting down trees and 
throwing them into the lakes of Finland to store carbon. I have seen the damage 
done from methane in areas of tropical forest that have been flooded for dams. 
The climate in the north is warming and so the danger from carbon stored in 
lakes must be increasing.
 Best wishes,
   Ghillean

Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS, VMH
 The Old Vicarage,
 Silver Street,
 Lyme Regis, DT7 3HS
 Phone 44(0)1297-444991


On Sunday, 7 January 2018 18:40:52 GMT, Andrew Lockley 
<andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:


Heavy lift helicopters are currently used for logging. However, this is 
unlikely to scale well

A

On 7 Jan 2018 07:39, "'Maggie Zhou' via Carbon Dioxide Removal" 
<carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>>
 wrote:
Replying to Veli, cutting down trees in northern forests and throwing them 
under northern lakes wouldn't be a good solution, as logging operations are 
consistently shown to severely compact forest soil, reduce its ability to 
retain water and perform other ecosystem services, damage biodiversity, causing 
loss in soil biomass and soil carbon content.

Further, with the warming of the northern regions, decay in lakes and in 
permafrost are accelerating.

Meanwhile, the logged forests don't grow back for decades, and with every 
logging some nutrients are lost.

Maggie


On Saturday, January 6, 2018 3:44 PM, Veli Albert Kallio 
<albert_kal...@hotmail.com<mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Several years back I pointed to the geoengineering group that the problem of 
using biomass as a fuel is that when it is used as a fuel, CO2 returns back 
into air. The recent studies have confirmed my then suspicions that "0", or 
carbon-neutral biomass production could be a potential no-no because it does 
not (actually) retrieve carbon at all if all biomass produced is taken to the 
incinerators that then pour it back as CO2. The discovery of managed forests 
containing 1/3 less biomass than a natural forest just confirms these doubts of 
the then-great idea of the day.

I come from subarctic region that is principally a global belt of coniferous 
forests with an occasional mixture of broad leaf trees like birches. Back then, 
I discussed this issue with Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, FRS, who suggested 
planting birch forests as these have white tree bard, do not have evergreen 
leaves to trap the strong springtime sunlight (allowing the deck of snow on the 
ground to act as sunlight reflector to keep air cooler for longer). I had 
suggested him for planting gardener's varieties of modified trees and bushes 
that have white colored leaves to plant these over wide areas to send back 
sunlight, but he suggested back use of birch species instead (there are a few 
varieties of them with all having white colored tree trunk

Re: [geo] Re: On when it might make sense for intervention to begin

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 ocean. I hope my GDF-view would be the 
cause of the sudden and extreme Dryases.


Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

Vice President, Sea Research Society

Environmental Affairs Department


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
Sent: 08 November 2017 04:57
To: Mike MacCracken
Cc: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; macma...@cds.caltech.edu; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: On when it might make sense for intervention to begin

Mike & List,

Going with the most well known is understandable. Yet SAI is actually, from a 
Polar perspective, not any more well known than Hydroxyl Cryogenesis Geotherapy 
or Global Electrical Circuit Enhancement.

Polar modeling is a separate art.



Michael Hayes

On Nov 7, 2017 6:01 PM, "Michael MacCracken" 
<mmacc...@comcast.net<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:

Hi Peter--I'm all for DAC and hoe you can scale up and do it as you suggest, 
but to limit impacts, we should not let the temperature go above 1.5 C and 
should be aiming to pull it down to less than 0.5 C, and I agree therefore that 
CDR is absolutely essential. I know nothing on pricing and challenge of scaling 
up, but it does seem a bit hard to accept that it can be scaled up fast enough 
unless we really do get into a Pearl Harbor to D-Day type of scale up 
(Manhattan Project was small potatoes compared to overall scale up). There is 
now report coming out I think tomorrow that focuses how close to the climate 
impacts edge we are but it still seems that we are very far from scaling up far 
enough and fast enough. I'd be delighted to avoid SRM, but just don't think 
that is going to happen (even if possible in the way you suggest) and a little 
SRM could help to save the species and impact commitments that will really grow 
as the temperature heads beyond 1.5 C (or even 1 C for the ice sheets).

I also think there is the chance that the fact that SRM may be needed might 
well help scale up the CDR push rather than tamp it down--it really will depend 
on how things are framed.

What seems to bother both of us, in any case, is this failure to be acting 
strongly enough on any of the various possibiliities, much less on all of them, 
which is what would be prudent/precautionary thing to be doing. Mark Cane, at 
an NRC/BASC meeting yesterday offered the challenge of naming an emerging 
problem that was dealt with before it became really problematic, suggesting the 
only one he had come up with was buying up the Catskill and Adirondack 
watersheds to provide water for NYC, and that effort was during Tammany times 
and involved a good bit of graft and profiteering; he did suggest that water 
for LA likely was achieved with similar shortcomings (as a read of the 
excellent book "Cadillac Desert" documents). Thus, he was a bit pessimistic 
that we can rouse public action before disaster strikes, which will be too late 
given the time and magnitude scales of this problem. I'd be delighted if your 
approach succeeded sufficiently to avoid SRM, but I think at moment instead of 
being concerned about the other, it would be better to be working together (and 
with this new report/declaration that is coming) to get attention to the real 
seriousness of the situation we are in and that there are potential ways to 
deal with it, none without effort and uncertainty, and we had better get to 
work on not only researching but early deployment of them.

Best, Mike

On 11/6/17 2:47 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
I believe the winner take all perspective is highly flawed and is a major 
contributor why those of us  who share the concern for the climate risk
are not being effective in making our case. The winner take all lanquage is 
appropriate for academic and commercial efforts but not for a Manhatten
Project Perspective where finding the approach to focus ones efforts on is the 
primary challenge  and vigorous internal debate is the process. The opportunity 
cost
of addrsssing SRM that cannot solve the problem and could make it worse before 
we as a community support CDR which can solve the problem and has minimal risk
is very large and made larger when so called experts argue in support of SRM 
that one cannot depend upon or worse it is unlikely CDR can work in time .
The  self fulling and self serving aspect of that is clear . And by the way 
those who oppose taking the climate threat seriously will vigorously support 
doing more research rather than  having a manhatten like project where we all 
cooperate to address the treat we face.

Someone or some organization that supports the concern should provide a process 
to have that vigorous internal debate with the pledge that one will support the 
consencus approach that emerges . We can n o longer afford to fagment our 
efforts by viewng this as an area of competition for support rather than an 
emergency we need to come together

Re: [geo] Can anyone offer a CE perspective on this SLR article?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

"3.   Furthermore, I assume that SRM would help with the SLR from warming water 
and ocean expansion (?), but is the amount of expected SLR from ocean expansion 
low compared to the amount we get from melting ice?"


I presented evidence on the difficulties is quantifying the sea level rise risk 
in this paper at the Environmental Audit Committee. It summarises the recent 
processes up until April 2017. The paper contains links (references) to other 
papers and publications in this regard. One can learn more detail of many new 
processes seen taking place from those reports cited:

https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx




Summarizing the above summary:


The biggest SLR unknowns are:


1) the warming impact of methane and carbon dioxide releases from melting 
permafrost soils and sea bed.

 (a) field emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (CH4 and CO2 haze from 
the decomposing soils)

 (b) spot emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (where permafrost layer 
has ruptured and leaks gases

 (c) eruptive emissions of methane and carbon dioxide (erupting pingoes, 
compromised gas field containment)


2) the surface ablation (melting) impacts from North Greenland once the Arctic 
Ocean is ice free in summers.

 (a) accummulative effect of surface darkening as dirt is left behind as 
snow melts away

 (b) impact of exhaustive surface melt water ponding on low-lying North 
Greenland ice sheet and flash floods

 (c) water accummulation rates at subglacial surfaces (as seasonal impact 
moulins become accummulative impact moulins)


3) the stability of ice sheet over water infested rocks and soils (during 
exhaustive surface ablation in North Greenland)

 (a) Glacier Debris Flows (GDFs) - see the report cited on this in the 
above Parliament evidence

 (b) inward advance of calving edge from Petermann Ice Fjord | Melville Bay 
coast | NE Greenland across the shield region into the depression bowl area.

 (c) impact of rising heft of the calving edge onto calving event frequence 
and ice sheet integrity and fragmentation



According to the chaos theory GDFs are entirely unpredictable and will always 
remain so. Indeed, their existence was totally unanticipated until recently 
events despite small scale detachment events of melting ice in everyday life 
from melting refridgerators to ice avalanches on the mountains. GDFs are a 
special new class of ice avalanches. How these unfold in Antarctic continent or 
Greenland scale situations has not been seen since major collapses from the 
Hudson Bay at Pleistocene termination. but as GDFs occur with 4 degree ground 
inklination - lots of ice could be suddenly on its way out to trigger the 
subsequent 'Last Dryas' event (as the ocean fills with ice debris). There is an 
article on Younger Dryas on this.


Other unknowns are:


1) the level of devastation from plastic gyros were global sea level rise be 
abrupt

2) the level of radiochemical pollution from world's nuclear reactors (the 
Fukushima repeats) which would be harder to deal with if many were to occur at 
once and sea stays higher.

3) the problems of feeding people as Dryas cools Mid Latitudes severely and 
causes draughts, the manhandling fuels and food is another difficulty in 
flooded ports


Germany and Japan take the nuclear flooding risks seriously. Global Seed Vault 
(Longyearbyen, Norway) engineering specifications accommodate the anticipation 
for a potential total loss of polar ice caps. However, serious questions has 
been raised as the permafrost into which it has been built is melting and its 
tunnels partially flooded - exposing Norwegians naked or blind on the problem 
of permafrost soil melting. The Pacific Island nations are also looking for 
relocation plans such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and to relocate to Fiji. President 
Teburo Tito and the environment secretary Bwere Erytaia prepared for a 
potential sea level rise risk with a plan of 6 metres (i.e. the Caroline 
Islands). Many have joined German merchant navy while others have moved to 
Australia for special re-training programme for nurses. In the aftermath of Rio 
Earth Summit (1992) the First Nations of the Americas floored a motion to the 
United Nations General Assembly then in joint session with the World Indigenous 
Peoples Summit stipulating that the Hudson Bay ice dome (the Foxe-Laurentide 
Ice Dome) collapsed violently and suddenly in a GLF-like event to trigger 
sudden sea level surge, the Great Earthquake of the East (the Cabracan) and the 
Three Heart Stones Event (ground vibrating for about theree days), and the 
sudden pandemic of volcanic eruptions (the Zipcana) - the UNGA 101292 based on 
their ancient ethnohistoric 

Re: [geo] Geostorm

[Veli Albert Kallio]

"I like that message because mitigation of climate change through emission 
reduction is a pointless failure.  The world is best off just abandoning 
emission reduction as a goal and instead looking to how to use technology to 
remove more carbon from the air than total emissions, with solar radiation 
management as a stopgap."


I strongly disagree with the above on basis that if there weren't any efforts 
being made to reduce our global CO2 emissions, no businesses would invest in 
cleaner technologies or try to conserve fuels. UNFCCC's COP roadshow - despite 
its all huge shortcomings - also increases the public awareness of the climate 
issue (like IPCC does). Notably, if there wasn't any portrayal of the real 
issue at stake (namely CO2), all kinds of speculators and media manipulators 
would quickly fill this void. Quickly, theories about the cause would arise 
ranging from countless proposed issues such as the falling religious 
observances in our increasingly post-Christian (secularized) world all the way 
to blame the Russian Communists for it. Very quickly scapegoats would be set up 
as explanations (i.e. the Buddhist, Moslem, Christian, Hindu or religious 
non-observer minorities in various societies, or even Bermuda Triangle or the 
aliens from the by-passing comet). So? Indeed, we are far better off in a world 
where the appropriate information is being disseminated through UNFCCC's COP 
process setting up targets for governments in CO2 emissions reduction and the 
IPCC.


I agree: The oil drillers often pop their Champagne bottles while they are 
looking at the tiny Greenpeace rubber boats loaded with their campaigners going 
around their immense rigs. They (like Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers and many 
others like them) despise these good willing campaigners immensely seeing them 
nothing more than just a bunch of Donald Ducks. This is all very depressing for 
but it still does not justify what Robert stated above.


Veli Albert Kallio

Vice President, Environmental Affairs Department

Sea Research Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Sea_Research_Society%27s_first_headquarters.jpg/220px-Sea_Research_Society%27s_first_headquarters.jpg]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society>

Sea Research Society - 
Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Research_Society>
en.wikipedia.org
The Sea Research Society (SRS) is a non-profit educational research 
organization founded in 1972. Its general purpose is to promote scientific and 
educational ...





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
Sent: 27 October 2017 21:00
To: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Geostorm


Hi Robert--While I do agree that if done as a straight documentary, it might 
not gain a big audience, but one does not have to do it as a documentary--one 
can still have a drama with challenges and characters (An Inconvenient Truth 
was a success, and the director explained it as a drama--namely Gore suffering 
a loss by then refocusing and recovering while it also explained aspects of the 
issue). One could do something bringing to life Frost's poem about paths taken 
or not--so two portrayals, with and without actions (or one might do it as an 
imagined conversation between two interesting and historic characters or 
perhaps between the too cautious to take up GE and others who, like some of us, 
think it will be essential, trying to persuade someone to act--and then they do 
or don't and some fate befalls them. I think a story is being done about the 
Our Children's Trust case--so the consequences affecting the young and then 
there effort to get the US (and world) on the right path. I just think some 
inspired writer could do something interesting that was not so absurdly 
overdone and said to be an example of the env movement being far too alarmist 
and so the do-nothings can dismiss the whole issue.

Mike


On 10/26/17 8:35 PM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:
"Dear Robert--Personally, I'd rather there were a movie focusing on the how the 
world could accomplish aggressive mitigation and necessary adaptation... then 
showing how modest climate engineering could be used to shave the peak warming 
and impacts down further"

Thanks Mike McCracken for your thoughtful response to my review.

Climate documentaries are important but don’t engage a mass audience, and can 
struggle to engage on the strategic issues around geoengineering.  Geostorm 
earned $16m in its first week, released in over 3000 cinemas. Amid all the 
entertaining nonsense, it poses the simple serious strategic question of 
whether climate intervention will be needed soon.

I like that message because mitigation of climate change through emission 
reduction is a po

Fw: [geo] Arctic Geoengineering and Tropical Rainfall

[Veli Albert Kallio]

You my find this relevant that I recently added "Arctic Geoengineering" tag for 
www.academia.edu web-site where you can post material 
of this and related nature. I linked my Parliament evidence on Arctic changes 
to the new Arctic Geoengineering tag which gives plenty of links and source 
material on many new types of  problematic phenomena. 
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
 (draft)

[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]

MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 
2017.docx
www.academia.edu
The draft paper as at 24th April which is updated from the draft made for the 
oral presentation session (5th April 2017 does not contain any references and 
text errors needed corrections). The paper is still being worked on with more 
sections being


[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/citation-illustration.svg]

Academia.edu - Share research
www.academia.edu
Academia.edu is a place to share and follow research.





From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Stephen Salter 
Sent: 01 August 2017 15:35
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Geoengineering and Tropical Rainfall


Hi All

What would happen to the ITCZ if you deployed a flotilla of spray vessels to do 
marine cloud brightening around the Arctic for a month either side of the June 
solstice and then move them south to the Antarctic for December?

At midsummer there is more solar energy at the poles than at  the equator.  The 
air is very clean. The Arctic cloud fraction is about 80%. The marine boundary 
layer is quite low.

You could keep a few spare vessels to tweak the ITCZ to the latitude of your 
choice.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 31/07/2017 06:45, Govindasamy Bala wrote:
Dear All,

The potential shift in ITCZ due to Arctic geoengineering and the consequence to 
rainfall in the global monsoon regions is analyzed in this Climate Dynamics 
paper from my research group.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-017-3810-y
Feel free to download the full text as it is a open access article

Effects of Arctic geoengineering on precipitation in the tropical monsoon 
regions
Aditya Nalam · Govindasamy Bala · Angshuman Modak

Abstract

Arctic geoengineering wherein sunlight absorption is reduced only in the Arctic 
has been suggested as a remedial measure to counteract the on-going rapid 
climate change in the Arctic. Several modeling studies have shown that Arctic 
geoengineering can minimize Arctic warming but will shift the Inter-tropical 
Convergence Zone (ITCZ) southward, unless offset by comparable geoengineering 
in the Southern Hemisphere. In this study, we investigate and quantify the 
implications of this ITCZ shift due to Arctic geoengineering for the global 
monsoon regions using the Community Atmosphere Model version 4 coupled to a 
slab ocean model. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels leads to a 
warming of ~ 6 K in the Arctic region and precipitation in the monsoon regions 
increases by up to ~15 %. In our Arctic geoengineering simulation which 
illustrates a plausible latitudinal distribution of the reduction in sunlight, 
an addition of sulfate aerosols (11 Mt) in the Arctic stratosphere nearly 
offsets the Arctic warming due to CO2 doubling but this shifts the ITCZ 
southward by ~1.5⁰ relative to the pre-industrial climate. The combined effect 
from this shift and the residual CO2-induced climate change in the tropics is a 
decrease/increase in annual mean precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere 
/Southern Hemisphere  monsoon regions by up to -12/+17%. Polar geoengineering 
where sulfate aerosols are prescribed in both the Arctic (10 Mt) and Antarctic 
(8 Mt) nearly offsets the ITCZ shift due to Arctic geoengineering, but there is 
still a residual precipitation increase (up to 7 %) in most monsoon regions 
associated with  the residual  CO2 induced warming  in the tropics.  The ITCZ 
shift due to our Global geoengineering simulation, where aerosols (20 Mt) are 
prescribed uniformly around the globe, is much smaller and the precipitation 
changes in most monsoon regions are within ±2 % as the residual CO2-induced 
warming in the tropics is also much less 

[geo] US exit from Paris climate accord makes discussing how and whether to engineer the planet even harder

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I received the following message from the Senator Elizabeth Warren.


While at first it may show a little relevance to the climate change 
negotiations and geoengineering, the methodologies employed by the 
administration are suggestive of the earlier plans I have heard being passed 
the same way, namely:

NASA's earth monitoring operations will be terminated and redirected to the 
deep space planetary exploration and mission to Mars.


NOAA's role will be minimized to a service that is responsible of looking after 
US marine parks - only. Atmospheric observations with clean air will refer only 
to direct toxicology from industrial plants that has immediate health effects, 
i.e. chlorine, dioxine etc emissions only.

EPA will be closed down completely and any remaining work shipped to US 
department of commerce.

The introduction of these bills will follow route described below:



From: Elizabeth Warren <i...@elizabethwarren.com>
Sent: 09 June 2017 20:52
To: Veli Albert Kallio
Subject: I'm really worried.

Republicans think they have the votes for Obamacare


[Elizabeth Warren for 
Massachusetts]<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d95/3210258376/VEsH/>
[https://elizabethwarren.com/images/fb-preview.jpg]<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d95/3210258376/VEsH/>

Elizabeth Warren for 
Senate<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d95/3210258376/VEsH/>
my.elizabethwarren.com
ElizabethWarren.com is the official website of Elizabeth Warren's campaign for 
U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Sign up to join the fight for middle class 
families





Veli Albert,

I learned some scary news yesterday: the Senate Republicans are going to try to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act by the end of the month.

And here’s the terrifying part: They seem to think they have the votes in the 
Senate to do it.

I’m not crying wolf here. I’m really worried. Health care for millions of 
Americans is on the line in the next few weeks. The Republicans are counting on 
the fact that so many terrible things are happening right now – and that 
everyone thinks Trumpcare is dead – that they can slip this through before we 
have a chance to get organized.

Sign up now to tell the Senate Republicans: We will NOT let you repeal health 
care for 23 million 
Americans.<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d94/3210258376/VEsE/>

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell came out of the Republican caucus launch on 
Tuesday happy as a clam about their health care bill. Then Wednesday, while 
everyone was focused on FBI Director Comey’s written testimony, they quietly 
filed “Rule 14” so that the health care bill can skip all hearings and 
committee votes. That means Republicans could pass this thing as early as next 
week.

If you’re confused and wondering “what will the Senate Republicans pass?” – 
don’t worry, you’re not alone. I haven’t seen the Senate Republicans’ health 
care plan. None of my Democratic colleagues have either. We have no idea what 
sort of giveaways they may be promising undecided Republicans to secure their 
votes.

Senate Republicans have done all their deal-making behind closed doors, and we 
think the Republicans will only give us hours to look at their bill. Only a few 
hours to see all of the ways that they will gut health care for seniors, for 
veterans, for children, for people with disabilities – for working people 
across Massachusetts and around this country.

I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve never seen anything close to this. No 
hearings, no debate, no bill to look at. This scheme to repeal health care 
takes every norm of the Senate – every concept of how we work together – and 
just burns them to the ground.

We need to fight back – and fight back hard. Start by telling the Senate 
Republicans: We won’t let you repeal Americans’ health 
care.<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d94/3210258376/VEsF/>

Veli Albert, we need you to share your story (again). We need you to light up 
the phone lines (again). We need you to talk to your FOX News-loving brother or 
uncle about why we need Medicaid, veterans’ care, and money to fight the opioid 
epidemic (again, or for the first time).

The fight for the Affordable Care Act is back – and it’s time to fight.

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth




[http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/-/EmailWrapper/donate.png]<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d97/3210258376/VEsC/>






[Facebook]<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d96/3210258376/VEsD/>

[Twitter]<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/2852d767/458b89a9/67e321ab/66bf6d99/3210258376/VEsA/>



This email was sent to albert_kal...@hotmail.com. Click here to 
unsubscribe<http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/m/28

[geo] My Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers...

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Veli Albert Kallio has shared a OneDrive file with you. To view it, click the 
link below.


<https://1drv.ms/b/s!AsDtkXiDzgyEhDwBww7yt5sF9HGm>
[https://r1.res.office365.com/owa/prem/images/dc-pdf_20.png]<https://1drv.ms/b/s!AsDtkXiDzgyEhDwBww7yt5sF9HGm>

Geoengineering Watch 
Monitoring.pdf<https://1drv.ms/b/s!AsDtkXiDzgyEhDwBww7yt5sF9HGm>



Dear Sirs,

RE: Thoughts on the Motivation on Spying of Geoengineering Researchers

Although I am just a very peripheral player in geoengineering research, and 
that I have hardly published anything on this particular field, and that it is 
just only couple of times I have posted into this geoengineering group (i.e. 
can you yourself recall me making posts in this group, perhaps ever?). Despite 
all the above it appears that an extensive monitoring operations about my 
communications and publications are now being carried out by Geoengineering 
Watch group - shown here by Academia.edu analysis website: see .pdf of web 
traffic analysis of my site.

It was a virtually unrelated article about melting Arctic that related to the 
evidence I was giving at the Houses of Parliament here in the UK, this April 
for Sea Research Society. If you read through 47 pages of my evidence I gave, 
you will come across just one solitary reference, a word 'geoengineering' 
research therein. Nevertheless, this one solitary reference to 'geoengineering 
research' in my Parliament evidence has drawn over dozen geoengineering queries 
by Geoengineering Watch group - an astounding achievement by them in monitoring 
me: 
https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx
[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]<https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx>

MPs to review UK's role in Arctic sustainability - 24th April 
2017.docx<https://www.academia.edu/33000316/MPs_to_review_UKs_role_in_Arctic_sustainability_-_24th_April_2017.docx>
www.academia.edu
The draft paper as at 24th April which is being amended as the draft for the 
oral presentation session 5th April 2017 does not contain any references and 
text errors needed corrections. The paper is still being worked on with more 
sections being

I deliberate here on the possible motivations of "reasons why" and backers of 
those people who so actively monitor geoengineering researchers that their 
radar captures even mosquitoes like me (unless I have unknowingly become 
something of a geoengineering research giant without really noticing what I had 
invented)!!!

So what are the 'reasons why' and the backers of those people who are 
attempting to monitor geoengineering researchers and gather information about 
anything and everything even as small as just one solitary word reference to 
geoengineering in a fairly long 47-page Parliamentary evidence document? 
Several possibilities and motivations of these people and other similar groups 
are coming to my mind. These kind of extensive monitoring efforts almost 
certainly point to an indirect organised interests and perhaps utilitarian 
purposes to carry out (help) campaigns against geoengineering research and so 
to monitor the researchers meticulously.

My foremost thought here is that the very idea of someone researching or citing 
about geoengineering - even briefly - implies (indirectly) that there would be 
an evidence about changing climate which then justifies an investment in such a 
research (that threatens the interests of the patrons of the campaigns against 
geoengineering research). So, if geoengineering research can be refuted 
(killed), it means that there is also neither climate change and so no need to 
mitigate any such a climate change. Thus, by killing geoengineering research, 
"the Plan B", this would also kill all argument for any climate change 
happening in the first place.

According to BBC, during his election campaign, Donald Trump stated recently 
that climate change was 'a hoax' and, implicitly reconfirmed this by his 
announcement on Thursday, 1st June 2017, stating that the United States will 
now withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. President Trump has since 
avoided questions on the subject likewise his White House press secretary Sean 
Spicer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40128026
[https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/7725/production/_96310503_trump2_afp976.jpg]<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40128026>

Will Paris pull-out hurt Trump? - BBC 
News<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40128026>
www.bbc.co.uk
These are external links and will open in a new window In the end the collected 
pressure from environmentalists, diplomats, major US corporations, foreign ...

I would like to have your reflections what you think about the motivations of 
those who want to stifle geoengineering? Do you think like I am start

Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great Barrier Reef

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I would suggest initial work being focused for developing assisted biodiversity 
refugia by pumping cold water to small areas to prevent extinction of species. 
This would be easiest to apply in areas where there are nearby strong cold 
currents that could be forced by scoop to rise to surface by tubing and 
pumping. If the idea works and delivers a positive outcome, then the areas 
could be gradually expanded. It would not be a panachea for warming itself, but 
just to mitigate its impact much the same way waters are oxygenated in the 
Baltic Sea to keep fish alive. The oxygenation is being done in many smaller 
water bodies like lakes and rivers, the same way cold water pumping to keep 
corals alive could be made using the natural energy of ocean current to force 
the cold water up through the tubes.

The biggest obstacle is the political will to do anything about the climate 
impacts. As long as it does not smell in front of our noses, our wastes do not 
seem to matter for far too many people like Donald Trump. Spending and 
consuming is all in all.

From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
Sent: 07 May 2017 19:28
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef

Vali,

I've run across many such micro environmental systems. The technology to deploy 
a versatile reef protection package is understood. The development of profit 
generation concepts, to support reef infrastructure that meets mitigation and 
adaptation measures, has been, regrettable, the Tail End Charlie of deployment 
related discussions.

More than a few outstanding business profit models can be offered yet 
cultivation of basic marine biomass, using excess upwelled nutrients and the 
cold water, offers the most basic path to sustainable environments and profits.

The greatest need, at this time, is to find funding to deploy prototype systems 
so as to produce properly detailed analysis of this large basket of STEM.

With a realistic start-up funding level, equivalent to a new moderate sized 
seiner ($600K) per site, a greater profit can be demonstrated over that of 
typical inshore/reef fishing gear, while providing a robust list of 
environmental services to the reef.

Farming basic marine biomass, using biorock armored bioreactor arrays within 
the reef system(s) is workable.


Best regards,

Michael


On Friday, April 28, 2017, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Most coral reefs have a lagoon which is like a bowl. The lagoon protects also 
from sharks coming from ocean to lagoon. The coldness would be absorbed by 
corals. If the cold water is pumped near coast by the time it reaches outer 
reach of lagoon it will have warmed and done its job by cooling the corals. The 
only place where the cold water sinks is corals themselves and those we are 
just trying to save from heat.


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on 
behalf of Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: 28 April 2017 10:41
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef


Hi All

Cold water pumped to the surface will sink quite quickly.   It is also possible 
to pump warm surface water down at places up stream of the coral with all the 
energy coming from wave action.  I can send a paper to anyone who asks.  I 
understand that a test tank model will be shown by Discovery Channel on 9 May 
at 10 pm EST in a programme called 'can we hack the planet'.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel 
+44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change
On 28/04/2017 09:42, Greg Rau wrote:
Just to be clear, the upwelling-to-cool-corals idea was lead author Hollier's 
(attached).  My contribution was to consider adding alkalinity generation to 
this scheme.
Greg



From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef

Hi Folks,

The top/down approach is needed.

I would like to point out that one of Greg Rau's early papers was on the 
subject of pumping deep cold water up to coral reefs to protect them from heat.

It is now known that artificial upwelling will also bring up nutrients and CO2, 
neither of which are needed by the coral. As such, if that nutrient and CO2 
rich water is first conducted through an enclosed marine biomass operation, 
leaving no more than cold water for the coral, Greg's idea becomes viable.

MCB and Brig

[geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great Barrier Reef

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Most coral reefs have a lagoon which is like a bowl. The lagoon protects also 
from sharks coming from ocean to lagoon. The coldness would be absorbed by 
corals. If the cold water is pumped near coast by the time it reaches outer 
reach of lagoon it will have warmed and done its job by cooling the corals. The 
only place where the cold water sinks is corals themselves and those we are 
just trying to save from heat.


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Stephen Salter 
Sent: 28 April 2017 10:41
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef


Hi All

Cold water pumped to the surface will sink quite quickly.   It is also possible 
to pump warm surface water down at places up stream of the coral with all the 
energy coming from wave action.  I can send a paper to anyone who asks.  I 
understand that a test tank model will be shown by Discovery Channel on 9 May 
at 10 pm EST in a programme called 'can we hack the planet'.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
On 28/04/2017 09:42, Greg Rau wrote:
Just to be clear, the upwelling-to-cool-corals idea was lead author Hollier's 
(attached).  My contribution was to consider adding alkalinity generation to 
this scheme.
Greg



From: Michael Hayes 
To: geoengineering 

Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef

Hi Folks,

The top/down approach is needed.

I would like to point out that one of Greg Rau's early papers was on the 
subject of pumping deep cold water up to coral reefs to protect them from heat.

It is now known that artificial upwelling will also bring up nutrients and CO2, 
neither of which are needed by the coral. As such, if that nutrient and CO2 
rich water is first conducted through an enclosed marine biomass operation, 
leaving no more than cold water for the coral, Greg's idea becomes viable.

MCB and Brightwater should both play an important role, in concert with 
confined marine biomass production, in protecting coral reefs.

The sale of the marine biomass/biochar should be able to pay for both MCB and 
Brightwater operations.

Best regards,

Michael



--
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.


--
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.


--
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.

-- 
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] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great Barrier Reef

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great Barrier Reef


I would like to add that there are naturally occurring surface rising currents 
that bring nutrients and CO2 to surface i.e. along the coast of Chile. The 
viability of Greg's idea is not spoiled by some CO2 emerging from the deep 
ocean. Not at all. The problem should be formulated around the question whether 
quantitatively speaking enough cold water can be put to the surface to make a 
difference for corals to survive during the heat waves. In my view. some people 
sadly have a difficulty to distinguish between driver-processes and 
respondent-processes that ride on the back of something else. CO2 coming along 
with the water isn't the driving phenomenon or something like a self-sustaining 
feedback loop of importance. Far from it! Equally speaking we could say that 
force of gravity exists where there are presence of weak and strong nuclear 
forces, and forces of electromagnetism. Does gravity change essentially any of 
these other process. Nope. The question therefore remains whether enough cold 
water could be skimmed off ocean streams through tubing or mechanical pumping, 
to either preserve an entire system, or area where biodiversity could be 
preserved for future when ocean temperatures would be down enough to allow 
species' reintroduction.



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Greg Rau 
Sent: 28 April 2017 09:42
To: voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef

Just to be clear, the upwelling-to-cool-corals idea was lead author Hollier's 
(attached).  My contribution was to consider adding alkalinity generation to 
this scheme.
Greg



From: Michael Hayes 
To: geoengineering 
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Consider Brighter Clouds to Preserve the Great 
Barrier Reef

Hi Folks,

The top/down approach is needed.

I would like to point out that one of Greg Rau's early papers was on the 
subject of pumping deep cold water up to coral reefs to protect them from heat.

It is now known that artificial upwelling will also bring up nutrients and CO2, 
neither of which are needed by the coral. As such, if that nutrient and CO2 
rich water is first conducted through an enclosed marine biomass operation, 
leaving no more than cold water for the coral, Greg's idea becomes viable.

MCB and Brightwater should both play an important role, in concert with 
confined marine biomass production, in protecting coral reefs.

The sale of the marine biomass/biochar should be able to pay for both MCB and 
Brightwater operations.

Best regards,

Michael



--
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.



--
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.

-- 
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.

Fw: [geo] Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale atmospheric solar photocatalysis

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Reply to Andrew's comment: There are companies that are making serious 
investments in this type of technology which have good potential to transform 
into real life products.


My main concern is that, for example, nitrous oxide is resposible just 5% of 
warming in comparison to methane, while methane itself has been a respondent 
rather than driver of climate change (so far) with its climate heating effect 
of just 30-35% of that of carbon dioxide. Thus the authors seem to justify or 
add non-carbon CDR to their renewable energy products with the main argument 
remaining in the electricity generation rather than removal of greenhouse 
gases. This additional service may, however, be justified.


Is it a solution to climate change? No, it isn't. It is just a discussion to 
bring additional benefits and arguments to justify their type of renewable 
(clean energy). May be in the Arctic where methane is increasingly emitted from 
decomposing permafrost, such renewable energy could be the choice to mop up 
methane/nitrous oxide and prop up hydroxyl in air.


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andrew Lockley 
Sent: 23 February 2017 11:49
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale atmospheric 
solar photocatalysis

Poster's note : I don't agree with the statements on moral hazard, and I don't 
think the solar tower approach has been demonstrated to be the optimal way to 
implement photo catalysis. I would have rejected this paper, had I reviewed it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128516300569
Removal of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases by large-scale 
...
www.sciencedirect.com
a Institut Charles Gerhardt Montpellier − UMR5253 CNRS-UM2 − ENSCM-UM1 – Ecole 
Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Montpellier, 8 rue de l'Ecole Normale, 34296 
...


Progress in Energy and Combustion 
Science

May 2017, 
Vol.60:68–96, 
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2017.01.001

Open Access, Creative Commons 
license

Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale atmospheric solar 
photocatalysis

  *   Renaud de_Richter
  *   Ming Tingzhen
  *   Sylvain Caillol

Show more

Abstract

Large-scale atmospheric removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) including methane, 
nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting halocarbons could reduce global warming more 
quickly than atmospheric removal of CO2. Photocatalysis of methane oxidizes it 
to CO2, effectively reducing its global warming potential (GWP) by at least 
90%. Nitrous oxide can be reduced to nitrogen and oxygen by photocatalysis; 
meanwhile halocarbons can be mineralized by red-ox photocatalytic reactions to 
acid halides and CO2. Photocatalysis avoids the need for capture and 
sequestration of these atmospheric components. Here review an unusual hybrid 
device combining photocatalysis with carbon-free electricity with 
no-intermittency based on the solar updraft chimney. Then we review 
experimental evidence regarding photocatalytic transformations of non-CO2 GHGs. 
We propose to combine TiO2-photocatalysis with solar chimney power plants 
(SCPPs) to cleanse the atmosphere of non-CO2 GHGs. Worldwide installation of 
50,000 SCPPs, each of capacity 200 MW, would generate a cumulative 34 PWh of 
renewable electricity by 2050, taking into account construction time. These 
SCPPs equipped with photocatalyst would process 1 atmospheric volume each 14–16 
years, reducing or stopping the atmospheric growth rate of the non-CO2 GHGs and 
progressively reducing their atmospheric concentrations. Removal of methane, as 
compared to other GHGs, has enhanced efficacy in reducing radiative forcing 
because it liberates more °OH radicals to accelerate the cleaning of the 
troposphere. The overall reduction in non-CO2 GHG concentration would help to 
limit global temperature rise. By physically linking greenhouse gas removal to 
renewable electricity generation, the hybrid concept would avoid the moral 
hazard associated with most other climate engineering proposals.

Graphical abstract

[http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0360128516300569-fx1.jpg]

Keywords

  *   Atmospheric greenhouse gas removal
  *   GHG photocatalysis
  *   Solar-wind hybrid
  *   Negative emissions technology
  *   Solar chimney power plant
  *   Giant photocatalytic reactor
  *   Large scale atmospheric air cleansing

--
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 

RE: [geo] must read: geoengineering aircraft design

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Alan, 

I think that is a brilliant observation. I do like, though, the simplicity of 
the geoengineering idea. Sulphur dioxide also has a limited life span and it 
should not be seen a climatic monster like CFC's that hang around for years, 
decades, and centuries before flushed out. I think like in medicine, the jury 
is then out whether the side-effect of losing some ozone when sulphuric acid is 
injected is a large enough to be of concern. It might turn out unusable if 
ozone falls too low for meaningful levels of climate cooling. If compared to 
cloud brightening by ships that is more straightforward approach with far less 
technical uncertainty how the effective substance is being delivered, it might 
even be pumped to jet engine outflow for rapid heat and wind assisted 
dissipation.

I remain doubtful if any geoengineering is enough to save the Arctic sea ice as 
a double-positive feedback is currently in operation: The Arctic Ocean 
high-pressure causes sea ice loss due to the surface melting because of high 
level of insolation (sunlight). On the other hand, the Arctic Ocean 
low-pressure causes nowadays rapid sea ice pulverization. Today's thin and soft 
(almost seasonal) sea ice is easily shattered by storms, winds then mix sea ice 
with ocean water. Melt also increases due to increased drifting, vertical 
upturning of sea water that supplies heat to melting ice. Also, the constantly 
growing 3-dimensional (water-sitting) surface area of sea ice makes the heat 
transfers between the sea ice and the ocean ever greater. 

In other words, we are now "burning the candle from its both ends", with no 
ease in sight and as terrestrial snow cover also shrinks, I can't see how 
geoengineering could win over the physical power of ocean to shatter soft and 
thin ice, the loss of reflection due to disappearing snow and ice cover.

I have not seen much discussion what the marginal situations would be where one 
could offer concrete benefits to someone by geoengineering if the overall 
situation cannot be overcome by quantitative or technical limitations and short 
time scales that eventually will be required (assuming procrastination of 
decicion making processes to install a meaningful geoengineering programme to 
cool climate). I have not raised even methane related uncertainties in above.

Regards,

Albert 


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Alan Robock [rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu]
Sent: 23 August 2016 14:30
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] must read: geoengineering aircraft design

They are just going to evaporate sulfuric acid, emit it as a gas, and
hope for the best when it condenses as aerosol droplets.  That process
of aerosol formation and the resulting size distribution, taking into
account any existing aerosol cloud, needs further study.  They
hypothesize that they will get 0.1 micron particles, but do not seem to
realize that the smaller they are, the more ozone depletion they will
produce.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road  E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock

On 8/23/2016 3:00 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
> Poster's note: Please see p32 of the linked report for the design of a 
> geoengineering-specific drone aircraft
>
> https://github.com/lukekulik/saga-one/blob/master/SAGA_FinalDesignReport.pdf
>
> The concern of global warming is present more than ever. The efforts to stop 
> global warming focus on solving the problem in the long term, by reducing 
> emissions and capturing currently present greenhouse gases.
>
> Future scenarios depend on many aspects, making the prediction of greenhouse 
> gas concentrations and the climate’s response uncertain. If the most 
> pessimistic trends unfold, an unacceptable temperature increase before long 
> term solutions kick in may occur. A temporary intervention to manage global 
> temperatures and prevent this whilst working on the implementation of a 
> permanent solution may therefore be required.
>
> Stratospheric geoengineering, more specifically, solar radation management 
> (SRM), offers such a temporary solution. A possible implementation of SRM is 
> the injection of aerosols in the stratosphere, producing stratospheric clouds 
> which reflect part of the incoming sunlight. This report aims to describe the 
> preliminary technical and operational design a fleet of purpose-built 
> Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Aircraft (SAGA) to deliver five megatons 
> of aerosol per year to altitudes between 18.5 and 19.5km to gain insight in 
> the costs and impact of such a system.
>
> A fleet of almost 350 aircraft with a range of 7000km is proposed 

RE: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 
 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-erase-obamas-progress-on-climate-change
(The above link appeared fractured and as now above will connect to the site as 
intended)
 
 
Motherboard: May 29, 2015 // 03:55 EST. 

Some 10.2 billion tons of coal, sitting on 106,00 acres of public land, have 
been authorized for sale by the Obama administration today. The Department of 
the Interior has released its Regional Management Plan for the Wyoming Powder 
River Basin, and in terms of the climate, it's ugly news. The region is home to 
the nation's largest coal field, and these 28 new coal leases mean a trully 
massive stock of pure carbon is about to be mined, for cheap. 

To Mike MacCracken's comment:
 
The [Obama] Administration could have acceded to their calls for a high 
quality environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so including 
GHG effect), but instead they have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really 
outdated EIS (their analysis starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages 
long). Or they could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional 
fee if one wants to use the free market system to level the field across 
technologies--but no, leases would be at very low prices.  So, first, the 
criticism that those of us favour geoengineering first are just wrong--we've 
been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this keep coming, and I 
would suggest have nothing to do with whether geoengineering might or might not 
help. So, we keep having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel to try to 
find some way to slow the devastating consequences of warming lying ahead. 
Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world is 
not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a difference 
for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the clamour over 
stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development ring very hollow.

The President Obama's decision to go ahead with the massive further expansion 
of coal indusrty with this latest project is based on pure political expediency 
keeping in mind the next Presidential elections the Democrats want to win. As 
the United States administration is continuously exchanging hands between the 
Democrat and the Republican administrations in perpetually repetitive rounds, 
much of the environmental progress President Obama has put down using his 
Executive Orders will be struck down by the subsequent Republican 
administrations and Obama has been made aware of this through the Republican 
Tea Party.

 The right wing Tea Party wants to refocus NASA's operations from all earth 
monitoring activities to the hocus pocus of deep space exploration - and the 
wonderful wonders the sending of satellite cameras can bring about our 
planetary neighbourhood in our solar system. NASA's re-focus from the low orbit 
operations solely to deep space manned and unmanned exploration - such as 
manned missions to moon, Mars and asteroids - will replace the myriad of earth 
monitoring programmes - with plenty of colourful pictures offered on the menu 
from the cameras that will be sailing and criss-crossing our solar system 
to-and-fro. None of this is relevant to our understanding of greenhouse gases 
and their role of re-shaping the world - our own planet where we walk on and 
must live.
 
These same circles also want turn NOAA to become organisation which only 
responsibility is to manage the US marine parks with many of its ocean 
monitoring programmes - including and especially ARGOS - being terminated. The 
satellite operations will focus on only weather satellites with no continued 
interest on sea ice. EPA will be terminated altogether if the Tea Party has all 
its way. Tea Partyists are emboldened in their approach due to their belief 
that the global warming and climate change are scams with a hidden agenda to 
advance evolution theory in the US society in order to kill the God. Their 
mistaken world of utopia includes notions such as the virgin birth of Jesus and 
Mary, resurrection of the deceased by God (sometime in near future), world 
having been populated through the intercourse between the first couple Adam and 
Eve, and papa Noah sailing with the animals in his ark when God decided to 
destroy the world - and most damagingly - that the world will see the 
Millennium of prosperity based on the principles of the US-style democracy and 
the values of free-market economy. This land of for ever growing prosperity 
will see the infinite economic growth based on fossil-fuelled consumption of 
goods and services facilitated by money supply (low central bank interest 
rates).

All the above is typical example of a system that has locked itself up against 
change or reform. We do have an excellent historical antecedents. Throughout 
the Middle Ages, the Conciliatory Movement tried to reform Europe from all its 
myriad of ills after the collapse of 

[geo] RE: NewScientist: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic's time bomb

[Veli Albert Kallio]

For queries: I had a photocopy of Nisbet article, but one oil woman stole my 
library, she trapped me to Norway promising huge expedition funds, then said 
she wants to study ... and the rest of that library is history. My copies 
vanished.. For Euan Nisbet's article can get it via British Library, make an 
Interlibrary loan request, or access to that journal in any well equipped 
university library. If all else fails, you can contact Euan Nisbet. 

The reference to 750 km2 methane crater appeared in one New Scientist article 
before 2010 which I don't remember (= a lesson to be learnt of my bad habit of 
not referencing). Google seems to bring up my own references. 

Natalia's point refuting New Scientist and their experts is right - they do 
not know what they are talking about. In layman's terms they are just talking 
bulls*ht. That can be proven here, just see page 143 and their argument melts 
like butter in sunshine: 
http://dgbes.com/images/PDF/Ligtenberg_BasinResearch.pdf  The constant flux of 
gas pressure in subsea sediments acts like fracking - creating its own conduits 
though which water can pour in and methane ice melts in the soils tunnelled by 
these breathing apparatuses of methane that occasionally then bust their way 
out to the surface of seafloor. 

Storegga slide also occurred due to weakening of permafrost sealing of the sea 
floor after the ending of the Ice Ages - that was leading to formation of 
crevasses and ruptures within the frozen seabed sediments. Sadly, New Scientist 
is drifting to imbalanced debate much like the global warming denialist 
community. I think they could have researched a bit more... or may be they 
wanted to be just a bit provocative, but what's the point in that - haven't we 
had enough provocations from the 'fossil fuel science' fanatics?
 
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 22:30:15 +0200
Subject: NewScientist: Methane apocalypse? Defusing the Arctic's time bomb
From: renaud.derich...@gmail.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com

Dear Albert,

I have read your last pst on the geoengineering group and I agree with you.

I have no acess to the paper you cite. Can you provide me a copy please?
Nisbet,
 Euan. G.: Have sudden large releases of methane from geological 
reservoirs occurred since the Last Glacial Maximum, and could such 
releases occur again?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 
of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 360, 1793,
 p. 581-607. 15 Apr 2002. 
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1793/581 

Many thanks
Best reards

Renaud
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113008460 
  

-- 
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] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[Veli Albert Kallio]

One problem with CCS is 'divide et rule'. Due to geology some countries that 
use fossil fuels can use CCS while other countries cannot. Thus UK might 
develop a viable fossil fuel use stashing carbon away, whereas for another 
country it would be economically unviable to artificially create chambers to 
pump tailpipe CO2 gas emissions. I see CCS potentially used as a plot to sow 
the seed for future disagreement to get anything done to rain away from fossil 
fuel use globally. Even if UK can CCS stash-away all its CO2, what good does 
that if the other countries cannot? The climate is shared by all. I think the 
CCS is thin veneer of smokescreen to deny problem as people are scattered 
around six continents with many, if not most areas without access to 
underground storage. Also, the heavily populated areas will see their extant 
storage capacity running faster out and moving further and further away from 
the big cities and industrial centres where CO2 is produced. This same problem 
for CCS for geoengineering CO2 dumps exists. I doubt any African country, China 
or India would pay for UK facilities to extract CO2 from the air to put it into 
underground reservoirs.
 
 From: dhawk...@nrdc.org
 To: mmacc...@comcast.net
 CC: gh...@sbcglobal.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
 andrew.lock...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath 
 Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink
 Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:56:41 +
 
 Could be but most macro models fail to capture this
 
 Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.
 
 
  On May 20, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
  
  Hi David--Well, yes, a bit of return of profits from earlier years. An
  interesting question would be whether leaving them as stranded assets while
  stimulating the economy by converting to green, US-generated energy would be
  a net positive or negative for the economy. Accounting for the real social
  cost of carbon, I am guessing the former effect on the economy, and I
  imagine it might also be, in effect, progressive (i.e., it might help reduce
  the rich-poor equity problem).
  
  Mike
  
  
  On 5/20/15, 4:34 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote:
  
  I agree with every bit of this Mike.  I was only making a point about the
  comparative costs of different strategies.  I would be happy with a policy
  that made the shareholders of the fossil-investing companies bear all of 
  the
  costs but they are still costs.  And if one is arguing that a particular
  technique like CCS is too costly, it is important to compare the costs of
  other ways of reducing emissions by the same amount.
  
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net]
  Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:21 PM
  To: Hawkins, Dave; gh...@sbcglobal.net; Geoengineering; Andrew Lockley
  Subject: Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath
  Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink
  
  Hi David--On the issue of sunk investments, it seems to me that I'm 
  willing to
  help out those who put money into fossil fuel plants built before some 
  date a
  good bit ago, but not willing to really cede the companies the right to
  recover money invested since that date. Whether that date should be 1985, 
  the
  year of the Villach statement to the world about changing climate, or about
  1990 when the industry formed the Global Climate Coalition to actively push
  against the science, or 1992 when the UNFCCC agreement was enacted, or
  1995 with the IPCC statement on a discernible human influence, or 1997 and 
  the
  Kyoto negotiations, I don't know, but for companies investing in fossil 
  fuel
  facilities this century, I think they knowingly were making a risky
  investment, and should not be accorded an expectation that they will be 
  able
  to earn back their full investment. And this goes for the oil and gas
  companies as well--Shell should have no expectation at all to be able to 
  get a
  return for their exploration efforts in the Arctic, or the coal companies 
  from
  recent leases of coal, and so on. Otherwise, one is just encouraging 
  companies
  to fight and fight good science as long as they can and to be rewarded for
  it--and I just do not think that is a wise approach (even if that ends up 
  to
  be reality over what I think should be very noisy objections).
  
  Mike MacCracken
  
  
  On 5/20/15, 4:08 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote:
  
  Greg,
  Certainly CCS should not be the only or even primary focus of RDD 
  attention.
  And I think I understand your frustration at the lack of traction for
  funding other pathways.  But I think it is a mistake to argue against
  pursuing the CCS option because of that.  There is no reason to cast this 
  as
  a zero-sum game.
  Making a positive case for funding other pathways and building a
  constituency for such funding is what I would suggest.
  
  You are certainly right 

RE: [geo] Moderation policy

[Veli Albert Kallio]

A self-censorship is a good idea. I think we all sometimes run out of new ideas 
and contributions, then a time may be when silence may be gold. Sometimes old 
ideas get forgotten, and deservere resurrection after a considerable time. 
Thus, no good ideas get forgotten; time may also refine old ideas. My feeling 
is that the climate change negotiations are going nowhere as fast as they 
should: so we will need plenty of geoengineering ideas and approaches to 
resolve ourselves from the mess rather sooner than later!
 
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:12:22 +
Subject: [geo] Moderation policy
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hi
Further to recent list discussion, I write to clarify the moderation policy.
Firstly, it's important to state that there's no political filtration. I don't 
care what stance a poster takes. It's simply not a factor in my decision making.
Secondly, most people aren't on moderation. Occasionally, I might not get round 
to taking new people off moderation - but only a few people (about 10) are 
deliberately moderated. This is because they have posted non-permitted content, 
or very repeatedly posted marginal content. 
FYI: you won't get your own posts. That's just how Google works. If you want to 
check what's posted, look online. If something seems to be stuck, email me. I 
*am* responsive, but the emails I get when someone posts don't get into my 
inbox - so occasionally they get missed (I'm trying to fix that.) 
Now, in more detail... 
Here's what's permitted :

*Anything about geoengineering, with a preference for stuff that is new, 
impactful, well referenced, peer reviewed OR engaging 

*Anything that's remotely related to geoengineering, that's exceptionally good 
(by most or all of the above criteria).
Here's what's not permitted 

*Short posts with little or no content, eg I agree 

*Repetition of arguments, information already posted - particularly when the 
poster is already at the margins of acceptable posting frequency 

*Poor English. If your post isn't written at the standard of a high school 
essay, it won't be passed. 

*Profanity, obscenity and abuse - whether personal or otherwise. 

*Ad hominem attacks, particularly against list members, and particularly 
against individuals (as opposed to institutions). 

*Madcap ideas. If your new fangled idea lacks any kind of calculation, obvious 
logic, etc., I'm not going to pass it. (I'm a graduate engineer, and if it 
can't make any sense of it, you probably need to try harder.)

*Obvious drivel. Climate denial, chemtrails, etc., will not be passed. 
Any comments on the above are welcomed. 
Thanks 
A






-- 

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.
  

-- 
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: [AMEG 8562] Re: [geo] Re: 2. What are some potentially false 'memes' related to solar geoengineering?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

As I have been looking at the sea ice thickeness measurements all through 
summer, it seems that the rate of sea ice pulverisation has gone up with more 
thickest ice being pushed to the Atlantic via the Fram Strait and also to the 
Barents Sea through the gaps between the Franz Joseph and Svalbard 
archipelagoes. When we look at the sea ice area on Cryosphere Today that is 
639,000 km2 below average. This is one of the best sea ice area readings for 
perhaps 15 years, but it is deceptive because the thickest ice from behind the 
Queen Elizabeth Islands (northern Nunavut) and Greenland has been pushed out to 
the Atlantic Ocean and also to the Beaufort Sea.

 

Summer 2014 has seen virtuall all sea ice over 5 metres disappearing to the 
Fram Strait. There are still some thick ice 3-4 metres left north of Nunavut 
and also in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and Yukon. The Central Arctic has 
thinner ice as the very thick perennial ice from behind the Queen Elizabeth 
Islands have been pushed aside either towards the Atlantic or towards Alaska. 

 

The snow's high reflectivity cannot be fully replaced and I have for years 
lectured about the methane clathrates also erupting on shore. This summer three 
fairly sizable methane craters have been found in the Taimyr Peninsula and the 
Yamal Region in northern Russia. I think these will also start to happen on the 
sea floor. I think it is possible to see vast increases of on-shore methane 
cratering much like the amount of moulins and crevasses has increased in the 
proper ice (like glaciers in Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard). I think that 
sulphuric acid or sulphur dioxide would be quantitatively available for sky 
brightening, but may be white chalk particles would be environmentally 
friendlier as there are strong opposition to acidification in the Arctic 
regions as it helps to release mercury from the soil to drinking water.

 

It bears to be remembered that according to the ice cores, Toba eruptions 
massive injection of SO2 lasted just for 6 summers before the levels of SO2 
returned back to earlier background levels in Greenland ice cores. There is no 
hope of things staying for long as Toba injected 3,500 km2 ash and aerosols and 
we cannot match such a master injection of SO2. So, there will have to be a 
continuous resupply to maintain any substances in the cold and still Arctic air 
in the winter months. Will that kind of fleet of aircraft be acceptable and how 
much we actually can cool the air. We should not be overly optimistic of great 
blinds to be put in place by man to compensate lost snows.

 



Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:03:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [AMEG 8562] Re: [geo] Re: 2. What are some potentially false 
'memes' related to solar geoengineering?
From: natcurr...@gmail.com
To: wf...@utk.edu
CC: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; arcticmeth...@googlegroups.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu; 
andrew.lock...@gmail.com; dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk; 
h...@invent2.com; petercarte...@shaw.ca; jtoppin...@yahoo.com; 
robert.cor...@getf.org


Hi, John -  


For me, there's a complex mix of facts and fictions in all this.  


In terms of Jennifer Francis  her work, she wrote to your group specifically, 
after I suggested it, and stated that she emphatically did not think that 
arctic geoengineering (and this was on the assumption that the forcing would 
certainly be net negative, I believe) could counteract jet stream changes, or 
those to NAO, AO, ENSO, etc, and briefly stated her reasons, which seemed 
pretty clear. It's now a couple of years later - as I've suggested before, you 
might want to contemplate what she was saying.


For the rest of what John writes here, on some details: on SLR, I think Hanson 
sees Pulsewater melt 1A rate as even higher than what you state, and there's 
some evidence of almost as high a rate in the Eemian, which is even more 
relevant for today, but there's no way, given the big, slow signal of sea 
level, that you could ever talk about total sea level commitment (a metric 
that should be used much as climate change commitment) separated from CO2 and 
other emissions policy. I don't get the point, therefore, when trying to push 
for your 'geoengineering alone' approach -  which is, again, what you seem to 
suddenly revert to in the rhetoric above  -  that you bother with this. 


I agree we've been geoengineering already, although I'm not sure why you bring 
in the work of Ruddiman, etc, on the Holocene early human impact issue, to 
support it, since that work is not a slam dunk (20th century geoengineering 
is) - although some recent work looks clearer than his, but only from ~2,000 
yrs ago, with methane from cattle being a larger part of it. If geoE's problem 
is a bad rap in the media, that certainly isn't what's impacting my thoughts, 
or those of many on this email chain, or Jennifer Francis, etc. And clearly 
everyone thinks that the problems are very serious, and I don't 

RE: [geo] Re: Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. | Haida announce termination of Russ George

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I've never been enthusiastic on cold fusion euphoria when some reputable 
institutions went quite deeply onto it. If there is any scientific tulip 
mania similar to the investors, that is as far as I think the cold fusion fits 
the bill. On the other hand, businessmen are always in need of projects and 
dumping dirt and waste into rivers at will is still the norm in many developing 
countries where goods are produced cheaply, like in Bangladesh or China, and 
then imported to the USA. Russ George appears like a typical businessman with 
tendency for novelty and high risk ventures on the frontiers of economy. As 
such it does not appear totally out of order as often the craziest business 
projects deliver the best returns for the venture capitalist who ventures to 
stick his head out. 

The euphoria over cold fusion laid aside,  this Sept 2006 Russ George 
powerpoint raises many positive and commendable environment points unlike tar 
sands, or clean coal, or biofuel projects, so I think we should not be so 
partisan. 

This is a bit like President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad and the Iranian Parliament 
who prefer to let their oil taps to stay closed down than to be bullied by 
outside powers. Who will win the argument over our use of fossil fuels? Every 
day the Iranian taps for crude oil are closed down speaks volumes for the rest 
of the world that the use of fossil fuels is bad for our world. It is the rest 
of the world craving for the oil, not necessarily the Iranian obsession to sell 
it. Is it really necessary for grannies to drive pick up trucks to supermarket 
to get their groceries in the USA by the Arab oil? 

I think it is high time to stop criticising the dissidents among us and look at 
the mirror who really creates the biggest mess with CO2. Even without 
atmospheric deposition of CO2, economy based on fossil fuels will run out its 
course eventually, and as snow and ice melts away from the Arctic ever faster, 
soon our coastal settlements are threatened and the space of economic growth 
freezes up. I think they still appear largely behind the concept and enthusiasm 
of Russ George trying to revive the lost salmon stocks and give merit to him 
under great pressure - whether or not the measures taken are effective. I think 
we should plan more, criticise less.

As the Arctic snow and ice cover is heading towards record loss (i.e. Siberia 
is heading towards all-time record low snow cover and high temperatures for 
this time of year) while the Arctic Ocean remains in relatively thin and weak 
ice cover north of Siberia. We will need geoengineering to save the sea ice 
fairly soon, if that is not a lost call already, seeing the extreme warming in 
Siberia.
 
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 14:21:38 -0700
From: jrandomwin...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. | Haida announce termination 
of Russ George

Russ George maintains a website where among other things he hosts a video of 
John Disney, who is now President and CEO of the Haida Salmon Restoration 
Corporation, at some time prior to John et.al. forcing Russ off the ship, 
telling the world what a great guy Russ George is.  
The best material starts at minute 1:25 of this video.  A transcript:
[John Disney is speaking]:  'I'd like to say at this time that the 
international media and the national media seems to have focused on Russ George 
who we brought in as our chief scientist.  I want to make this emphatically 
clear:  Russ George did not, I say did not, come to us to dupe us or sell us a 
bill of goods.  We approached him.  We based that on ten years of work with him 
in other fields.  I've known Russ for over ten years, and I'll tell you 
something that is very rare.  He's never once lied to me.  He's only told me 
the truth.  He has a great integrity, and he's never let us down.  And every 
time he's told me something I've thought was unbelieveable, I've checked it out 
and he's always been right.  And I challenge anyone else in the corporate world 
to come up with that about a person. Russ has one aim in life.  He wants to try 
to make the planet a better place.  That's it.  I don't care what else you 
read  [the end]
John, having known Russ for over ten years, must have heard Russ tell his circa 
2006 - 2007 story about the D2FusionGen cold fusion powered home heating unit 
that would in the next few years, i.e. very few be offered for sale by a 
publicly traded Russ George company.  John must have checked it out, and John 
must have discovered that Russ was indeed right.   (see an actual image of the 
prototype concept D2FusionGen home heating unit on slide 27 of this Sept 2006 
Russ George powerpoint presentation)
John may be the next official the Haida have to throw off their ship.

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:56:41 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley 
wrote:http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1170825/haida-announce-termination-of-russ-george

Haida announce termination of Russ George

[geo] Sulphur Power Once Again Shown Effective to Ameliorate Global Warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 Science News
Study: Volcanoes have climate effect

(3) |
||
  inShare1 
 

A new study indicates emissions from moderate volcanoes around the world, like 
the Augustine Volcano in Alaska, can mask some of the effects of global 
warming. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey
Published: March. 1, 2013 at 6:13 PM

BOULDER, Colo., March 1 (UPI) -- The reason why Earth did not warm as much as 
expected between 2000 and 2010 could be down to dozens of volcanoes spewing 
sulfur dioxide, U.S. scientist say.
A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder said emissions from moderate 
volcanoes around the world might have masked some of the effects of global 
warming.Sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth's surface eventually rise 12 to 20 
miles into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical 
reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back 
to space, cooling the planet, the researchers said.
Scientists have been blaming increases in stratospheric aerosols since 2000 on 
human greenhouse gas emissions, but volcanoes may have been responsible for as 
much as 25 percent of it, they said.This new study indicates it is emissions 
from small to moderate volcanoes that have been slowing the warming of the 
planet, CU-Boulder doctoral candidate Ryan Neely said.
The study suggests scientists need to pay more attention to volcanoes when 
trying to understand changes in Earth's climate, atmospheric and oceanic 
sciences Professor Brian Toon said.But overall these eruptions are not going 
to counter the greenhouse effect, he said. Emissions of volcanic gases go up 
and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gas emissions 
from human activity just continue to go up.

© 2013 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. An


Read more: 
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/03/01/Study-Volcanoes-have-climate-effect/UPI-21511362179590/#ixzz2ML9ua0I2
   

-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Sulphur Power Once Again Shown Effective to Ameliorate Global Warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Andrew, 

Here is the best reference:  
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/03/01/volcanic-aerosols-not-pollutants-tamped-down-recent-earth-warming-says-cu
Kind regards,
Albert Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:22:58 +
Subject: Re: [geo] Sulphur Power Once Again Shown Effective to Ameliorate 
Global Warming
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com

Pls provide journal reference 
On Mar 4, 2013 12:22 AM, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:






 Science News


Study: Volcanoes have climate effect


(3) |
||
  inShare1 

 


A new study indicates emissions from moderate volcanoes around the world, like 
the Augustine Volcano in Alaska, can mask some of the effects of global 
warming. Credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Published: March. 1, 2013 at 6:13 PM


BOULDER, Colo., March 1 (UPI) -- The reason why Earth did not warm as much as 
expected between 2000 and 2010 could be down to dozens of volcanoes spewing 
sulfur dioxide, U.S. scientist say.


A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder said emissions from moderate 
volcanoes around the world might have masked some of the effects of global 
warming.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from Earth's surface eventually rise 12 to 20 miles 
into the stratospheric aerosol layer of the atmosphere, where chemical 
reactions create sulfuric acid and water particles that reflect sunlight back 
to space, cooling the planet, the researchers said.


Scientists have been blaming increases in stratospheric aerosols since 2000 on 
human greenhouse gas emissions, but volcanoes may have been responsible for as 
much as 25 percent of it, they said.
This new study indicates it is emissions from small to moderate volcanoes that 
have been slowing the warming of the planet, CU-Boulder doctoral candidate 
Ryan Neely said.


The study suggests scientists need to pay more attention to volcanoes when 
trying to understand changes in Earth's climate, atmospheric and oceanic 
sciences Professor Brian Toon said.
But overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect, 
he said. Emissions of volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat 
the planet, while greenhouse gas emissions from human activity just continue to 
go up.




© 2013 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. An


Read more: 
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/03/01/Study-Volcanoes-have-climate-effect/UPI-21511362179590/#ixzz2ML9ua0I2
  




-- 

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?hl=en.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

 

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I still think we need to focus on the fact that the public do find geoengineers 
a viable community deserving the support. We should not be distracted by the 
negative lobby groups like ETC because the public realises that the real 
problem in quantitative terms is the pollution we put out, not the efforts of 
geoengineers to remedy it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15399832
How we can loose the main point and continuously stare at a rare healty 
individual trees while failing to see our pollution that makes the forest 
sickly in the mean time?Mitt Romney says CO2 does not cause global warming but 
distant supernovae and cosmic particles, ETC says that geoengineering is the 
real threat to our climate. The public does not believe any of these claims, 
they understand that the inventors of ETC have just invented fund raising 
machine to award jobs and international travel themselves. When I sponsored the 
geoengineering session at CMPCC summit, I paid the bills for flights, 
accommodation etc and people volunteered their time and presentations. No one 
was on anyone's payroll there. Does ETC people volunteer? Not, barring their 
fund raisers to stuff their pockets with the cash of donors they ply for. Good 
business for them.
Regards,

AlbertDate: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:48:58 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of 
international regulations
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: j...@etcgroup.org; kcalde...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net
CC: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Jim
Thanks for your email.
Could you cite emails where you think there have been ad hominem attacks on ETC?
I'm reluctant to censor obvious satire. This thread has triggered useful 
debate. 
I'm also concerned at your attempts to apply the ad hominem principle to a 
group or organisation. This would make it harder for people to criticize 
governments, etc.
Furthermore, can it really be said the ETC conduct in this regard has been at 
the standards by which it would ask others to be judged? 
Your response has been useful, and I'd welcome more contribution from ETC. This 
group's posts are widely read by an influential, but mostly silent, audience of 
policy makers, Journalists and scientists. It's a good opportunity to boost 
support for your cause.

Andrew Lockley

Moderator 
On Oct 22, 2012 5:23 AM, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.org wrote:

Obviously this is patently silly. ETC Group are not a party to  UNFCCC and if 
continuing to use air travel constitutes some sort of breach of a UN convention 
then many people and groups on this list are  also 'in breach' .  So is the 
IPCC etc etc.  Also didn't there used to be some sort of moderation rule on 
this list about 'no ad hominem attacks'??? Andrew: what happened to that?

More seriously however , can I ask you David to retract your language referring 
to ETC Group's Attack on the Haida and to be far more careful who you are 
smearing in your rather sloppy language below.

To be clear: The ocean fertilization dump was not carried out by 'the Haida'- 
an indegenous nation of several thousand people. It was carried out by a 
commercial company called the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation  (HSRC) 
established through the band council of the village of Old Massett. So this was 
a project of a small commercial company associated with one particular Haida 
Village. It is not a project of 'The Haida' and most press reports have been 
careful not to misrepresent it as you have.   Nor do band council's represent 
'The Haida''  - they are administrative units established mostly  for provision 
of services set up by the Canadian Government under the Indian Act. The bodies 
that represent 'The Haida' as a sovereign People are The Council of the Haida 
Nation and the Council of Hereditary Chiefs. Both bodies issued a clear 
declaration on Thursday disassociating themselves from the ocean fertilization 
dump undertaken by HSRC and making it very clear they do not support ocean 
fertilization activities. See 
http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/Splash/Public_Notices/PDF/Joint_Statement.pdf . 
In fact since this dump first became public a week ago the President of the 
Council of The Haida Nation, Guujaaw, has consistently made clear this was not 
an initiative of The Haida but of only of one village band council. 
 Meanwhile ETC Group has been  in constant constructive discussion with the 
Council of Haida Nations and other Haida Groups and indeed brought this matter 
to their attention  before it was brought to any media. There has been no 
'attack on the Haida' and as you'll see from our own press release where we 
have been diligent in communicating the difference between HSRC and 'The 
Haida': 
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/world%E2%80%99s-largest-geoengineering-deployment-coast-canada%E2%80%99s-british-columbia
  - may I respectfully ask that others take the same care.

BestJim ThomasETC Group.

On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:36 

RE: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations

[Veli Albert Kallio]

We do not choose to focus on problems based on an objective appraisal of 
threats posed, but rather largely based on which actions we find to be most 
ethically repugnant. Apparently, dumping raw sewage simply to save the cost of 
sewage processing is less repugnant than fertilizing the ocean in hopes of 
increasing fish yields. One suspects that the real ethical boundary that Russ 
George is inferred to have transgressed is the desire to personally profit from 
unconventional mariculture.
Ken Kaldeira's comment is particularly pertinent, as another similar project by 
fossil fuel industry to artificially to alter pH of ocean has received no 
criticism at all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18045733
It seems to me from the above that the facts and fiction are increasingly 
getting mixed up by ideological lobbies whose self interest is to just raise 
money. 
Somehow I am getting both tired and angry about these pointless debates 
instigated by the climate change denialists, and people who try to prevent even 
research attempts of geoengineering while turning blind eye when oil companies 
intentionally seed ocean with carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons etc stuff, and as 
Ken pointed out raw sewage is often allowed to the sea and farmers pour tons of 
fertilisers on sea side fields in Sweden every year when floods occur each 
spring on those sea side fields.

I think geoengineers should strike back when even the water spraying on UK 
coast was stopped due to some supposed environmental risk last year. I suppose 
if we re-labelled geoengineering as oil field related research project, we 
would be only congratulated and said it is welcome project like the one 
currently polluting ocean with CO2 in Scotland.
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:05:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of 
international regulations
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
CC: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu; 
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com



Re: [geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of 
international regulations


Were HSRC really interested in solid and verifiable carbon credits, investing 
their money and effort in improving efficiency almost anywhere in the world 
would seem to have been a much better investment and chance of return. In 
addition to the actual costs of doing iron fertilization, the transaction costs 
in terms of lawyers and legal vulnerability would seem to me so high it is hard 
to understand on what basis they would be drawing in investors. Thus, in 
addition to being ecologically and legally suspect, isn’t the whole idea 
economically suspect as well? Were global emissions way down and the CO2 costs 
way up and ocean acidification causing significant impacts, there might be 
reason for re-consideration, but I just don’t understand the rationale for this 
idea when global emissions are headed up, overall efficiencies of energy use 
are so low, and CO2 permit costs are so low. What am I missing here?



Mike MacCracken





On 10/20/12 3:36 PM, Joshua Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote:



According to multiple sources, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) 
had planned to sell carbon credits resulting from the experiment (for example, 
see CBC 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/19/bc-ocean-fertilization-haida.html).
  Setting aside the fact that there's no way currently to do this, neither Russ 
George, John Disney (president of HSRC), nor any other corporate or community 
official has disputed this assertion, not even during the press conference they 
organized in Vancouver yesterday.



As for the Assessment Framework, the point is not whether or not the experiment 
was small-scale, but whether or not it was submitted to the LC/LP for 
approval under the Framework, which apparently it was not (presumably because 
it wouldn't have passed scientific muster).



Josh



On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com 
wrote:



Not wishing to take sides, but I don't agree with the points raised.



It's not clear to me what, if any, commercial purpose there was. I don't see 
any evidence of selling credits, specifically.  It's probably harder to judge 
the fisheries issue - which may have been within the definition of commercial. 
However, it may be that the intended fisheries impact was research, not 
directly commercial, on this specific occasion. 



Secondly, the assessment framework expressly permits small scale research. 100t 
is pretty small scale (two petrol tankers)  even if the effect was spatially 
dispersed.



Surely it's for objectors to prove a violation, not the converse. Innocent 
until proven guilty, and all that 



A



On Oct 20, 2012 7:01 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote:

Circling back to Ken's original question, given what we know it seems pretty 
clear that the Haida 

RE: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I wonder if Alan could clarify a bit his point no. 2: The TTAPS model had no 
heat capacity at the surface, so it was a model of the response in a 
continental interior.  I think what you plotted was our global average 
response.  The globe is 70% ocean.  So the global average response would be 
more than 10 times smaller than the middle of a continent. I do recognise the 
issue of the shading impact of nuclear explosion dust clouds having huge impact 
on the continental interiors, but not globally. However, what is the effect on 
the overall oceanic albedo as the oceans do have plenty of supersaturated air 
masses that are highly aerosol deficient. Could supply of nuclei for 
condensation create new clouds and cloud whitening effects to the extent 
Stephen Salter's ideas. Was the cloud whitening and cloud formation over oceans 
included in your simulations? Or was it just the dust shade?

How about wind drift, surely nuclear war does not stop the winds and these will 
scatter nuclear dust much like volcanic dust? I agree that local effects of 
pulverising mountains for dust clouds are severe, and one of the problems is 
that most tall mountains reside on the western edges of continents, leading to 
dust fall and biggest effects to highly populated areas. Professor Teller was 
always an advocate of thermonuclear explosives for weather or climate 
modification. Would you consider it a possibility to ameliorate the worst heat 
waves or supersaturated ocean air by nuclear devises when heat trapping water 
vapour builds up dangerously high in the air as climate gets ever warmer?

Note that biological systems are sensitive to weather extremes, not very much 
to the rising average temperatures? 

(1.) Can we manage 2 - 4 - 6- 8- 10 degree warmer climate by occasional 
explosions when system is most overheated to allow the biological systems to 
recuperate. Not continuously suppressing the temperature, but when the weather 
is too hot for organisms and ecosystems.

(2.) Can we remove supersaturated water vapour from the atmosphere, say above 
the Pacific Ocean, by explosions providing seeding nucleation centres to (i) 
flush water out and hence reduce its greenhouse gas impact, and (ii) to 
generate sunlight reflecting clouds or cloud brightening above oceans whenever 
air is supersaturated. I became intrigued to Alan's response as I could not see 
these issues addressed in his reply. I do recognise the accumulation of 
radiochemicals in each explosion, which is a major issue but if there is an 
immediate threat to ecosystems and evidence of them dying in heat, or lack of 
rain, would these measures be agreeable by rise in cesium and iodine.

Regards,

Albert  


 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:13:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com



Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives


Here’s my take on the exchange:



It seems to me the core of the difference in the use and interpretation of a 
metaphor to describe scientific results—and arguing over this can unfortunately 
obscure the significance of the scientific work.



Russell is doing what scientists often do, namely taking words literally. So, 
TTAPS did project freezing of the whole world—I don’t recall them saying that 
it was just the center of continents, etc.--with temperature predicted to go 
way below zero (and the accompanying article on the ecological response did 
take the TTAPS results directly). That is what Russell is saying is meant by 
the phrase “nuclear winter.” When the 3-D models were run, etc., the results 
were variously called a “nuclear autumn,” “nuclear drought,” etc., so the 
literal result of TTAPS description was indeed modified in the SCOPE assessment.



But the SCOPE assessment, in addition to describing the very sizeable climatic 
disruptions, also reiterated that the direct effects of such an exchange would 
be horrific (this was generally previously understood) and also spent time on a 
point not well developed at the time, namely that the likely disruption of the 
emerging global economy (in medicines, grains, fertilizer, energy, financial 
markets, and more) would also lead to horrific consequences, and this was 
whether there was a climatic effect or not. Together, the various dire outcomes 
could be characterized, at least in metaphorical terms, as a “nuclear winter” 
and so the term from TTAPS persisted, though was not generally used in the 
scientific assessments describing all the impacts. Basically, what was made 
clear was that large-scale nuclear war would be a real disaster for combatants 
and also, importantly, for non-combatants, and the consequences would be 
significantly worse than the scenarios being used in some of the civil defense 
planning that envisioned getting into shelters for a week or so and for 
planning for how to restart postal operations. 



As Alan states in his note back to Russell, the quantitative 

RE: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to Inevitablity by Jay Michaelson :: SSRN

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Robert.

Do you or anyone know how we could make application for these junk science 
scholarships?
10.   “junk science” is paid for by energy companies - $22 million by 
ExxonMobil alone since 1998.  Surely, the First Nations (ACP) idea of digging 
radiocarbon beneath Greenland ice dome or Antarctic should qualify for their 
award?  People also study (i) cold fusion, (ii) anti-gravity devises, and (iii) 
neutrino transmitters through earth's core for high speed telecomms. Where can 
I get funding, and who we could contact to apply these? OR IS THE ABOVE A FALSE 
STATEMENT? We should avoid false statements appearing in the group. I think for 
good or bad, Robert has a duty to clarify his allegations on Exxon's junk grant 
making programme. Note:

FN and ACP (Pacific Caucus) insists the Pleistocene glaciations were a result 
of a new continental rift or geological fault that penetrated the crust in its 
entirety. Water penetration into asthenosphere then dissolved peridotite en 
masse in process called partial melting and triggering the topmost water 
contact section of asthenosphere to liquefy and spill magma onto sea floor as 
the continents overloaded with snow above liquefied asthenosphere beneath 
Hudson Bay and Baltic Sea and Greenland. Iceland and volcanic island formation 
were self-sustaining as heft of developing ice sheets grew higher and sea 
levels world wide dropped, allowing magma to move beneath and through the thin 
oceanic plates onto sea floor. Regards,

Albert
 Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 07:48:35 -0700
From: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to 
Inevitablity by Jay Michaelson :: SSRN
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com




This paper deserves discussion.  Here are some quotes from it that I found 
particularly salient.
Robert Tulip
 

Jay Michaelson - Tulsa Law Review GEOENGINEERING AND CLIMATE MANAGEMENT: FROM 
MARGINALITY TO INEVITABILITY 
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146934
 
 

1. Climate Management (CM) (Geoengineering) is a climate change strategy that, 
unlike regulation, might actually stand a chance of becoming
 reality.
2.  despite rises in temperatures, a high-grossing documentary film by a 
Nobel laureate, visible changes in glaciers and ice shelves, and widespread 
understanding of the climate crisis in Europe, … the view [exists] that climate 
change is either not happening, or is part of some natural cycle and
 requires further study. I did not take these claims at their word in 1998, and 
I do not do so today. Yet if the pseudo-controversy regarding climate change 
proves anything, it is that my earlier article was correct. We should be very 
pessimistic about greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction as an effective climate change 
policy, because it would so greatly impact some of the largest and most 
powerful industrial, commercial, and corporate entities in the country (indeed, 
the world).

3.  Climate Management lets the free market be free, uses technology rather 
than a restraint on behavior, and avoids government regulation.

4.  not to pursue it, I argue, is to condemn coastal areas, temperate 
forests, and thousands of species to extinction. What, exactly, is the price of 
our pride?

5.  educating well-meaning consumers to reduce their carbon footprints, 
change their light bulbs, and so on--is actually counterproductive…. rhetoric 
that all of us are responsible for climate change, and each of us has the power 
to make a change, is factually false and politically misleading. Let's be 
honest: without coordinated political action, consumers' personal choices are 
ineffectual... Every calorie of energy an individual devotes to calculating her 
own carbon footprint is a misdirected
 one;

6.  Ocean Iron Fertilisation (OIF) is scarcely different from planting 
trees. Trees, too, grow more productively with fertilizers, forest management, 
and other forms of human intervention. Yet we do not regard tree farms as 
“geoengineering.” Is planting “‘trees” ‘ in the ocean really so different? 
Perhaps we do not yet know the precise efficacy of phytoplankton carbon 
sequestration but there are complexities regarding afforestation, as well.

7.  Climate Management is not building dams; we are using our limited 
knowledge of atmospheric science to either increase the albedo and opacity of 
the stratosphere, or create new carbon sinks in the oceans. Geoengineering is 
neither geo- nor engineering.

8.  “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and it is better 
prevent disease than simply manage it or mitigate its effects. Understanding 
geoengineering as climate management renders comprehensible its positive and 
negative attributes. We are not talking about a fanciful dream of “hacking the 
Earth.” We are talking about Plan B, because Plan A seems so expensive that a 
few key players remain intent on blocking it.

9.  popular books, 

RE: [geo] UK Parliament report on Arctic CE (House of Commons - Environmental Audit (Hg.) (2012): Protecting the Arctic)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

For global surface area, the Queen Elizabeth Islands are diminishing small. If 
the traffic conditions justified on the North West passage, installation on 
suspension cabling (which are used for bridges) could be implemented to create 
web of cabling that is mounted to islands and sea floor that would stop the ice 
movement into the shipping line. Behind the artificial pack ice a congestion of 
sea ice could form that might extend hundreds of kilometres. The same could be 
implemented on both northern and southern side, but the justification would be 
to keep the shipping line clear of ice floes to extend the navigate season and 
prevent damage to the ships.

However, the opening of North East Passage for wide spaces needs only ice 
breakers, light houses and rescue stations with no mechanism to manage sea ice. 
For geoengineering purposes the cables between islands will no longer work as 
for example Franz Joseph Land the melt line has moved beyond the archipelago to 
the Arctic Basin. Back in 2005-2008 these ideas seemed viable but now the 
complete melting surpasses all these islands. I prefer any money saved, would 
go for renewable energy projects instead. The ships can easily take the east 
passage to the Pacific Ocean and spare funds spent for CO2 mitigation 
measures...
  Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:17:06 -0400
 Subject: Re: [geo] UK Parliament report on Arctic CE (House of Commons - 
 Environmental Audit (Hg.) (2012): Protecting the Arctic)
 From: mmacc...@comcast.net
 To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 That Arctic clouds are causing warming in the winter suggests that
 consideration ought to be given to using weather modification techniques
 presently applied to clearing wintertime fogs, so seeding ice clouds. The
 idea would be to do enough of this in the right places to allow greater
 surface cooling. The problem, I imagine, is that with any air motion at all,
 the clearing would likely only last for hours (at best) and so have to be
 redone on ongoing basis, which is very likely just too costly.
 
 I wonder if it might be possible to apply wintertime cloud clearing in some
 potential chokepoints to buildup sea ice thickness and thus limit flow of
 the sea ice out of the Canadian archipelago, etc.? Or maybe do over Hudson's
 Bay, the Labrador Sea, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, etc. to help strengthen sea
 ice in these regions?
 
 Of course, given the Parliamentarians apparent interest in long-term
 solutions, this type of approach would not qualify--really only potentially
 useful if there is strong mitigation that will soon be pulling emissions way
 down and so allow termination of this approach after several decades.
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 
 On 9/24/12 7:02 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/17105.
  htm#a11
  
  Extract
  
  GEO-ENGINEERING
  
  47. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group called for urgent intervention
  by governments to avoid tipping points being reached.[176] Given that
  there was nothing in nature that can come to our help,[177] the
  Group called on governments to intervene by cooling the Arctic,
  principally by using geo-engineering techniques; ... [these]
  techniques have natural analogues which suggest that they should be
  safe and effective ... if their deployment [avoided] unwanted
  side-effects.[178] They called for the urgent application of a
  combination of three geo-engineering technologies: spraying aerosols
  into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away, cloud brightening
  using salt-spray also to increase reflection, and cloud removal to
  allow heat radiation into space. They also called for the use of
  methane capture technologies such as 'methane mats'.[179]
  
  48. There was some differences of view in the evidence we received
  about whether geo-engineering in principle was a credible long-term
  solution. Professor Wadhams saw geo-engineering as a sticking
  plaster until the forcing of climate warming is tackled,[180] and
  John Nissen believed that the costs would be hundreds of millions
  rather than many billions per year.[181] On the other hand, if such
  applications were subsequently stopped, the planet would warm up more
  quickly to where it would have been without geo-engineering, rather
  than the gradual warming otherwise expected.[182] Professor Lenton
  told us that if you go down that path, you are committing not just
  the next generation but tens of generations potentially to keep doing
  that. He believed that it was important that economic modelling of
  geo-engineering costs included the possible damages or risk factors
  and a critical look at those very few existing studies as to whether
  they have really quantified [them].[183]
  
  49. There was consensus that even if geo-engineering techniques could
  be used, they first required further development and were not ready
  for immediate deployment.[184] Professor John Latham of University
  

RE: [geo] Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of climate following volcanic eruptions

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Atmosmare is working on idea of ships being allowed to use SO2 containing 
fuels. However, it bears to be remembered that SO2 turns into sulphuric acid. 
We had acidification problem in 1970s and in Kola Peninsula near Murmansk and 
Nickel the heavy industries sulphate emissions have turned Arctic landscapes 
into acidic lunarscape. The power stations are no capped and situation 
gradually normalising, i.e. lichen what the raindeers eat started to disappear. 
Norilsk region in the Taimyr Peninsula also faces similar problems and has 
installed filters. This may explain some regional warming in the Arctic.

I would say that the harmful effects of acidification start occurring within 5 
years if SO2 was removed with the lakes becoming first dead. This in 15-20 
years time followed by the forests dying out like in Germany. It is possible to 
throw out SO2 for a while but it is a bit like putting too much salt on an egg, 
it won't work for long. Like too much CO2 is too much, so it is with SO2 which 
is even faster cul-de-sac. But I agree with the high stratospheric life times 
which make the substance more effective. I think the airplanes are just too 
complicated at this point of time, as an intermediate solution mountain top 
piping would be easier to build and also dismantle. The facilities could also 
be controlled so that the gas would not be released into rainy weathers and 
when the winds blow towards lands. I think intelligent solutions would prolong 
the life of sulphur aerosol cooling and reduce the quantities required. Jan 
Mayen's Beerenberg, Greenland's Gunnbjorn, some Norwegian mountains would be 
ideal as Gunnbjorn at 3800 metres is above many clouds (Arctic air mass is 
thinner than the tropics). In Africa possibly Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Meru and 
Mt. Kenya could be used as these would take to 7 km high and also intelligently 
controlled whenever there is no rain and winds would be towars the oceans to 
create reflection and aerosols over oceans. Volcanoes of the Macarene Islands 
(Reunion, Mauritius) could also be used to spread widely as well as the South 
Atlantic islands like Acension, the Inaccessibility Island, etc. which have 
high mountains above the ocean.

The factories traditionally put their gas out whatever the weather, the rains 
might bring the dirt down few miles from the factory within 15 minutes. 
Geoengineering programmes based on SO2 must clearly differentiate from these 
practises to be acceptable. (I try to contribute nowadays less due to a simple 
fact that we have more shinier brains on the group nowadays, to prevent 
overloading with messages. There is an allergy among the decision-makers 
against geoengineering as some of the ruling elites are not even yet accepting 
man made emissions of CO2 as greenhouse gases and do not believe in the 
theories that one could add or deduct energy from atmospheric budget. This is 
of course wrong, but makes it particularly hard to sell geoengineering to 
business-courting politicians around the world.) Kind regards,
AlbertDate: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:00:30 -0430
Subject: Re: [geo] Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations 
of climate following volcanic eruptions
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com



Re: [geo] Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) simulations of 
climate following volcanic eruptions


Hi John—Regarding your query about changing power plant emissions, think back 
to the situation in the mid-20th century when all the black soot and ash was 
also coming out of power plants. Modern coal-fired power plants are tuned so as 
to not make much soot (it is wasted energy) and filter out most of the rest. 
For SO2, many are already taking much of that out as well. Your question might 
better be could one have power plants not remove the SO2. Doable, but would 
likely have significant health and acid precipitation consequences. 



It would make much more sense, were one to want to augment the sulfate amount 
in the free troposphere to enhance the cooling effect to take the S that has 
been and is being scrubbed out of power plants and then set up release 
locations in the remote, low latitude, mid Pacific and Indian oceans, oxidize 
the S, loft it to above the boundary layer to increase its lifetime, and so 
generally increase the tropospheric sulfate loading while also benefitting from 
some amount of cloud brightening effect—doing so over the low albedo ocean 
areas where there are very few people and lofting above the boundary layer 
would be important. So, one would benefit from large area, sharp albedo 
contrast, sun well up in the sky, etc., so augmentation of loading might be low 
enough to avoid serious consequences when a fraction of the emitted sulfate 
eventually got carried to populated areas and areas sensitive to acid 
deposition (acid deposition is especially a problem when get buildup on snow 
over winter and then rapid melt—and would avoid that). Now, some 

RE: [geo] Re: SRM, Avoiding ocean anoxia

[Veli Albert Kallio]

RE:   LARGE WATER BODY OXYGENATION

Some years ago when I was far more optimistic on the Kyoto Protocol being 
diligently pursued to resolve the climate crisis, I was writing papers and 
presentations. I produced together with the Finnish Councillor of State on 
Environment (Ymparistoneuvos) Matti Lappalainen a presentation for the World 
Water Week, Stockholm, August 2006 on large water body oxygenation like oceans, 
seas and large continental rivers like the Amazon.

There is a second approach to address the rising temperatures that produce 
anoxic oceans, seas and rivers like the Amazon. Our paper was accepted for the 
presentation through very tough competition with only 144 out of 850 proposals 
were approved by the scientific committee. Our proposal suggested the use of 
Mixox Large Water Body Oxygenation systems to oxygenate the River Amazon during 
the hot drought season for 1,000 km from the down stream estuary upwards, with 
the flow rate estimated at 200,000 m3 per second. This method is currently 
being tested for oxygenation of the Bothnia of Finland with a 27 km2 test area 
near Tammisaari and another 3 km2 area off the coast of the City of Stockholm. 
Besides the Amazon, or the Baltic Sea we have looked at other trouble spots 
like the Pacific Ocean coast near Oregon and Washington states for oxygenation 
and the Black Sea but the system works for all anoxic seas and oceans. The 
Mixox systems benefit is its low energy consumption which makes it possible to 
set up units that can deliver difference to change the oxygen concentrations of 
the oceans and seas. If it is 365 day operation 365 x 200,000 m3 are oxygenated 
by small 2 kW unit but in the ocean larger economies must be used to make 
discernible impact. At PUP I suggested the people that we would like to bring 
our Mixox to pump oxygen to the Pacific Ocean and carry out study how much 
units and energy will be required to rehabilitate the anoxic seas there. 

However, not all of world's ocean surface can be practically oxygenated due to 
their size the entireties of the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean or the 
Indian Ocean would overwhelm all world's resources which would not get chance 
of funding. But if the Baltic Sea oxygenation takes on well, we could see the 
Black Sea and perhaps the Mediterranean Sea brought into the Mixox scheme. 
Smaller areas within the larger water bodies can also be oxygenated like the 
Pacific costs off Oregon. It is a cost issue, but if someone is seriously 
looking at oxygenating oceans or other very large water bodies for research or 
applications, please contact. 

Generally, I am of view that more investment in research will not deliver 
desirable policy decisions. The US Republican Party has taken on theme to 
derail the climate and environmental sciences to maximise the profiteering of 
industry. Today all large fossil fuel companies employ computer hacking firms 
to get the latest news about science before it is even science press and the 
mitigation planning is in place months in advance of any publications to 
cushion any potential impact of new scientific findings. A surprisingly large 
number of climate scientists and geosciences are perfectly happy of having 
their mortgages paid off, or foreign pension fund set up. I am increasingly 
inclined that solutions come from this sector.

I do whatever I can to prop up Geoengineering wherever I have possibilities it 
to be taken more seriously as one solution. But I am also backing Rio+20 motion 
which takes lots of my time as I perceive it as yet another possible 
game-changer to get the climate agenda moving once again.
Kind regards,

Albert
  Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for the Changing Climate.

Author:Mr. Veli Albert Kallio, Isthmuses' Protection Campaign of the Arctic and 
North Atlantic Oceans, UK
Co-Author: Dr. Matti Lappalainen, Vesi-Eko Oy Water-Eco Ltd, Finland
Keywords: Amazon, Atlantic Ocean, Climate Change, Global Warming, River 
Rehabilitation
Presentation of the project / topicA catastrophic draught event was reported 
across much of the north of South America during August - December 2005. This 
resulted in extensive and irreversible damage in parts of the Amazon river 
network. The 2005 Amazon draught followed very unusual changes in the Atlantic 
Ocean’s circulatory system that altered typical wind and rain patterns. Many 
climatic models predict the future desiccation of the Amazon region. This paper 
discusses dangers of sudden swings in the Amazon’s climate and how these risks 
can be reduced and securing the future of the river system.
Analysis of the issuesThe Amazon river network is huge, in some way one could 
call it as the ‘world river’. From August to December 2005, dry northerly winds 
prevailed and leading to constant sunshine and total loss of the rainfall. The 
rains normally deliver oxygen and clouds cool down the river temperature. Some 
tributaries suffered catastrophic oxygen losses that killed all

RE: [geo] Moderator message - Please comment on open access

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All, 

Just to say that to keep Geoengineering group open to policy makers and 
journalists, who do not have time to go academic libraries. Neither have 
newspapermen. We do have those on our group as well.I am myself more on 
policy-making grounds on this group to try to encourage geoengineering as I do 
not see emissions reduction politically viable in the foreseeable future.

The US economic doctrine is market economy based on infinite growth based on 
fossil fuelled consumption of products and services as the Republican Party 
and the US business elites. We need to go along political realities and not 
with academia wish-wash. But I am concerned, if we develop habit to distribute 
copyright stuff. That should be avoided as much as possible. We are not 
Wikileaks in academia.

Regards,

Albert

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:11:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Moderator message - Please comment on open access
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
CC: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

For clarity, I'm not seeking to 'turn this list' into anything. I was just 
seeking members' views.
Furthermore, there was never any suggestion that peer-reviewed papers would be 
discriminated against in any circumstances or in any way. Rather, I simply 
suggested that policy *could* be that any closed-access papers should be 
file-attached, if that was the wish of members.

Considering member comments expressed publicly and privately, it seems that a 
useful stance would be to encourage authors to file-attach papers, but never to 
sanction those who do not do so in any way.
I hope this resolves the matter for members, and I thank everyone for their 
attention to this issue.
A 
On Jun 23, 2012 8:43 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:

This list was originally set up to help facilitate communication among working 
scientists and other professionals. We generally have access to these journals 
through our institutions.



Also, pdfs of many papers have been sent directly to this group -- a practice 
that I applaud.
So, in short, Alan is right:  We should be worrying a bit more about reducing 
the number of posts with low or misleading information content (like this 
email), and not implement restrictive posting policies to try to improve 
professional publication practices (which is, no doubt, a laudable goal).





On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote:



Dear Andrew,



Absolutely not!  In fact, I think we should ban all the drivel that is not 
peer-reviewed.



Published papers are not closed to anyone with an academic library or a 
subscription.  While some journals are open access, such as ACP, others like 
Science, Nature, JGR, and Journal of Climate are not.  Someone has to pay for 
publishing, and none of these, with the possible exception of Nature, are for 
profit.  They are published by AAAS, AGU, and AMS, which are professional 
societies.  And every author will be happy to send reprints to anyone who asks, 
so there is really no hindrance to anyone reading any peer-reviewed published 
paper.






So I reject your assertion that open access is necessarily better than journals 
for which someone has to pay.  And I reject your attempt to turn this list into 
just opinions and not the distribution of quality research.  And the only 
standard for quality is peer review.  Peer review is imperfect, but it is 
better than any alternative.






   Alan



Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)

  Editor, Reviews of Geophysics

  Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program

  Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction

Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222

Rutgers University  Fax: +1-732-932-8644

14 College Farm Road   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock



On 6/22/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:




Dear Members,



A question:  Should we ban members sending their own papers to the list if 
these papers are not open access, or file-attached?



To allow this practice to continue seems like we're offering tacit support for 
closed access publication of geoengineering research.  I note both the growing 
open-access movement, and the particular sensitivities around any perceived 
secrecy in geoengineering research.






Furthermore, in practical terms, posted closed-access research is not available 
for non-academic list members, of which there are many.  This clearly hinders 
subsequent list discussion of attached papers.



I'd be very interested to hear members' views on this matter.



Thanks for your time.



A



-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 

[geo] Geoengineering Solutions Proposed for Another Age and Planet (1975)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hard to believe that climate scientists once recommended melting the arctic ice 
cap on purpose – a mere 13 years before Hansen testified before congress [1988] 
that the planet was facing a heat death due to CO2. From Newsweek on April 28, 
1975:
 
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive 
action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. 
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as 
melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic 
rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
http://reasonabledoubtclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] New CDR Technology to Filter CO2

[Veli Albert Kallio]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18396655  12 June 2012 Last 
updated at 11:42 

New holey material soaks up CO2
 Two interlocking but not 
completely overlapping structures leave room for gases 
UK researchers have developed a 
porous material that can preferentially soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.
NOTT-202 is a metal-organic framework that works like a sponge, absorbing a 
number of gases at high pressures.
But as the pressure is reduced, CO2 is retained as other gases are 
released.
The development, reported 
in Nature Materials, holds promise for carbon capture and storage, or even 
for removing CO2 from the exhaust gases of power plants and factories.
Metal-organic frameworks have been considered promising structures to trap 
gases for a number of years. They are so named because they comprise atoms of a 
metallic element at their core, surrounded by scaffolds of longer, 
carbon-containing chains.
These complex molecules can be made to join together in frameworks that leave 
gaps suitable for capturing gases.
However, until now, such frameworks have been good primarily at gathering any 
gas passing through them; those that were selective for CO2 have proven to have 
a low capacity for storing the gas.
Increasing the selectivity for CO2 in the presence of gaseous mixtures 
represents a major challenge if these systems are to find practical 
applications 
under dynamic conditions, the authors wrote.
The research started at the universities of Nottingham and Newcastle, where 
scientists discovered a chemical system that seemed to solve this problem of 
selectively storing a significant amount of CO2. 
But to be sure of just what they had, they collaborated with a team at the 
Diamond Light Source in Oxfordshire and the Science and Technology Facilities 
Council's Daresbury Laboratory to get a microscopic look at what they had 
created.
Using X-ray diffraction and detailed computer models, the researchers found 
that NOTT-202 is made up of two different frameworks that slot together 
incompletely, leaving nanopore gaps particularly suited to gathering up 
CO2.
This two-part structure, the researchers claim, is an entirely new class of 
porous material. 
As such, research into just how similarly paired frameworks can be created 
may help researchers find a range of materials suited to soaking up specific 
gases. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18396655   
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] 400 ppm and rising

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Stephen,

I think that the metamorphosis of ice covered Arctic Ocean to open water plays 
the decisive role in the hydroxyl-driven methane oxidation:

Lets just take a relatively moderate storm surge with the crest between 2-3 
metres along Yakutian coast. While the wind propelled storm surge current 
advances, the reverse current on the bottom of storm surge (which drains the 
water back into ocean) pulls loose sediments and silt away along the water. 
This rapidly excavates and exposes methane clathrates to warm water. 

Furthermore, as East Siberian Sea is so shallow, storm surges can form on 
sideway directions as well which might be strong enough to disturb bottom mud. 
This explains entirely the observed rapid methane clathrate losses on East 
Siberian Sea seabed last autumn. The sea bed responds to warming far faster 
than terrestrial permafrost due to higher thermal inertia of sea water to air 
above land. The hydrodynamical factors played key role in excavating those 
22,000 methane craters along Siberian sea bed, many of which are one kilometre 
wide, largest ones 750 km2.

As storm surges and rising bottom currents excavate methane clathrates rapidly, 
the hydroxyl supply is unlikely to keep up with these. Temperatures surge, 
winds rise and erosion grows. As a result the hydroxyl radical disappears due 
to large surges of methane, just the same way carbon-14 isotope will get 
increasingly diluted the more CH4 and CO2 come from Eurasian and Arctic frozen 
soils and seabed.

Stephen, thus the answer to your question must necessarily be: Yes, methane 
from the Arctic does not get oxidised as warming and storm surges driven supply 
of methane quickly overwhelms the supply of methane oxidising OH-. It is 
crucial to understand that wind driven storm surges drive the loss of methane 
clathrates, unlike a steady loss of methane ice, this occurs rather rapidly in 
pulses thus encapsulating most of methane in a hydroxyl-protected enviroment.

Regards,

Albert
 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:10:24 +0100
 From: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
 To: mmacc...@comcast.net
 CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
 
   Mike
 
 Both diffusion and oxidation are involved.  Are you saying that methane 
 released from the Arctic does not get oxidised?
 
 Stephen
 
 Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
 Institute for Energy Systems
 School of Engineering
 Mayfield Road
 University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
 Scotland
 Tel +44 131 650 5704
 Mobile 07795 203 195
 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
 
 
 On 04/06/2012 14:46, Mike MacCracken wrote:
  Hi Stephen--I think there is a simpler explanation, and that is that the
  planetary boundary layer is shallow due to the typical inversion, so CO2
  tends to build up near the ground during the non-growing season. My guess is
  that the late summer values also tend to be a bit lower than Mauna Loa due
  to the CO2 being pulled out from a thinner layer (you see a much larger
  seasonal variation in high latitude CO2 than at Mauna Loa).
 
  Mike
 
 
  On 6/4/12 6:30 AM, Stephen Salters.sal...@ed.ac.uk  wrote:
 
 Hi All
 
  There are not many large coal-fired power stations in the Arctic and so
  the question arises about where this extra CO2 in the Arctic has come
  from.  One possibility is that it is the product of methane
  decomposition and would be in line with the report to this group from
  Greg Rau of 22 May.
 
  We know that the atmosphere weighs about 5 E18 kilograms.  If we know
  the plan area represented by the observing stations and the decay rate
  of methane to CO2 we could get an approximate figure for the mass of
  methane causing the rise in CO2.  We could then compare this with the
  scary rate of methane increase reported by Semiletov and Shakhova.
 
  Stephen
 
 
  Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
  Institute for Energy Systems
  School of Engineering
  Mayfield Road
  University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
  Scotland
  Tel +44 131 650 5704
  Mobile 07795 203 195
  www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
 
 
  On 02/06/2012 17:41, Rau, Greg wrote:
  Greenhouse gas levels pass symbolic 400ppm CO2 milestone
  Monitoring stations in the Arctic detect record levels of carbon dioxide,
  higher than ever above 'safe' 350ppm mark
  Associated Press
  guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 07.50 EDT
 
  The Arctic Ocean with leads and cracks in the ice cover of north of 
  Alaska.
  Photograph: Courtesy Eric Kort/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA
  The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone
  for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
 
  Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 
  400
  parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number
  isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.
 
  Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the 
  highest
  safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
 
  So far, only 

RE: [geo] 400 ppm and rising

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Sorry, I am not madman looking my binoculars at -78.5 °C, but -32.5 °C. Sorry 
for my typo, but can assure rest of figures accurate.
From: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
To: sebastian.car...@manchester.ac.uk; soco...@princeton.edu; 
mmacc...@comcast.net; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:53:20 +





It seems that the highest concentrations on the planet for the whole year are 
these spring-time arctic readings -- if one excludes readings where there is a 
local fossil-fuel source (as in a city) or a local biogenic source (as in the 
interior of a forest). 
 
It is true that carbon dioxide appears in the polar measurement stations in the 
Arctic highest during spring. But this only applies when temperatures remain 
above -78.5 °C. Once this tipping point is reached like in places of Antarctica 
or the record colds of Siberia, the carbon dioxide chrystallises and rains in 
small microscopic dry ice flakes. The polar regions will never see carbon 
dioxide rain as a liquid as the gas properties are such that it can only exist 
in a liquid form under pressures of 5.1 athmospheric pressures, which are only 
achievable in permafrost pockets. 
 
Normally carbon dioxide's density is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.5 times that of 
air, and in very cold polar regions the kinetic energies of carbon dioxide 
particles (molecules) drop rapidly. Their slow motion helps them to filter down 
and saturate in lower atmospheric regions. During the winters the kinetic 
energy of carbon dioxide is at its lowest and by the spring time there is a 
tendency for the carbon and other similarly behaving things filter down. But 
when temperatures approach -78.5 °C this comes rapid, and chrystallised carbon 
dioxide can make it even drop.
 
When carbon dioxide flakes reverse their solidification, they go easily 
unnoticed as they are dry ice and sublime directly back to the gas. The carbon 
dioxide frosts are very small because of its much lower proportion in the 
athmospheric mix than water ice. But I hope that this would answer some of your 
questions why there are so much carbon seen after the cold winter.

Sadly, the southerners seldom think about all the weird phenomena in the 
ultra-cold polar regions, me included. My closest to disater came when I peered 
through binoculars at -78.5 °C and my eyes immediately froze into eyepieces and 
had I pulled my binoculars off, so would have my eyeballs gone as well. Sea ice 
phenomena are equally poorly understood by the southerners. My view is that we 
will shortly loose all sea ice due to: (1) the increased capability of sea ice 
to migrate between sun light warmed waters and ice covered areas due to sea ice 
area reduction and more open space being around ice floes, (2) the thinned sea 
ice having a reduced resistance against wave penetration, as winds make larger 
waves and ice keeps thinning, water splashes through the gaps in ice speeding 
up the melting and breaking up the ice to small units which winds scatter 
around, (3) the increase in vertical overturning of ocean when winds push water 
high on the winward sides of ice floes and ice packs, this higher water column 
being in constant sinking, while the deep water re-surfaces nearby and hence 
extracting ocean's thermal inertia, (4) conversion of Arctic Ocean into 
recently frozen ice that contains some salt residues, making the ice to melt 
away now lot easier just like it does in areas like Hudson Bay which melt every 
year.
 
Unfortunately, I do not have pictures of natural dry ice snow flakes from 
Antarctica when carbon dioxide filters out and forms carbon dioxide frost at 
below -78.5 °C.
 
Regards,

Albert
 
 From: sebastian.car...@manchester.ac.uk
 To: soco...@princeton.edu; mmacc...@comcast.net; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
 CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:31:54 +
 
 Sorry if I am being naïve, but is there an additional question of which
 one of these figures it is that 'we' use in our communications with the
 policy making community and how we may loosely link these to existing
 atmospheric concentration/stabilisation/temp figures?
 
 So for instance, the Arctic figure below if remained set, 'we' would be in
 the AR4 'Scenario Set' II and 2.4-2.8C. Or else we are still within the
 2-2.4C set. I realise the differences are small in ppm.
 
 Seb Carney
 
 
 
 On 05/06/2012 17:12, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote:
 
 Mike, Stephen, and others:
 
 Evidently, regarding the new 400 ppm arctic readings, this group
 (including me) needs help. Here's what I think I understand, followed by
 what I don't understand.
 
 Every year for several decades, in April and May, the concentration of
 CO2 at Point Barrows, Alaska, has exceeded the concentration of CO2 at
 Mauna Loa. It seems that the highest concentrations on the planet for the
 whole year are these spring-time arctic 

[geo] RIO+20 WHAT SHOULD UK DO? MEETING WITH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ENVIRONMENTA AUDIT COMMITTEE

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Geoengineers,
I think geoengineer presence at this meeting with the EAC that takes place at 
St Martins-in-the-Fields is important. We see now first signs of sea ice and 
sea bed methane ice breaking down very widely. 
St Martins-in-the-Fields Church has organised a meeting with the House of 
Commons Environmental Audit Committee to be held in St Martins Church Trafalgar 
Square at 7PM on May 21st with the title Rio + 20 Earth Summit, What Should We 
do Now? This will focus largely but not exclusively on Global Warming. This 
will be an open panel discussion chaired by Joan Walley MP. The other members 
of the panel include; 1 The Rt. Hon John Bercow Speaker of the House of 
Commons, 2 Mark Edwards, creator of The Hard Rain Project, 3 Flavio Marega 
Minister Counsellor at the Brazilian Embassy in London, 4 Leo Johnson presenter 
of BBC World Challenge and co-founder of Sustainable Finance, now part of PwC, 
5 Martin Haigh member of the Environmental Sustainability Task Group at St 
Martins–in–the -Fields   6 Leah Parsons Girlguiding UK and winner of the most 
inspirational young person at Climate Week 2012, 7 Professor Chris Rapley 
Professor of Climate Science at University College London.  All are welcome, 
entry is free and no tickets are required. I hope some of us will be able to 
come to this meeting.   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The size of the termination shock is likely to be comparable to the graph when 
temperatures were suppressed from 1940-1970 when sulphur emissions were rising. 
The acid rains were starting to destroy forests (the Black Forest in Germany) 
and the acidity of Sweden's and Finland's lakes were rising rapidly. UK had 
western winds that pushed most of sulphur into Sweden and some of it to the 
Baltic countries and Finland. Nickel and Murmansk industries in the Arctic 
caused widespread dead zones in the Kola Peninsula, in Russia that lies 
north-east of Finland. The quantity increases of sulphur may have occurred, but 
it would push the warming 30 years ahead of schedule if we follow figures from 
1940-1970. Events that could lead to a sudden switch off of energy system using 
sulphur fuels could be a nuclear war or event like sudden Greenland ice sheet 
land containment failure leading to Heindrich Ice Berg Calving Event and the 
North Atlantic Ocean to be filled by broken ice bergs and the onset of the Last 
Dryas. However, both nuclear winter and the Last Dryas would mitigate the 
warming effect by strong negative feedbacks in either scenario. A sudden sea 
level jump by few metres would also tear off ice shelves by bending them loose 
around Antarctica. This replicates the cooling of Northern Hemisphere to the 
Southern Hemisphere. Droughts would be unbearable in both cases as the oceans 
would be very cold while the global dimming effect would be lost over the 
continent. The Atlantic regions would be affected by cold and drought, and much 
of eastern parts of Eurasia would suffer loss of monsoon and very low 
precipitation. Large ice bergs resulted in above kind of event are so-called 
ice islands and these can take 15 years to melt away. During this period the 
ocean remains perennially cold and may be Finland could re-introduce its 
reindeer and musk ox stocks across the mainland Europe to supply meat. As a 
positive point the Central Europe could enjoy a period of beautiful Arctic 
flowers such as Dryases that like the cold weather and decorate our Arctic 
summer each year. Regards, Albert
 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:59:10 +
Subject: RE: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use
From: and...@andrewlockley.com
To: john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
CC: natcurr...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; bala@gmail.com

Another point to note is that tropospheric sulfur geoengineering is already 
being done, albeit inadvertently, by power plants, ships and factories.
If we stop this, we will have a termination shock, as was reported numerically 
on this list recently wrt the US (possibly by Kens group).
A further termination shock will arise from secondary effects on marine clouds. 
This was reported at IUGG, but observationally rather than numerically. I've 
not seen the paper.
We are therefore just about to commence a poorly researched geoengineering 
programme to heat up the planet a bit!
A 
On Mar 17, 2012 3:53 AM, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk wrote:

Hello All,



Budyko’s points – re tropospheric vvs stratospheric aerosol -  reiterated

by Govindasamy Bala (below), in response to Nathan Currier’s question

(also below) are clearly valid vis-à-vis cooling via scattering of solar

radiation and concomitant global cooling.



However, it does not follow that the effectiveness of stratospheric seeding is

greater than that of the Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) geo-eng technique,

which involves the (tropospheric) seeding of marine stratocumulus clouds

with sea-water aerosol, in order to increase their droplet number

concentration, and therefore their albedo (with concomitant global cooling).



Latham et al (2008) presented arguments indicating that the ratio of the rate of

planetary radiative loss to required operational power is very large (in the

range 10**5 to 10**7 according to the type of vessel used for the continuous

spraying required). They pointed out that the main reason why this ratio is so

high for MCB is that Nature provides the energy required for the increase of

surface area of newly activated cloud droplets by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude

as they ascend to cloud top and reflect sunlight.



All Best,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 Govindasamy Bala [bala@gmail.com]


Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:52 AM

To: natcurr...@gmail.com

Cc: geoengineering

Subject: Re: [geo] tropospheric aerosol use



Climate changes by Budyko, on page 244, discusses why tropospheric aerosols 
are not as effective as stratospheric aerosols for climate modification.

1) life time is only a couple of weeks

2) 

[geo] Esthetic Interferences and Inconvenience from Aerosol Use in Geoengineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,  Whilst researching for my Planet in Peril papers I have just come 
across a source that lists a potential risk of esthetic interferences and 
inconvenience from the aerosol use for Geoengineering purposes:   Visibly blue 
moon The most literal meaning of blue moon is when the moon (not necessarily a 
full moon) appears to a casual observer to be unusually bluish, which is a rare 
event. The effect can be caused by smoke or dust particles in the atmosphere, 
as has happened after forest fires in Sweden and Canada in 1950 and 1951,[1] 
and after the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, which caused the moon to appear 
blue for nearly two years. Other less potent volcanos have also turned the moon 
blue. People saw blue moons in 1983 after the eruption of the El Chichon 
volcano in Mexico, and there are reports of blue moons caused by Mt. St. Helens 
in 1980 and Mount Pinatubo in 1991.[2]  ^ Minnaert, M: De natuurkunde van 't 
vrije veld 5th edition Thieme 1974, part I Licht en kleur in het landschap 
par.187 ; ISBN 90-03-90844-3 (out of print); also see ISBN 0-387-97935-2^ a b 
NASA http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/07jul_bluemoon.htm  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_moon I believe there could be a serious 
outlash from religious conservatives, photographers, poets, and climate change 
skeptics if the colour of the moon changes in the sky. I would say this could 
raise a rather serious opposition from certain corners of society.  
   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons

[Veli Albert Kallio]

To counter Lindzen's arguments, it bears to be remembered that decarbonisation 
need stands on its own feet even without any climate warming issue, due to 
ocean acidification. IF one rejects climate change, there is still plenty of 
scope to argue for geoengineering such as Carbon Dioxide Removal. And the 
melt-away of North Pole's perennial marine snow and ice cap, melting Greenland, 
glaciers and thawing of permafrost all agruge for global warming effect as 
polar regions act as the heat dump of the world (especially in dark seasons).
 Regards,

Albert   From: soco...@princeton.edu
 To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:07:57 +
 
 Let me try again. Dick Lindzen has presented a science argument, to the 
 effect that one can infer the climate sensitivity from sea surface 
 temperatures and satellite measurements of radiation. This idea needs to be 
 dealt with on its own terms, it seems to me, for the sake of the climate 
 science community's credibility and because, just conceivably, there is 
 something interesting in there. 
 
 This is a revised version of work that Lindzen published earlier. The first 
 time around, others found a serious error, and Lindzen acknowledged it. Isn't 
 this the way science is supposed to work?
 
 Probably someone has already reviewed Lindzen's revised work. It was 
 suggested that an earlier note to this group had included something of this 
 sort, but I couldn't find it.
 
 Rob
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of david
 Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:26 AM
 To: geoengineering
 Subject: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
 
 Regarding Robert Socolow's idea that Lindzen's case may need more adequate 
 refutation:
 
 Richard Kerr published an article in Science in 1989 describing Lindzen's 
 argument and his place in climate debate entitled:
  Greenhouse skeptic out in cold.  The article describes Lindzen in the way 
 some still do, i.e. no other US skeptic has such scientific stature.  
 Lindzen cast doubt on climate science:  the research has hardly begun.  
 Kerr quoted Lindzen assessing what was known: both the data and our 
 scientific understanding do not support the level of concern.
 
 Kerr  described what Lindzen said was the foundation of his case in
 1989: what Lindzen has now is not so much a complete model as an idea about 
 how control of atmospheric temperature works. Indeed, he describes it himself 
 as an idea of a theological or philosophical nature.
 
 Now Robert Socolow suggests there may be something lacking, i.e. some 
 absence of a direct refutation of the Lindzen analysis. I wonder.
  Its theology.  He's got acolytes.  What are mere scientists supposed to do?  
 Kerr quotes Mahlman who directly refuted Lindzen's idea
 in1989:  I know of no observational evidence supporting it.  Kerr also 
 quoted Schneider: Does he have a calculation, or is his brain better than 
 our models?  How many nails have to be driven in?
  Mahlman again:  Lindzen is a smart person, but I'm afraid he's confused
 
 What has changed about Lindzen, his position, or about how climate scientists 
 view his arguments, since 1989?  Decade after decade, Lindzen has failed to 
 support his arguments with data in a way that would convince other 
 scientists, yet decade after decade, the general public is informed by enough 
 opinion leaders that they should take Lindzen's opinion as credible that many 
 still do. Refuting him is still necessary, but the fact that many pay 
 attention to him has nothing to do with how convincing his case is.
 
 Hansen published a story of a time he shared a cab with Lindzen after both 
 had testified to a White House Climate Task Force, in his book Storms of My 
 Grandchildren, pages 15-16.  Hansen:  I considered asking Lindzen if he 
 still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.  He 
 had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the 
 reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.  
 Hansen didn't ask that question during that cab ride, but he says he did ask 
 Lindzen later, at a conference both were attending:  He began rattling off 
 all the problems with the data relating smoking to health problems, which was 
 closely analogous with his views of climate data.
 
 Kerr's article, Greenhouse skeptic out in cold. was published in Science 
 246.4934 (1989): 1118+
 
 
 
 On Mar 1, 4:01 am, Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu wrote:
  Might it not be fair to expect the public to reject Dick Lindzen's 
  testimony, in the absence of a direct refutation of his analysis? Is it 
  really enough to assert that he has been wrong before?
 
  Lindzen starts from sea surface temperatures and satellite measurements of 
  

[geo] Utilising Cloud Cover Elevation Alteration to Control Global Warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

A new negative feedback has been observed which opens a possibility for a 
temperature adjustment and cooling by cloud cover height alteration. New 
reasearch suggests the upper atmosphere is getting colder or drier to the 
extent that the cloud tops now reach 1% lower than 10 years ago.
This is a novel negative forcing from greenhouse gas forcing that traps more 
heat and moisture to the lower parts of the air column:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/misr20120221.html 
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] BBC News Report on Supersaturated Methane Sequstration

[Veli Albert Kallio]

BBC Lake Kivu gas: Turning an explosion risk into a power source



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16394635 
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Facebook

[Veli Albert Kallio]

We challenge States to abandon false solutions to climate change ... These 
include [1.] nuclear energy, [2.] large-scale dams, [3.] geo-engineering 
techniques, [4.] “clean coal”, [5.] agro-fuels, [6.] plantations [of soya, 
sugar cane, oil palm whatever], and [7.] market based mechanisms such as [7A] 
carbon trading, [7B] the Clean Development Mechanism, and [7C] forest offsets.
http://www.climatefrontlines.org/  
There is MUCH nonsense hype included in the above charity's stand besides 
scare-mongering and blaming geoengineering research. The more you look into the 
above statements fine print, the more irrational its agenda becomes. Most 
important, however, is:
Indigenous peoples' opposition to geoengineering was put together with the help 
of ETC group from Canada. I remember ETC canvassing hell-bent indigenous people 
to support their scare agendas at the Cochabamba Summit to stop geoengineering 
in April 2010. They worked together with the scare-industry-end type 
environmental groups whom the creation of a scare (nuclear-scare, GM-food 
scare, biofuel scare, geoengineering scare, DDT-scare, even hydroelectricity 
scare, climate scare) for fund-rising purpose their sole driving objective. 
Once a scare is conjured up, your charity then goes out to Save the World 
from its chosen target (whatever that may be). In future, we will see these 
environmental concern groups with ever more scare titles (just like the 
corporate green-wash) !
Geoengineering is already marketed as amongst the most harmful activities of 
mankind and harmful for indigenous people. This was NOT so until ETC and its 
allies made it so: Traditionally VIRTUALLY all Native American Indians were 
doing rain-dancing with the VERY, VERY specific intent to modify our weather. 
If that is not an intention of geoengineering, what is it then? Democritus 
invented the idea of atom in Greece very long ago, and the very idea of 
climate engineering finds its earliest roots specifically amongst the 
indigenous people's of the Americas who famously tried to modify weather by 
their dances and other ritual acts. My forth-coming presentation on the 20th 
Anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly motion 101292 by the World 
Indigenous and the United Nations Environmental Summit in Rio de Janeiro will 
specifically refer to the indigenous Native Americans (NAI) who, besides 
rain-dancing, made offerings and sacrificial killings to effectuate their 
cosmos through their blood-letting rituals like Mayas. Virtually everything in 
indigenous Native American culture focuses to effectuate a change in the 
weather system by a functional acts whatever that may have been: a ritual war 
to get sacrificial victims to let their blood to spill onto earth to effectuate 
rain. Spanish was so disgusted with myriads of these practises to effectuate 
weather - and their astounding - brutality. So, they banned them all. The above 
should suffice that geoengineering hostility of NAI is a very recent import. 
There were NEVER (before ETC) any tradition associated against any form of 
geoengineering, but the very exact opposite. Only thing that ETC and its 
cronies have proved is that with money people can be influenced (brain-washed) 
to believe in scares to do the exact opposite to their traditional systems 
(which has been largely crushed by the Western cultures). Due to increasing 
nostalgia among biologically indigenous people who have been traumatised by the 
Residential School system (that took children away from parents and banned use 
of home-language names and use of mother tongue) the incompetent young 
generation in their nostalgic aspiration run for 2012 hype (New Age) as well as 
ETC geoengineering scares which were not against their parents values but run 
alongside their forefathers ways of thinking about modifying our weather 
systems.

ETC and its scare-creation environmental NGO buddies have found fertile soil to 
grow support and raise funds based on bad practises which any reasonable man 
would repudiate. It is obviously no good to you if your home and way of making 
your livelihood is taken away without any compensation and others start to make 
huge money with your former tribal land. This is the biggest problem of Belo 
Monte which should surely compensate the loss of livelihood to people whose 
lives will be adversely affected. In Germany the land owners get 5% share of 
the energy production of a wind turbine and if a portion of 5% income was given 
also in Brazil, I do not think there would be any Indian opposing this 
hydroelectricity dam. 21,000 Megawatt power station can surely pay proceeds 
from its electricity for the 46,000 people affected from its water reservoir 
(which I will personally propose to Belo Montes' developer, Camargo Correa). 
Even fish can be relocated to preserve biodiversity by suitable fisheries made 
from run off, if appropriately maintained. ETC sells geoengineering blatantly 
as Western nations' 

[geo] New Geoengineering Target: Greenland Ice Sheet Snow Cover Whitening

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Whitening of Greenland's snow cover is a new potential geoengineering target 
that we haven't discussed. Greenland Ice Sheet has been discovered darkening in 
2011 with a new positive feedback in as follows: 
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76916/greenlandalbedo_mod_2011_lrg.jpg

It is very remarkable that this darkening has occurred since 2000-2006 and in 
some areas it is ~20%.

Micromechanics of the snow cover darkening is explained here (analogous to snow 
crystals in the 
sky):http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76916src=fb

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Further thoughts on Arctic methane

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 if the methane would not 
destabilise, there is still risk for forest and peat fires and large scale 
ecosystem damage. For land ice there is potential for huge flash floods in 
Greenland, surface melting of glaciers due to heat waves, due to ice-free 
oceans forming around Greenland. Eyjafjallajokull-Grimvotn-Katla style 
nucleation of hydrogen, oxygen and water vapour in volcanic reservoirs and 
volcanic plumes (wet solidus damage) under thinned glaciers and ice sheets 
causing lava flooding under the ice with volcanic eruptions that will melt ice 
further once tipping point is breached. Thinned outlet glaciers in ice fjords 
can also lose height and weight to the point where warm ocean water is sucked 
towards inland under ice leading to another additional source of water and salt 
going to the base of Greenland ice sheet. I.e Ilulissat ice fjord.

Furthermore, the funds for religious leaders and organisations, media 
personnel, environmental organisation personnel, politicians and scientists to 
pay off their mortgages and purchase holiday houses in Spain and Dubai are 
effective due to outright dishonesty of certain people with no moral.
Veli Albert Kallio Vice-President Environmental Affairs, Sea Research Society 
International Guru Nanak Peace Prize Nominee for 2008;sea level rise risk for 
global security  economic stability  From: r...@llnl.gov
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:31:43 -0800
 Subject: [geo] Further thoughts on Arctic methane
 
 
 http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/29/should-we-fear-the-methane-time-bomb/
 
 Should We Fear the Methane Time Bomb?
 by MARLO LEWIS on DECEMBER 29, 2011
 in BLOG, FEATURES
 
 A favorite doomsday scenario of the anti-carbon crusade hypothesizes that 
 global warming, by melting frozen Arctic soils on land and the seafloor, will 
 release billions of tons of carbon locked up for thousands of years in 
 permafrost. Climate havoc ensues: The newly exposed carbon oxidizes and 
 becomes carbon dioxide (CO2), further enhancing the greenhouse effect. Worse, 
 some of the organic carbon decomposes into methane, which, molecule for 
 molecule, packs 21 times the global warming punch of CO2 over a 100-year time 
 span and more than 100 times the CO2-warming effect over a 20-year period.
 
 The fear, in short, is that mankind is fast approaching a “tipping point” 
 whereby outgassing CO2 and methane cause more warming, which melts more 
 permafrost, which releases even more CO2 and methane, which pushes global 
 temperatures up to catastrophic levels.
 
 In a popular Youtube video, scientists flare outgassing methane from a frozen 
 pond in Fairbanks, Alaska. A photo of the pond, with methane bubbling up 
 through holes in the ice, appears in the marquee for this post. Are we 
 approaching the End of Days?
 
 New York Times science blogger Andrew Revkin ain’t buying it (“Methane Time 
 Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalyplse Not,” 14 Dec. 2011), nor does his 
 colleague, science reporter Justin Gillis (“Artic Methane: Is Catastrophe 
 Imminent?“ 20 Dec. 2011).
 
 
 Revkin excerpts a recent paper on the subject published by the American 
 Geophysical Union:
 
 [T]he authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed 
 in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. 
 Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even 
 under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will 
 not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. 
 The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian 
 shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor . . .
 
 Revkin also checked in with Ed Dlugokencky, a top methane researcher at 
 NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, who told him:
 
 [B]ased on what we see in the atmosphere, there is no evidence of substantial 
 increases in methane emissions from the Arctic in the past 20 years.
 
 Gillis addresses the most alarming aspect of the ‘methane time bomb’ scenario 
 — the risk that global warming will melt billions of tons of frozen methane 
 formations known as hydrates and clathrates on the seafloor. He reports:
 
 While examples can already be found of warmer ocean currents that are 
 apparently destabilizing such deposits—for example, at this site off 
 Spitsbergen, an island in the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic—the 
 scientists explained that a pervasive ocean warming sufficient to destabilize 
 a lot of methane hydrates would almost certainly take thousands of years.
 
 And even if that happened, many scientists say that the methane released 
 would largely be consumed in the sea (by bacteria that specialize in eating 
 methane) and would not reach the atmosphere. That is what seems to be 
 happening off Svalbard.
 
 “I think it’s just dead wrong to talk about ‘Arctic Armageddon,’ ” said 
 William S. Reeburgh, an emeritus scientist at the University of California

[geo] New Geoengineering Report (Hard Copies for Review and Distribution to Geoengineering Community)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All, I have received a brand new Geoengineering report Absorbing Carbon 
and Improving the Earth's Reflectivity (276 pages) for review.

Copies of the report are supplied on demand basis to the interested parties. 
Please contact me if interested having a copy for your library.
Your feedback and review of this report will be much appreaciated which covers 
many old and several new geoengineering technologies.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to You All !

With kind regards,

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS  Vice-President Environmental Affairs, Sea Reaserch 
Society  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Carbon monoxide

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This is actually very bad news as both methane and carbon monoxide is created 
when the Arctic peat bogs are burning. It is carbon monoxide and smoke that 
cause the headaches and inhalation problems that killed 4,700 in Russia in 
summer 2010. So, carbon monoxide seems to be acting as methane perservative 
when forest fires rage. The best geoengineering would be to put off the 
smouldering forest and peat bog fires in the Arctic to reduce methane 
preserving carbon monoxide. Additional good point why we need to ask world 
communities to tackle forest fires by all beneficial activity.
 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:02:23 +
Subject: [geo] Carbon monoxide
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Probably controlling carbon monoxide levels is counted as mitigation of 
pollution, but It's worth looking at from a geoengineering point of view.
CO reacts with OH radicals in the atmosphere. This competes with the CH4 OH 
reaction, increasing methane lifetimes.
One efficient way to reduce methane levels in the atmosphere would therefore be 
to reduce CO levels by the use of exhaust catalysts, better furnaces and 
engines, etc.
Does anyone have a view on the viability of this approach to indirectly control 
AGW? 
A 



-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.


For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] UN Wire: Hopes for post-Kyoto agreement are fading

[Veli Albert Kallio]

It seems that for time being it all will have to be fixed with Geoengineering 
due to lack of commitment to cut CO2 emissions...  Hopes for post-Kyoto 
agreement are fading
Efforts to forge international agreement on binding greenhouse-gas 
emission-reduction targets to come into force as the Kyoto Treaty expires in 
2012 look increasingly unlikely to succeed in the run-up to the Durban climate 
summit. The U.S., Japan, Russia and other significant countries remain 
unwilling to commit to new targets as long as India and China resist post-2012 
targets without firm action from the industrialized countries.  Der Spiegel 
(Germany) (English online version)(10/18) 
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,792224,00.html 
   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

[Veli Albert Kallio]

.  But if there is oxygen there now why
is there any methane?



 I was going to design for 0.15 metre per second sea bed current. 
Would you recommend any other value?  I am working on a way to
recover the film later.



Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs



On 05/10/2011 18:58, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:

  
  
We need to consider carefully the plastic film, this could cause
anoxic conditions under the plastic sheet. 



The shallow portion of Arctic Ocean is likely to develop
  large storm surges and resulting currents as ocean becomes ice
  free. Every storm surge on surface is maintained by reverse
  flow on bottom that could pile up any plastics and cause
  hazards. Funnelling can only be considered for spot like
  emissions, not if methane bubbles over large areas.



The difficulty will be how to cope with monitoring and
  controlling if there will be thousands of sites where methane
  is collected that are sparsely distributed. Maintenance is a
  challenge.

  

   Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:31:28 +0100

 From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk

 To: g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk

 CC: euan.nis...@gmail.com; jens.grein...@nioz.nl;
p...@cam.ac.uk; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk;
michel.halbwa...@wanadoo.fr; albert_kal...@hotmail.com;
harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com;
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com

 Subject: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October -
Methane vents

 

 

 Dear Professor Westbrook,

 

 Thank you for your response about the width of the
shelf margin. 

 Stephen Salter is working on a method using large
plastic sheets to 

 funnel the methane bubbling up from across an area of
the sea bed into a 

 concentrated stream, and then capturing it. But of
course this 

 funnelling can occur naturally, as one can see from the
hundreds of 

 underwater plumes that you have detected arising from
the seabed of the 

 West Spitzbergen continental margin [1]. Am I right
that, at present, 

 few of these plumes are reaching the surface? Is this
because the water 

 is sufficiently oxygenated for oxidation to occur
within the water 

 column? Is there a danger of this oxygen getting used
up? But, if 

 oxidation does continue, isn't there a danger of
excessive ocean 

 acidification, given the quantities of methane?

 

 Do you have any suggestions for how one might deal with
the methane 

 rising in a plume, to minimise the various associated
hazards: 

 greenhouse gas warming if it reaches the surface,
deoxidation of water 

 making it sterile, acidification of the water
disrupting the marine food 

 chain that relies on shelled creatures, etc.?

 

 Best wishes,

 

 John

 

 Tel: +44 20 8742 3170

 Skype: john.nissen4

 

 P.S. I want as much brainstorming done before the
meeting as possible, 

 especially to involve people who might not be able to
attend in person.

 

 [1]
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64607/1/2009gl039191%2Baux.pdf

 

 ---

 

 On 03/10/2011 18:03, John Nissen wrote:

 

  Dear Professor Westbrook,

 

  A workshop has been arranged on the weekend 15-16
October in Chiswick, 

  London W4, to see how to tackle the Arctic methane
problem - in 

  particular how to prevent large quantities of
methane reaching the 

  atmosphere and aggrevating global warming. For
some years it has been 

  apparent that there is vast quantity of carbon
locked up in 

  permafrost, which is liable to be released as
methane as the Arctic 

  warms [1]. Global warming potential of methane is
high but lifetime 

  is short, so the speed of discharge is very
important to know. 

  Unfortunately recent evidence suggests that the
Arctic warming

[geo] RE: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents

[Veli Albert Kallio]

We need to consider carefully the plastic film, this could cause anoxic 
conditions under the plastic sheet. 
The shallow portion of Arctic Ocean is likely to develop large storm surges and 
resulting currents as ocean becomes ice free. Every storm surge on surface is 
maintained by reverse flow on bottom that could pile up any plastics and cause 
hazards. Funnelling can only be considered for spot like emissions, not if 
methane bubbles over large areas.
The difficulty will be how to cope with monitoring and controlling if there 
will be thousands of sites where methane is collected that are sparsely 
distributed. Maintenance is a challenge.

 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:31:28 +0100
 From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
 To: g.k.westbr...@bham.ac.uk
 CC: euan.nis...@gmail.com; jens.grein...@nioz.nl; p...@cam.ac.uk; 
 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; michel.halbwa...@wanadoo.fr; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
 harleyrichar...@googlemail.com; bhaskarmv...@gmail.com; 
 Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Arctic methane workshop: 15-16 October - Methane vents
 
 
 Dear Professor Westbrook,
 
 Thank you for your response about the width of the shelf margin.  
 Stephen Salter is working on a method using large plastic sheets to 
 funnel the methane bubbling up from across an area of the sea bed into a 
 concentrated stream, and then capturing it.  But of course this 
 funnelling can occur naturally, as one can see from the hundreds of 
 underwater plumes that you have detected arising from the seabed of the 
 West Spitzbergen continental margin [1].  Am I right that, at present, 
 few of these plumes are reaching the surface?  Is this because the water 
 is sufficiently oxygenated for oxidation to occur within the water 
 column?  Is there a danger of this oxygen getting used up?   But, if 
 oxidation does continue, isn't there a danger of excessive ocean 
 acidification, given the quantities of methane?
 
 Do you have any suggestions for how one might deal with the methane 
 rising in a plume, to minimise the various associated hazards: 
 greenhouse gas warming if it reaches the surface, deoxidation of water 
 making it sterile, acidification of the water disrupting the marine food 
 chain that relies on shelled creatures, etc.?
 
 Best wishes,
 
 John
 
 Tel: +44 20 8742 3170
 Skype: john.nissen4
 
 P.S.  I want as much brainstorming done before the meeting as possible, 
 especially to involve people who might not be able to attend in person.
 
 [1] http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/64607/1/2009gl039191%2Baux.pdf
 
 ---
 
 On 03/10/2011 18:03, John Nissen wrote:
 
  Dear Professor Westbrook,
 
  A workshop has been arranged on the weekend 15-16 October in Chiswick, 
  London W4, to see how to tackle the Arctic methane problem - in 
  particular how to prevent large quantities of methane reaching the 
  atmosphere and aggrevating global warming.  For some years it has been 
  apparent that there is vast quantity of carbon locked up in 
  permafrost, which is liable to be released as methane as the Arctic 
  warms [1].  Global warming potential of methane is high but lifetime 
  is short, so the speed of discharge is very important to know.  
  Unfortunately recent evidence suggests that the Arctic warming is 
  accelerating, the Arctic Ocean could be seasonably ice free within a 
  few years, and there is already much methane venting taking place.   
  Therefore the situation appears extremely dangerous, and it is vital 
  that some plan of action is developed as quickly as possible.  That is 
  the basic reason for the workshop.
 
  We had originally planned for the workshop to concentrate on the 
  methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, ESAS, since Shakhova et 
  al claim that up to ~50 Gt of methane could be released at any 
  moment [2], e.g. if there were an earthquake (and the ESAS contains 
  an earthquake zone).  However just in the last few days, I have seen 
  reports of high levels of methane in the upper atmosphere which could 
  have originated from shelf margins, and I came across a paper you 
  co-authored [3].
 
  I would be extremely grateful if you could come to the workshop, even 
  if only for part of one day (preferably Saturday 15th), to discuss 
  your work on the methane from shelf margins, which I see is one of 
  your main research topics [4].
 
  One of the main contributors to the workshop is a brilliant engineer 
  and inventor, Professor Stephen Salter, who has some ideas for 
  capturing methane underwater.  He needs to know the conditions of the 
  shelf margins and distribution of venting over the field.  For 
  example, what is the typical width of the shelf margin where the vents 
  occur?  In the paper [3], it is mentioned that 900 Kg of methane may 
  be emitted per metre of length of the shelf margin, but over what width?
 
  Working in regions where there is sea ice is going to be a challenge, 
  so we have an expert on sea ice, Professor Peter Wadhams, coming to 
  the workshop.  He is 

[geo] Death of Professor Wangari Muta Maathai

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All,

Professor Wangari Muta Maathai, one of the greatest names in the climate change 
arena on the removal of carbon dioxide has sadly passed away somewhat untimely 
thus thinning the ranks of the combatants against climate chage, environmental 
degradation and deforestation. 

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/World+mourns+Nobel+laureate+/-/1056/1243536/-/o2yw3vz/-/index.html

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1120

 

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Prayers+in+honour+of+Wangari+Maathai/-/1056/1243838/-/73i5gv/-/index.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niZiUZEf3-Mfeature=player_embedded

 

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/26/earth-mother-wangari-maathai-dead-at-71/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/220102/20110926/wangari-maathai-dead-71-nobel-peace-prize.htm

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15056502

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/kenya-mourns-death-of-nobel-peace-laureate-wangari-maathai-at-71-2361442.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn5mLyh8lQo

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/8788895/Kenyans-react-to-news-of-Wangari-Maathais-death.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgb-e_xvLQ4

 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110926/african-nobel-winner-dead-110926/

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2004/maathai.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/world/africa/wangari-maathai-nobel-peace-prize-laureate-dies-at-71.html

 

 

 





  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] GEOENGINEERING IMPLICATIONS: Adapting to Climate Change - Issue 19

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I have recenly been occupied many non-geoengineering aspects of climate change, 
but today I received email from UK Met Office which is good news for SRM 
geoengineers.
 
There are clear geoengineering potential arising from the latest research that 
the surface ocean warming has been halted by heat transport into the deep 
ocean: An artificial heat pumps or deflecting sea currents to dive deeper by 
some barrier would help to cool the climate temporarily and buy time to address 
the emissions. This suggests good SRM methods could be devised to hide the 
sun's heat under the carpet of surface waters:
 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/ocean-warming
 

Kind regards,

Albert
 
 



From: metoff...@ma001.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Adapting to Climate Change - Issue 19
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:00:09 +0100













If this email appears distorted please view our online version.














If this email appears distorted please view our online version






















Climate change facts


Latest weather


Climate Change Centre


Contact us

















Insider
Make a difference with the latest climate change news, views and findings from 
the Met Office
Dear Veli Albert, 




Factoring in climate change isn’t easy, but our science is already providing 
real help to people and businesses. Highlights in this issue of Insider include 
helping businesses factor in climate risk into long-term decisions and 
providing advice on the financial risks associated with climate variability. 
Exploring the potential consequences of climate change helps prepare for the 
opportunities and threats it may bring. This newsletter covers examples of 
collaborations with industry and academics. Read on to discover how, by working 
together, we can make more informed choices on climate change.
 








StormTracker











Hurricane Irene highlighted the importance of having accurate information to 
evaluate risk and aid decision making. StormTracker, our new tropical storm 
prediction service, provides a complete mapped picture of the latest forecasts 
and tracks of tropical storms across the globe. With forecast tracks for 
tropical storms up to 15 days ahead, StormTracker also enables the comparison 
of past and present storms. A basic version of StormTracker is available for 
free.

Find out more about StormTracker 

 






Warming break explained










Research from the Met Office and the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 
(KNMI) shows how natural climate variability can temporarily hide longer-term 
trends in upper ocean heat content and sea-surface temperature. Climate model 
simulations explain why the world's oceans have seen a recent pause in warming 
despite continued increases in greenhouse gases.

Read more about the reasons for the pause in upper-ocean warming 








Planning for extreme weather









The importance of long-term forecasting for insurance and reinsurance firms is 
highlighted in a joint Lloyd's and Met Office report. Evidence suggests changes 
in our climate increase the frequency of extreme weather events, so the report 
examines the issues that climate change poses for managing exposure to 
weather-related risk.

Read the full report, Forecasting risk: the value of long-range forecasting for 
the insurance industry on Lloyds’ website 







Risky business








A Met Office report commissioned by the Lighthill Risk Network is helping the 
finance industry to better understand risk. The report explains how a cycle of 
changing sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, known as the El Niño 
and La Niña climate phases, influence the climate system that affects regional 
temperature, rainfall and wind patterns in the tropics and mid-latitude regions.

Find out more about the report  







OPAL survey results








A special climate survey we launched in March has received initial results with 
tens of thousands of responses. The Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) climate survey 
looks at the different ways people affect the climate and how the climate 
affects people. The survey will continue to run until summer 2012.


 
 
See the initial results and take part in the survey  







Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change








Met Office scientists contributed to The Foresight International Dimensions of 
Climate Change project which investigated how the UK is likely to be affected 
by global climate change in the future. Covering foreign policy, security, 
finance, business, infrastructure, resources and health, the report will help 
the UK to remain competitive and secure.
 


Read the full Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change report 




 







Feedback

Tell us what you think
 

SuggestRecommend Insider to a friend or colleague 








©Crown copyright

www.metoffice.gov.uk






Unsubscribe
©Crown copyright. Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, United 
Kingdom.

[geo] NORTH POLE ICE CAP MELT-AWAY BREAKS ALL TIME RECORDS

[Veli Albert Kallio]

NORTH POLE ICE CAP MELT-AWAY BREAKS ALL TIME RECORDS 
(Friday, 25.8.2011 14:00:00 GMT)
 
10 minutes ago came out the latest satellite readings showing the North Pole 
Ice Cap melt away has now reached ALL-TIME RECORD by 4,000 km2: 2,988,000 km2.
 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
 
 
Just within five years of the Arctic Ocean becoming completely ice-free the 
ocean is estimated to be ice-free 5 months in a year.
This does not bode well with the permaforst which then leaks methane, carbon 
dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide(*).
 
(*) carbon monoxide arising from burning peat bogs and boreal forests.  
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Arctic Ocean Ice Cover Loss Continues Unabatd

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Decreasing North Pole ice cover is now second only to the year 2007; there is a 
month of melting to go:
 
Sea ice area (Cryosphere Today):
 
1st: 2007: 2,992,000 km2
2nd: 2011: 3,065,000 km2 (~2-4 weeks to go)
3rd: 2010: 3,072,000 km2
 
(There will not be complete melt away this summer, the rate is still too slow 
for that.)  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] ARCTIC OCEAN MELTS NOW 20% EACH 10 DAYS, RUSSIA'S NORTH-EAST PASSAGE OPENS FOR SHIPPING‏

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The North East Passage has opened in North of Siberia again for shipping 
traffick:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
 
Overall, the North Pole's sea ice appears like this today: 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.bandw.003.png

 

North Pole's Ice Cap currently melts away at each ten days: 19.8%.

Melting figures of the Arctic Ocean for the last 10 days are:

17.07.2011: ice area 5,456,000 km2 - melting   98,000 km2
18.07.2011: ice area 5,383,000 km2 - melting   73,000 km2
19.07.2011: ice area 5,283,000 km2 - melting 100,000 km2
20.07.2011: ice area 5,083,000 km2 - melting 200,000 km2
21.07.2011: ice area 4,931,000 km2 - melting 152,000 km2
22.07.2011: ice area 4,843,000 km2 - melting   88,000 km2
23.07.2011: ice area 4,726,000 km2 - melting 117,000 km2
24.07.2011: ice area 4,632,000 km2 - melting94,000 km2
25.07.2011: ice area 4,554,000 km2 - melting78,000 km2
26.07.2011: ice area 4,452,000 km2 - melting  102,000 km2

At the start of the period, 16.07.2011 the ice area was 5,554,000 km2. 
 
A sustained daily sea ice melting rate 77,000 km2 could melt all ice from the 
North Pole by the autumn equinox. The current rate of disappearing sea ice is 
110,200 km2 for the last 10 days. The open seas increase solar energy 
absorption at a higher rate than the shortening daylight hours are reducing the 
available sunlight supply. A return of cold weather and clouds can stop the 
feedback loop.
 
North Pole Sea Ice Cap has now lost 20%, or, 1/5th of its size in just over the 
last 10 days - a matter of immense concern as our ice train probably has 
already lost its breaks.

Geoengineers have very little time to act as the melting in the Arctic 
continues to escalate beyond all of the conventional projections.
 
 
Kind regards,

Albert
 
All figures by University of Illinois, Cryosphere Today. The graph by National 
Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), University of Colorado.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Have you been wondering, why the North Pole's sea ice is looking like this 
today? 
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

Cryosphere Today has reported a phenomenal North Pole melting:

North Pole's Ice Cap currently melts away at a phenomenal weekly rate of: 14.9%.

Melting figures of the Arctic Ocean for the last 7 days are:

17.07.2011: ice area 5,456,000 km2 - melting   98,000 km2
18.07.2011: ice area 5,383,000 km2 - melting   73,000 km2
19.07.2011: ice area 5,283,000 km2 - melting 100,000 km2
20.07.2011: ice area 5,083,000 km2 - melting 200,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area 
reduction: 3.93%
21.07.2011: ice area 4,931,000 km2 - melting 152,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area 
reduction: 3.08%
22.07.2011: ice area 4,843,000 km2 - melting   88,000 km2
23.07.2011: ice area 4,726,000 km2 - melting 117,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area 
reduction: 2.48%

At the start of the week, 16.07.2011 the ice area was 5,554,000 km2. 
 
A daily sea ice melting rate 77,000 km2 could melt all ice from the North Pole 
by the autumn equinox. The current rate of disappearing sea ice is much higher. 
This suggests that the open seas are increasing solar energy absorption at 
higher rates than the shortening of daylight hours are reducing the sunlight 
supply. A return of cold weather and clouds can break this vicious circle.
 
The fact that the North Pole Sea Ice Cap is able to lose 10.5% of its size in 
just over the last 4 days is a matter of immense concern to me as our train may 
have already lost its breaks...

WattsUpWithThat.com suggests the sun has entered a more intense phase in its 
sun-spot cycle and the sea ice is now melts. They now say the sea ice melting 
intensifies over the next few years until solar activity peaks, after that the 
sunspots disappear and the Arctic Oceans sea ice cover recovers. The concern 
over melting sea ice is alarmism as it is all due to a recent change in solar 
weather, the increasing radiation drives global warming and, therefore, North 
Pole's sea ice is now melting.
However, this contradicts their own sea ice area outlook projection: 
http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/july_panarctic_fig1.png

In June WattsUpWithThat.com forecasted the second largest sea ice area in 
September with ice area recovery to 5,100,000 km2. WattsUpWithThat.com 
forecasting logic apparently expects the Arctic Ocean to be freezing 374,000 
km2 by September. 
 
We should change our Googlrgroup's name to: Geoengineering Now!
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 



From: wf...@utk.edu
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
CC: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; em...@lewis-brown.net; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Subject: Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:05:59 +



Dear Ken:
I love your sentence about economists.  The problem is that they are often 
consulted by the press as experts whether or not they are, and they don't 
always caveat their statements to indicate they are not scientists.
The best,
Bill

On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:





Two points:


I am not opposed to scientists making prescriptive statements in their roles as 
citizens. 


However, I am opposed to prescriptive statements (statements about what we 
should do) in peer-reviewed scientific papers. 


I think science is about establishing objective facts about the world. As 
citizens, we take these facts and our values and make judgments about what we 
should do. 


I am 100% in favor of Jim Hansen making prescriptive statements. I would just 
prefer that he not do it in the context of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. 


Science cannot tell us what to do. It can give us information which we can use 
to make decisions. 


If the science gets mixed up with politics in peer-reviewed scientific 
publications, I think it ends up weakening the credibility of the entire 
scientific publication process (since statements whose truth value cannot be 
empirically established are obviously getting past reviewers). 


I should say that the worst in this respect are the economists, who insist that 
they should be regarded as a science while simultaneously trying to tell us 
what we should be doing. 


---


On deployment of some sort of solar reflection system:  all of our model 
results indicate that a high co2 world with deflection of some sunlight would 
be more similar to a low co2 world than is a high co2 world without deflection 
of sunlight. 


So, do I think that direct environmental damage from greenhouse gases could be 
diminished by deploying such a system?  Yes, probably although I am not 100% 
certain of this. 


Do I think near-term deployment will reduce overall risk and improve long-term 
well-being? Of this I am less certain, as it is hard to predict the various 
sociopolitical, as well as environmental, repercussions that might occur. 

Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
+1 650 

RE: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I would just ask people to draw attention to sea ice volume models. In addition 
to look at i.e. Cryosphere Today how the terrestrial defrost progressed this 
year, and check out temperature legend maps for North Canada and Siberia. How 
many natural processes behave the same way on their very last legs as they do 
in the mid journey. Almost none.
 

 



Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:04:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)
From: rev...@gmail.com
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/


The bottom line, expressed here before, is that no one should expect to find 
much broad meaning in short-term variability in Arctic sea ice — in one 
direction or the other. If there is a death spiral, expect a lot of loop the 
loopsalong the way. Those most passionately pushing for and against action on 
greenhouse gases have a tendency to jump to the National Snow and Ice Data 
Center Web site to chart each wiggle. 





On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu 
wrote:

Folks,

There has been a fair amount of discussion on this group that talks about 
imminent September sea ice loss in the Arctic.

The attached paper indicates that around half of the normal September sea-ice 
should still be around in the 2020-2040 time frame.

Boe, J., Hall, A., Qu, Z. Nature Geosci 2, 341-343 (2009).

I am not saying that the situation in the Arctic is not dire, however, are the 
suggestions that September sea-ice in the Arctic is soon to be a thing of the 
past a bit overblown and without foundation?

Best,

Ken

___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu 
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


-- 
Please excuse typos; as you may be aware, I had a stroke 1 July.ANDREW C. 
REVKINDot Earth blogger, The New York 
Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/dotearthSenior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. 
StudiesCell: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965 Twitter: @revkin Skype: 
Andrew.Revkin

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The fast growing arctic willow could be harvested and reburied by dumping the 
biomass onto lakes or sea. The soil in the Arctic is thick and the dried wood 
could also float to the sea if loaded onto the rivers (it sinks later to the 
seafloor). There are number of fast growing trees and bushes that could be 
planted on vast expanses to remove CO2. Willow has also light coloured barks 
and sheds its leaves for winter, so the winter and spirng time snow on the 
ground will reflect sunlight and heat back to space.
 

Biochar converted soft carbon harvesting crops, agricultural waste (i.e. 
straw), we should calculate how much biomaterial could be dumped if all the 
agricultural waste was converted to biochar each year and all the forestry 
wastewood was dumped to the lakes and seas. (The forestry wasted that cannot be 
dumped to nearby lakes/sea would be turned biochar.)
 
What kind of stream the above two processes would genrate and at what cost 
would resolve perhaps a good deal.
 
I think that geoengineering community can safely ignore the issue of 
considerations raised by ETC group and others. It is likely to end up as a 
panic when strong positive feedbacks kick in. Even untried methods will be 
allowed put in use in desperation, just like the World Bank funded idea to 
paint the melted Andes with titanium oxide (white) paint when the snow has 
melted away although there is no testing. Any kind of inventor will have his 
system put into use when the emergency is biggest. When people get ill and no 
tested medicine works people resort to alternative medicines like Chinese 
herbalists, homeopahts, acupuncture and spiritual healers, whatsoever. No one 
will listen to the likes of ETC that day.
 
As long as the emissions and atmospheric CO2 load grows, there is no worries 
about ETC likes as the nature will make its own argument to ensure the global 
warming tipping point is soon breached without no natural recovery as thawing 
permaforst, warmed up seas and burning forests put the carbon back into air. 
 



Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:50:42 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
From: johnnissen2...@gmail.com
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
CC: rongretlar...@comcast.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org; j...@cloudworld.co.uk

Hi all,

I've been concentrating on the Arctic methane threat for the past few weeks.  
The threat is extremely serious.  But this talk of $600 per tonne of CO2 for 
air capture is another bombshell.  That's $2200 per tonne of carbon!   

I had been assuming that we could take carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it 
in the ground for at most $100 per tonne of carbon.  We could then pay for this 
out of a tax on carbon taken out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels.  
This tax could be ramped up to pay for increasing CO2 removal (CDR) until the 
CO2 level fell below 350 ppm.  At $100 per tonne of carbon, this would be 
easily affordable - and the polluter would be paying for removing the 
pollution. And it could be done over 20 years, to keep global warming below 1.5 
degrees (assuming we manage to deal with the Arctic methane threat) and reduce 
risks arising from ocean acidification (which remains an unknown quantity, so 
should NOT be ignored).

But $2200 per tonne of carbon for direct air capture rules it out - we would 
need about half of world's GDP to get CO2 level below 350 ppm!  So we have to 
find a cheaper way of doing it - which can be scaled up over about ten years to 
be removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we are putting in.

Oliver Tickell has suggested that rock crushing could be a cheap way of 
removing CO2 which could be scaled up - if enough land area is available for 
spreading out the crushed rock.  And Ron Larson has been considering whether 
biochar could be scale up enough - which would have benefits of soil 
improvement at low or even negative cost.  So these approaches must be examined 
seriously.   Judging by the State of the ocean report [1], we are going to 
need to get CO2 below 350 ppm rather quickly to avoid the deadly trio of 
global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia.  To quote:

In Brief: Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's 
history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon 
perturbations (global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of 
oxygen; e.g. Veron, 2008). 
It is these three factors — the 'deadly trio' — which are present in the ocean 
today. In fact, the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's 
history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is 
occurring faster than in the past 55 million years, and with the added man-made 
stressors of overfishing and pollution, undermining ocean resilience.
I think we should aim for bringing CO2 below 350 ppm in 20 years rather than 
much later in the century.  As Andrew aptly puts it:  We'd do well to be far 
more precautionary, 

[geo] Paris Air Show: Cryosat North Pole Marine Ice Cap Measurement

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Revealed Now at Paris Air Show:   
 
 
Cryosat's North Pole Marine Ice Cap Measurement:
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13829785  
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I oppose vehemently the statement: Developed countries don't want to pay up 
(especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes)
This has holier-than-thou attitude and is only to harden polarisation and 
opposition of GE in developing world.
 
After all, what is the definition of corruption? Could one define all 
unsustainable development, immoral and hence corrupt. Sounds like the 
climate-skeptic elements in the US Christian coalition who blame all the 
problems on too many abortions being allowed. Never mind world's 
overpopulation, limits and diminishing land based natural resources. 
 
Are the US on higher ground or the EU. Nope. Until they show that they can 
develop their economies with sustainable energy supply and responsible use of 
mineral resources. Also much of the pollution is sourced to China as the goods 
produced there with lower labour cost are then shipped across world to Europe 
rather than producing less consumables locally with higher wages (hence less 
purchasing power and sales volumes).
 
Geoengineering needs to be seen as one element in a toolbox of solutions to 
climate change, not as an elixair that solves everything. Social engineering, 
reforestation, etc. play their solutions as well.
 
Kr, Albert

 



Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:05:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
From: holly.jean.b...@gmail.com
To: voglerl...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Hi Michael, 
Thanks for all your useful comments; there is a lot I want to address about 
them.


Michael writes: I would also like to comment on your statement; I see our 
root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on 
fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be 
assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if 
they can't.. Holly, that is social engineeringnot GE!

Yes, it's true that there is some social engineering involved... but I think 
the Anthropocene challenges the Cartesian nature / society divide for many 
people. We have changed our atmospheric composition due to patterns that are 
very much social and cultural: it's not just burning of hydrocarbons or cutting 
of biomass that created 394 ppm. It's love for the open road, jet-set glamour, 
dietary patterns, corrupt regimes that allow illegal logging, aspirations of 
the Chinese middle class, whatever. All of these sociocultural factors have 
helped lead us to this juncture.
More explicitly on-point to this thread: people who vociferously oppose 
geoengineering believe geoengineering to be a social project with nefarious 
social aims, and they don't see the natural / social divide in the way a 
scientist might. They are problematizing global warming differently. And it can 
be difficult to have a conversation between two parties who have a different 
conceptualization of exactly what problem they're trying to address. So any 
PR strategy would do well to speak to the problematization problem, I think.


Michael also writes that the original core of the GE concept is not so broad 
that uneven development even shows up on the radar.

This is of course true; I mention uneven development because this is what 
prevents us from making process with the UNFCCC process. To briefly frame the 
situation: many developing countries see the developed world as having 
developed with use of their resources, at their expense under colonialism, and 
with the benefit of fossil fuels. They think they are entitled to a fair 
allowance of catch-up emissions and that developed countries should pay for 
what they've already emitted. Developed countries don't want to pay up 
(especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes) and they are 
heavily invested in existing fossil fuel structures. This development dilemma, 
because it is what keeps us from just going and cutting emissions, is the 
dilemma that causes the need for geoengineering.
So let's entertain a thought-experiment: what if it was possible that 
geoengineering could actually contribute to solving this dilemma?


This brings me to Michael's excellent question: How can any GE concept address 
the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria?

This is perhaps easier to see with strategies like afforestation techniques, 
biochar, etc.: it's possible to introduce an implementation design that could 
be combined with development mechanisms so that developing countries, or even 
communities, could be financially rewarded for undertaking them and benefit 
from them, and have their land use and energy situations improved. I mean, this 
is already a part of the UNFCCC process. It's not just CDR techniques that 
could potentially address the social development dilemma, but also reflective 
crop varieties and grasslands (especially if combined with ecological 
restoration of degraded lands). Or see Michael's recent post on diatoms:
This GE approach offers at least two non global warming 

[geo] Brazilian Geoengineering Project

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Brazil appoints crisis cabinet after 600% increase in 2010 in the cutting of 
Brazilian rain forests cover is reported.
 
 
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13449792
 
 

19 May 2011 Last updated at 09:25 

Share this page


Brazil: Amazon rainforest deforestation rises sharply
 Official satellite images shed a new light on the pace of deforestation 
 
Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest has increased almost sixfold, 
new data suggests.
 
Satellite images show deforestation increased from 103 sq km in March and April 
2010 to 593 sq km (229 sq miles) in the same period of 2011, Brazil's space 
research institute says.
 
Much of the destruction has been in Mato Grosso state, the centre of soya 
farming in Brazil.
 
The news comes shortly before a vote on new forest protection rules. 
 
Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira said the figures were 
alarming and announced the setting up of a crisis cabinet in response to 
the news.
 
Our objective is to reduce deforestation by July, the minister told a news 
conference.
 
Analysts say the new figures have taken the government by surprise.
 
Last December, a government report said deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon 
had fallen to its lowest rate for 22 years.
 
However, the latest data shows a 27% jump in deforestation from August 2010 to 
April 2011.
 
The biggest rise was in Mato Grosso, which produces more than a quarter of 
Brazil's soybean harvest.
 
Some environmentalists argue that rising demand for soy and cattle is prompting 
farmers to clear more of their land. 
 
But others see a direct link between the jump in deforestation and months of 
debate over easing an existing law on forest protection. 
 
You have 300-400 lawmakers here in Brasilia sending the message that profiting 
from deforestation will be amnestied, that crime pays, Marcio Astrini from 
Greenpeace told Reuters. 
 
The only relevant factor is the Forest Code. It is a gigantic rise.
 
The Chamber of Deputies has delayed voting on the Forest Code amid at times 
acrimonious argument but could consider the issue again next week.
 
The Forest Code, enacted in 1934 and subsequently amended in 1965, sets out how 
much of his land a farmer can deforest.
 
Regulations currently require that 80% of a landholding in the Amazon remain 
forest, 20% in other areas.
 
Proponents of change say the law impedes economic development and contend that 
Brazil must open more land for agriculture.
However, opponents fear that in their current form some of the proposed changes 
might give farmers a form of amnesty for deforested land.
 
The changes were put forward by Aldo Rebelo, leader of Brazil's Communist Party 
(PCdoB) and backed by a group in Congress known as the ruralists who want 
Brazil to develop its agribusiness sector.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Methane 'emergency stop button'

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I think we have already passed the tipping point. The terrestrial snow cover 
has become very volatile both in Russia and North America. This is already 
resulting in record floods in the Missisippi basin and large and very early 
forest fires in Great Slave Lake area in Canada. On Russia, Yakutia also sees 
very early losses of snow cover. The strong spring sunshine is also hitting the 
permaforst soil now directly.
 
Just like the PIOMAS shows a record sea ice volume loss, I believe similar drop 
in graph is happening in the permafrost volume which melts. Has anyone seen 
estimates about this volumetric loss of frozen ground? It is very likely to 
parallel the losses seen in PIOMAS and I fear that due to soil's greater 
capacity to mop up heat and store melt water, it would be even more drastic 
volumetric loss by now.
 
I would like to refer to the Pleistocene era X-factor Box as one possible panic 
button to provide a possible relieve, or opportunity, against runaway: 
Professor Euan Nisbet in his Royal Society paper propose the end of Pleistocene 
glaciations resulting from methane discharges. However, if the glaciers 
collapsed in large Heindrich Ice Berg Calving events, the geolocial carbon 
sources became re-buried and re-sealed. I believe this to be case if Greenland 
responds with another Heindric Ice Berg calving event (followed by a rapid Last 
Dryas cold). The switch to cold climate gives another chance to deploy 
geoengineering provided the societies remain orderly enough to cope with the 
situation where sea level may have risen suddenly and the summers are extremely 
cold due to vast amounts of ice islands on the Atlantic.
 
It is absoulutely terrifying that no one is doing intra-seasonal and 
inter-seasonal measurements of the end of ice age era tree-ring carbon-14: 
these must reveal the amount of geological carbon each melt season released 
from the grounds to the atmosphere at the end of each growth season. The 
largest methane venting craters are 750 km2 in area and there are 22,000 major 
craters in Russian seabed. 
 
The end of each growth season during the period of rapid Arctic warming should 
have seen large amounts of permafrost discharging its methane and carbon 
dioxide to the air. Carbon dioxide (c-12/c-13) then being quickly captured by 
the plants in nearby east Siberia and China. The ventilation does take its time 
to mix up the entire summer-time atmospheric content if entire Arctic was 
seeping out methane in July, August, September. The lowest intra-seasonal c-14 
appeared just before the spring thawing season began as the local stock of air 
was most mixed with the global air mass and retained more atmospherically 
formed and c-14 then dropping as soils started to melt. 
 
The ancient geological carbon input will show up as sudden peaks of carbon-12 
and carbon-13 when large permafrost reservoir releases its content after 
thousands of years (where carbon-14 has been completely depleted). Besides 
intra-seasonal, there was inter-seasonal variablity when large millions of 
years old methane clatrate reservoirs collapsed and belched out their contents 
producing high c-12/c-13 as ancien geological and soil sources of carbon 
dioxide and methan have no c-14 presence.
 
As per the rapid, and ultra-severe Youngest Dryas cooling, Germany at the time 
resorted to cannibalism and I cannot comment how much capacity would remain for 
our society to carry out geoengineering if large coastal flooding, cold and 
droughts disturbed our food supply. However, the Laurentide and Weischelian Ice 
Sheets were massive in comparison to Greenland and the Last Dryas cooling is 
short one even if major ice escapes materialised. (These would be coupled with 
failing Antarctic Ice Shelves that would break up if sea level rose suddenly 
enough to bend the ice shelve, to cause it to snap and calve away. These would 
cause droughts in Southern Hemisphere.)
 

I would try to take an advantage of the proposed next Dryas cooling if 
Greenland's ice sheet fails in order to halt the warming (as much of the 
greenhouse gas agents will remain in air due to the weak growth while the 
Heindrinc Ice Berg Calving discharges are melting into oceans and trap the heat 
from the atmosphere. Sadly, no-one is out there to check intra-seasonal and 
inter-seasonal c-14 variations that would help us to quantify and model for the 
CH4/CO2 amounts the end of ice age global warming and ice sheet disintegrations 
produced. 
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 
 


Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:35:30 +0100
Subject: [geo] Methane 'emergency stop button'
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


If we were in a situation where there were dramatic excursions of methane in 
the arctic, what could we do? 
It's a very real possibility that we will soon be clearly in runaway climate 
change, and immediate action will be needed when this starts to happen.
I know that we could come up with some whiz bang methane 

RE: [geo] Arctic Council meeting on Thursday - the truth is out

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The methane tends to be devoured by microbes. However, methane supply may 
exceed availability of other necessary nutrients such as oxygen and trace 
elements that living organisms require. Thus there is a saturation point where 
methane conversion to carbon dioxide stops, after this the methane dissolves 
into water as such.
 
As a result, it is very dangerous situation if a still deep water pocket 
becomes heavily laden with carbon dioxide as this dissolves in huge volumes (5 
times the volume of water). The water column becomes highly unstable if water 
overturns and the dissolved carbon dioxide and methane starts runaway 
nucleation as the rising bubbles pull water with them upwards. This leads to 
overturning of water and suffocating discharges of carbon dioxide and methane 
as well as risk of drowing where ocean turns into foam and becomes unsupportive 
to boats. Over 2,000 people died and professor Michel Halbwachs was 
commissioned to resolve this by a controlled venting of gases.
 
The largest singel pan of highly dangerous carbon dioxide and methane laden 
water is Lake Kivu. Besides melting permafrost thawing methane clathrates, 
volcanoes can pump methane and carbon dioxide into water making it unstable, 
which has been so far with the case Professor Halbwachs team of engineers has 
been working to resolve to prevent further fatalities. We will see these in 
off-shore and on-shore water bodies that have presence of frozen methane. 
Microbes will eat methane away in most cases, but when supply of other 
nutritiens falls back methane accummulates after microbial digestion to carbon 
dioxide phases out.
 
I hope this clarifies what happens to the methane and carbon dioxide as arctic 
reservoirs start leaking it.
 
Yours sincerely,

Veli Albert Kallio
 


Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:39:59 +
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic Council meeting on Thursday - the truth is out
From: voglerl...@gmail.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
CC: robert.wat...@defra.gsi.gov.uk; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com; 
john.dav...@foe.co.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; kcalde...@stanford.edu; 
Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; richard.bla...@bbc.co.uk; 
sam.car...@gmail.com; g.monb...@zetnet.co.uk; markly...@zetnet.co.uk; 
robert.wat...@uea.ac.uk

Hi Folks,

Your question There could also be an effect of methane bubbling through water 
on marine life. Anybody know?

I don't know about health effects on marine life at an expert level, 
butprobable little...if any. However, Please pay attention to this

http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/trawl/demersal-trawl/

This is the type of commercial fishing gear you can expect going into new 
arctic areas. The Demersal trawling gear drags along the seabed and basically 
will wipe out and kill every thing in it's path. If this happens in a hydrate 
field, critical damage to the methane oxidizing biotic layer will happen. It 
was a trawler that found the Cascade Hydrate field. The sea-floor biotic layer 
can oxidize up to 90% of the methane. I don't think we need to loose that type 
of protection. 

Also, this type of fishing boat wiped out the north Atlantic cod and is now 
making a big dent in the north pacific stock. They work the continental 
shelves. So, don't underestimate what they can do to a hydrate field. And, 
expect them to cheat if they are limited to only mid water gear. It is very 
easy to switch gear with few knowing about it. I have watched a number of shady 
practices in that business. They need to be banned from any known or suspected 
hydrate fields and probably the arctic as a whole. Fish-n-Chips are not worth 
it. 

Thanks

Michael 

On May 12, 2011 11:30pm, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dear Professor Watson,
 
 
 
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9483790.stm
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 How absurd.  Now we have it confirmed that the Arctic Council is
 there, not to pretect the Arctic, but to carve up the resources. 
 And now we know that the people involved ARE rubbing their hands
 with glee as the sea ice retreats, seemingly oblivious of the
 tremendous horrors that await them (and the rest of humanity) as
 Arctic ice melts away and methane, trapped by permafrost, is
 discharged in ever increasing quantities to exacerbate global
 warming.  There are signs that this process is already underway
 [1].   As I said to BBC correspondent, Richard Black, at the EGU
 conference in April, we only need 10% of potential methane to be
 discharged over 20 years, and the rate of global warming would be
 multiplied by about 40 times [2].  This is easily enough to cause
 abrupt and catastrophic climate change [3].  
 
 
 
 Governments around the world, together with the whole environment
 movement, should unite to fight this absurd situation, and back a
 plan to stop the methane at all costs.  This is an emergency.
 
 
 
 Kind

RE: [geo] Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This technique would require a wave/solar powered buoy feeding a microbubble 
stream(s) down the anchoring line to the appropriate depth. This type of buoy 
could also function as a monitoring station reporting multiple sounding via 
sat. link. 
 
There is even much better systems such as Mixox, by Vesieko which simply 
propels the oxygen rich surface water down and is very energy efficient and 
with little maintenance needs. One 2kW unit oxygenates upto million cubic 
metres a day. If run all year round to oxygenate methane rich pockets, one 2 kW 
unit can oxygenate 350 million cubic metres per year and in cold waters its 
very efficient. 
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 
cc. Councillor of State on Environment, Matti Lappalainen / Vesieco Ltd
 


Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 22:39:58 -0700
From: voglerl...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner


Hi All,


This is a 1hr. lecture that is highly informative as to the state of knowledge 
on the issue.   


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSTm6cZjO14feature=related



In dealing with vents, one possible path came to mind as I watched the lecture. 
That is, accelerating methane aerobic oxidation through increasing the O2 
saturation of the water column well above the vent. Going well above the vent 
should protect the anaerobic oxidation being performed by the sea floor biotic 
colony (if present). Here is a paper on the importance of the vent colony 
oxidation of methane; 
http://www.mumm-research.de/download_pdf/treude_et_al_aom_hr.pdf



This technique would require a wave/solar powered buoy feeding a microbubble 
stream(s) down the anchoring line to the appropriate depth. This type of buoy 
could also function as a monitoring station reporting multiple sounding via 
sat. link. I believe that a simple design could be prototyped and tested rather 
quickly. Obviously, if successful, the shear numbers of needed oxidation buoys 
will call for simple/low cost design(s). Different environments will need to be 
taken into consideration. ESAS units may need an ice snorkel to transmit data, 
as well as, some form of compact thermal energy harvesting gear. Capillary 
collection of the methane may also be possible. That fuel flow could be used in 
a fuel cell. 


On the issue of sea floor level gas capture, these same buoys could be used to 
create, through ocean water electrolysis, carbonate shell (hollow reef) like 
caps above the vent. Dr, Rau was patient enough to explain to me the drawbacks 
of ocean water electrolysis and I am fully prepared to be shot down on this 
idea. But, the growth time would be relative short and the Cl byproduct will 
need further considerations.


What is to be done with the captured methane? One idea is to use in in a way 
which cools the surrounding water. A methane fuel cell powering a string(s) of 
Peltier coolers should be a good use for the methane.


Dr. Kastner also points out the need to locate/evaluate and monitor hydrate 
formations, potential landslides in particular. A multipurpose buoy network may 
be useful in those areas. 


I hope the lecture helps those that are just beginning to grasp the methane 
issue, like it helped me.


Thanks, 

 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] RE: Arctic methane

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi John,
 
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is another Greenhouse gas melting permafrost releases 
besides methane and carbon dioxide which is often forgotten and there are 
substantial amounts of that as well. So, it should appear as a point 6. 
although it is not carbon, but its still biomass related.
 
Kind regards,

Albert
 


Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:26:08 +0100
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: p...@cam.ac.uk
CC: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; david.app...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; em...@lewis-brown.net; orrbr...@tiscali.co.uk; 
stefan.rahmst...@pik-potsdam.de; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; d...@icwc-aral.uz
Subject: Re: Arctic methane



Dear all,

As I understand it, carbon in the Arctic is stored in a number of different 
forms:

1.  Plants and plant material in tundra above permafrost
2.  Plant material trapped in permafrost below tundra
3.  Plant material and methane hydrate trapped in permafrost below shallow sea
4.  Biomass trapped in sea ice
5.  Biomass trapped in Greenland ice sheet/dome

Although the biomass of 4 and 5 is in surprisingly large quantity, and reduces 
ice albedo (greying the ice), it does not contribute to methane (as far as I 
know), and so will not be further considered.

1.  There is a problem of tundra when dry that it is liable to burn.  Global 
warming can increase frequency of long dry periods.  There were major fires of 
Russian tundra in 2010, releasing much CO2, black carbon and heat.  These all 
contribute to Arctic warming and melting of snow - decreasing its albedo.  They 
also increase the melting of permafrost below, see 2.

2.  There is a massive quantity of plant material trapped in permafrost below 
the tundra.  As the permafrost melts, and depth of unfrozen ground increases, 
the plant material decomposes releasing CO2 and methane.  Some methane is 
converted into CO2 by bacteria, releasing heat and increasing permafrost melt 
in the ground and increasing Arctic atmospheric temperature.  The methane is a 
potent greenhouse gas, but this source of methane has yet to have a significant 
effect on the Arctic atmospheric temperature.

3.  A massive quantity of methane hydrate has been discovered trapped in 
permafrost under the seabed of the shallow sea - known as the East Siberial 
Arctic Shelf (ESAS).  As the sea ice retreats in spring and summer, the water 
warms, and then winds cause mixing.  Warm water is reaching patches of the sea 
bed and melting the permafrost, causing release (or venting) of methane in 
hotspots, scattered across the ESAS.  This atmospheric methane in the Arctic 
has grown over the past few years to a level well above the global average 
level, and much higher again over hotspots, where it now may be sufficient to 
start causing some local greenhouse warming in a positive feedback loop.

We cannot expect a silver bullet for stopping the methane, but rather a 
combination of methods:

a) general cooling of the Arctic, e.g. by SRM with stratospheric aerosols;

b) reducing heat flow into the Arctic, e.g. by cloud brightening over the Gulf 
Stream (becoming the North Atlantic Drift);

c) local cooling of the surface, e.g. by increasing albedo;

d) reducing heat flow locally, e.g., for ESAS, by diverting rivers which 
currently flow in from the south;

e) removing the trapped carbon, e.g. by mining the methane hydrate (if that 
were possible);

e) converting methane to CO2 before it spreads in the atmosphere, e.g. by 
biological means or by burning;

f) capturing the methane from the atmosphere.

There may be others.

An interesting proposal has been put forward by Mark Massmann for (a), which 
entails releasing liquid air (Lair) or liquid nitrogen (LN2) from an aircraft, 
as follows:


In terms of an SRM solution that could be employed on short order, and be 
readily-accepted by various governments (i.e. be non-polluting, avoid adverse 
effects on weather patterns etc), I don't see any of the existing concepts 
being able to do this.
 
However, I do believe that the potential of the Lair concept could be 
determined very quickly, by simply installing an existing ground cryogenic 
storage tank in a heavy-lift aircraft and releasing it as high as possible to 
see what happens (existing KC-135 refueling aircraft could go to 50,000 ft).  
Even a relatively small Lair of LN2 release could provide enough evidence to 
show that, if results were extrapolated to larger releases, very large 
ice-clouds could result.  I believe Lair will create a chain-reaction for 
saturated and super-cooled water vapor to flash into ice crystals (from the 
mechanism of deposition), similar to how contrails which start out small 
continue to grow into large cirrus clouds.  The Lair clouds would however be 
much thicker than ordinary contrials, hopefully ensuring that they provide a 
large net-cooling (science is divided on if contrails provide cooling or 
warming, but they are optically very thin).
 
Also, Lair could be released at lower altitudes to see if it causes 

RE: [geo] Speaking of losing the Arctic...

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I agree fully with Gene's point. I think that geoengineering must stick just to 
one very simple point until research attracts adequate capital funding for 
developing more elaborate systems. The layman just get confused when too many 
options are placed for them. (In the end geoengineering will have to be 
acceptable to public and politicians alike, otherwise it isn't geoengineering.)
 
Sulphur dioxide (I prefer sulphuric acid aerosol) distribution is a very simple 
method and very fast to deploy from the planes. New technologies are not 
necessary and most of its good and bad effects are known from volcanoes and 
industrial emissions. The research work should establish the safe altitude or 
time and quantity where it does not influence the Arctic ozone layer.
 
The atmospheric half-life of the coolant aerosol should be established in field 
experiments and then deployed. The acidification is to be monitored as the 
Arctic soils can release mercury into water if there is acid rains. But the 
quantities puffed by the City of Norilsk and Nickel are huge at ground level to 
150 metres whereas we are talking about limited amounts of high altitude 
releases.

I hope the group can prioritise and identify the best candidates for short-term 
or immediate deployment, as it seems increasingly to me that only when things 
get terribly out of control and people feel helpless, they then turn into 
radical solutions. I might sound like prophet of doom and gloom, but so far, 
ocean acidification and global warming issues from carbon dioxide are responded 
this lacklustre way.
 
Therefore, the dirty but working unrefined sulphur dioxide or sulphuric acid 
aerosols seems the primary target for action, i.e. when things like sea ice cap 
thins out and disappears or methane bursts from permafrost and sea beds require 
the instant cooling efforts.
 
 Kind regards,
 
Albert
 From: euggor...@comcast.net
 To: r...@llnl.gov; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: RE: [geo] Speaking of losing the Arctic...
 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:56:37 -0400
 
 Does anyone know a viable and affordable way to restore the ice? Of course
 it will go in any case; the only issue is timing. Although CO2 and other
 phenomena accelerate the rate of warming the current temperature is
 increasing AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME independent of mankind's activities.
 Of a certainty geoengineers know what can be done but no one is listening.
 As a group pick one, for example, SO2 distribution over the Arctic, and
 speak with one voice. Maybe then you will be heard. That is a challenge. Are
 you up to it?
 
 -Original Message-
 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg
 Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:47 AM
 To: geoengineering
 Subject: [geo] Speaking of losing the Arctic...
 
 SCIENCE: Vanishing ice allows storms to sharply erode Alaska's Arctic coast
 (04/18/2011)
 Lauren Morello, EE reporter
 Portions of the Arctic coast are eroding by more than 26 feet per year, a
 problem that is likely to worsen as climate change intensifies, according to
 a new study.
 
 The problem is most severe along the shores of the Laptev, East Siberian and
 Beaufort seas, concludes the State of the Arctic Coast 2010 report,
 compiled by more than 30 researchers in 10 countries.
 
 The analysis, which examined roughly a quarter of the Arctic's coastline,
 found the region's shores are eroding by an average of about 1.5 feet per
 year.
 
 
 A house perched on Alaska's Arctic coast became a victim of erosion. Photo
 courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.
 
 
 Driving the erosion is a potent cocktail of receding and thinning sea ice,
 warming seawater and stronger waves.
 
 As the extent of Arctic sea ice declines, it leaves more -- and warmer --
 open water. Wind combines with that water to generate waves that batter the
 region's coasts.
 
 Without the icy barrier that has traditionally protected the Arctic's
 vulnerable permafrost, huge chunks of the coastline can disappear during a
 severe storm.
 
 A 2009 analysis by University of Colorado scientist Robert Anderson found
 that between Point Barrow and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska's northern coast is
 eroding by up to 100 feet per year.
 
 Several native settlements along Alaska's coast have made plans to move
 their communities inland to escape the erosion threat, despite steep costs.
 
 The new study notes that the erosion problem will intensify as climate
 change becomes more severe.
 
 The report was sponsored by the International Arctic Science Committee, the
 Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone project, the Arctic Monitoring
 and Assessment Programme and the International Permafrost Association.
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 geoengineering group.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 

RE: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The methane time bomb should be quantifiable as follows:
 
When there were large scale destabilisation of depressurised and then sunlight 
and heat-exposed sea beds most of the 22,000 methane clathrate craters were 
formed onto the Russian coastal seas as methane ice took the impact from sun 
and heat. The permafrost melted and after the ice sheet had gone they became 
reburied and re-stabilised. The effect of sea bed methane and carbon dioxide 
seepage was diminishing. 
 
There are several examples of large anomalies in biomaterials where thousands 
of years extra carbon-14 age is found in north China. I suggest that the 
melting permafrost and unstable carbon sources contributed to this radiocarbon 
dilution effect. Some Chinese texts are known from period 2700BC and yet their 
carbon-14 readings add another 5,000 years. This has led me to suggest that we 
should re-assess the east Siberian tree rings to look if there is any signs 
from melting permafrost or sea bed releasing locally large amounts of millions 
of years old methane and carbon dioxide back into air. I think this to be the 
case and if so, the annual tree rings would reveal large scale variations 
towards to end of each growth season when the melting permafrost accumulated 
ancient carbon from the ground to air which the plants then happily reabsorbed. 
Instead of stable carbon-14 decay, the end of each growth season (late summer) 
will show up jumps up and down from the mean radiocarbon decay rate. Because of 
the prevailing winds the north east Asia is best placed to see this effect of 
non-differentiated carbon intake by the plants at the growth seasons. 
 
If the size of the positive carbon-12 and carbon-13 feedback from the melting 
permafrost can be observed, then we can check it against the Chinese 
radiocarbon anomalies and these are known exactly, we would be able to 
calculate the exact proportion of carbon that had risen from the melted 
permafrost and was circulating in biosphere at that particular known point of 
time. This would then help us to establish and quantify the potential amount of 
carbon releases into atmosphere at present and future time.
 
As such it would be helpful for us to quantify the required geoengineering 
offset to the carbon feedbacks.
 
At the moment, the dendrological records blend tens of years tree rings 
together, and obliterate the annual variability effect from leaks, but being in 
nearby and in right wind conditions, this would indicate precisely the amounts 
of soil derived emissions as in seasonal variation the carbon-14 amount 
differential is just 1/5770 of the half life. 500-year-old trees can have 10% 
of c-14 half-life to compare deviations from the expected radiocarbon decay 
value. If the Chinese anomalies are all derived this way, then the carbon 
leakage from the groud would have been very significant and in that case I feel 
it could be globally observed from the Pleistocene era tree-rings.
 
If you have good dendrological samples (as early as possibly era), I would like 
to carry out the carbon-14 mass spectrometer runs from annual growth rings 
taken each year from the beginning and the end of each growth season to try to 
see how much methane and carbon dioxide came of the ground during that summer 
and whether the Royal Society's paper of methane-driven melt back of ice sheets 
could be proven this way. Then, the calibration of carbon-14, especially in 
China would all go into question if the anomalies result from people writing on 
contemporary biomaterials rather them finding 5000 year old biomaterials to 
write their ancient texts on as currently assumed.
 
Please have feedback on the above thoughts.
 
Kind regards,

Albert
 


Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:21:26 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; russellse...@gmail.com; 
gorm...@waitrose.com


A very informative comparison, thanks.

The two main issues with bright water are the strong localized impacts on 
marine micro environment / food chain and also the simple problem that it may 
just not work! 
Assessing the former cannot be properly achieved until the latter is 
established, as the dwell time of bubbles has a critical effect on local 
optical density 
A 
On 14 Apr 2011 02:52, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
 
 List (w ccs) 
 
 Dr. Seitz (not a member of the Geoenineering list) has sent me the following 
 (my added numbering should be #'sB 9-B11), with the category 1c incremented 
 by 3 - so as to be from C12 through C 16. 
 
 
 9. No direct effect on ozone layer 
 
 
 10. Local water cooling ( e.g. over reefs experiencing coral bleaching) 
 could reduce ecological stress from climatic warming 
 
 11. Possibility of using white wakes to offset radiative forcing from CO2 
 emissions in marine transportation. 
 
 He also sent this  Local arctic albedo boosting could arrest ice loss 

[geo] RE: Cooling trend in Spencer's latest figures

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Unfortunately, my view is that the credibility of IPCC and COP processes lost 
completely when Copenhagen COP15 failed and the nations are gearing on 
retributative operations when the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Cover is lost, methane 
seeps out and the Amazon dries up. The past Cold War operations will be but a 
faint reflection of the rage of the nations. Stubborn and obstructive political 
leaders like Muammar Gaddafic, the US Republicans and the US corporate leaders, 
i.e. at Exxon etc fossi fuel lobbyists can never be addressed by the US 
government and therefore the necessary actions to deal with them in covert 
operations becomes necessary when we loose the ice cap, permafrost and the 
Amazon as the western governements system will not address the issues and 
provide retribution.

UN Security Council is now the only venue to solve these things.

Albert

 Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 09:11:18 +0100
 From: p...@cam.ac.uk
 To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
 CC: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; crisis-fo...@jiscmail.ac.uk; 
 d...@icwc-aral.uz; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Cooling trend in Spencer's latest figures
 
 Dear John, Thank you for those very interesting links. I remember when the 
 2007 retreat occurred, that Wieslaw Maslowski, a very well respected sea 
 ice modeller at Naval Postgraduate School, came up with the prediction that 
 summer ice would be gone by 2015. He was excoriated, accused of some 
 simple-minded linear extrapolation, and the official prediction, which 
 one was allowed to cite in research proposals, became one by Wang and 
 Overland (2009) who adapted the IPCC models (even though they didnt work) 
 to predict 2037-45 as the disappearance date. That's a nice safe time away 
 from now. Now New Scentist is showing the rapid rate of volume loss, which 
 was already known about, and which predicts a disappearance date of... 
 2015!
 
 I hope you enjoyed EGU and got a good audience for your talk with plenty of 
 useful feedback.
 
 Best wishes
 Peter
 
 On Apr 8 2011, John Nissen wrote:
 
 
 Hi Albert,
 
 You probably made a better forecast than anybody else about the time of 
 the sea ice summer disappearance.  If you look at the sea ice volume 
 trend [1] you'll see a graph with anomaly growing past -10 on the 
 scale.  But if you work out the figures, the 1979 start at +5 
 represents the 20.77 thousand km-3; and the -10 represents 5.77 
 thousand km-3 of sea ice left.  Just below the bottom of the graph is 
 -15, which represents practically no sea ice left at all.  An 
 extrapolation of the trend curve to the -15 line suggests that _the 
 sea ice will be gone by 2015_, even if there is a recovery in volume 
 this year (which seems unlikely).
 
 Couple that with the danger from methane, especially from the East 
 Siberian Arctic Shelf [2], and we have a global catastrophe staring us 
 in the face.
 
 Now, does anybody seriously think we should wait any longer to try 
 cooling the Arctic by geoengineering?
 
 One form of geoengineering which might help would seem to be the 
 diversion of Siberian rivers away from the Arctic ocean, as proposed by 
 yourself, Victor Dukhovny and others [3].  I'd appreciate Victor's 
 comments on methane implications of such action, as suggested in [2].  
 But there could be a negative impact, if the effect of removing fresh 
 water inhibits the formation of sea ice.  There was one talk at EGU 
 suggesting that the flooding from Lake Agassiz northwestwards into the 
 Arctic ocean actually allowed sea ice to reform, which caused the start 
 of the Younger Dryas cool period.
 
 Another idea, suggested to me at the EGU meeting this week, is to drain 
 the pools in areas of Arctic tundra.  Collectively these pools contain 
 vast quantities of organic material liable to produce methane as ice 
 cover disappears.  Once drained these pockets can become productive 
 (typically of stagnum moss) and can drawdown CO2 to become an effective 
 carbon sink for the planet.
 
 Delaying geoengineering is like waiting for your appendix to burst 
 before going to hospital.  I nearly died from a burst appendix while on 
 holiday in Norway, where they don't allow you into hospital without a 
 doctor's referral, except for heart attacks!  Ouch!
 
 Cheers,
 
 John
 
 [1] http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg
 
  [2] 
  http://symposium.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/8914/107496/version/1/file/1A_Shakhova_Final.pdf
 
 Thanks to Andrew Lockley for this reference.
 
  [3] 
  http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention/browse_thread/thread/af331f30cdc2272f
 
 
 ---
 
 On 08/04/2011 17:59, Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
  */Hi Alastair,/*
 
  [snip]
  Back in 2005 I forecasted that the Arctic Ocean would become ice free 
  around the time the decade changes. Back in 1980's I was in school and 
  told that the anthropogenic greenhouse gas load (carbon dioxide) would 
  start melting the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover in summers

RE: [geo] Another look at gunnery?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

A good starter could be a study to identify the worlds disused mine shafts to 
test the concept of long barrels firing shells made of supercooled sulphuric 
acid. The shell casing could be considerably reduced, but ultimately these 
shafts would have to be dug into mountains to make the benefit of altitude and 
thin atmosphere to help them carry payloads higher and to right areas of 
atmosphere.
 


Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:08:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery?
From: voglerl...@gmail.com
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
CC: and...@andrewlockley.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hi Andrew, the Space Fountain Concept could give us very important multiple 
benefits in one project. Here is the Wiki primer on the concept. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain


As you can see, this is an advanced concept which can be built with todays 
technology. By focusing on a multi use project, the cost of SRM becomes almost 
an after thought. If we are to use stratospheric injection as the main SRM 
tool, keeping the injection going for many decades will be needed. By backing a 
multi use commercial space delivery system, the SRM cost would simply be 
absorbed as a cost of doing business.


My earliest submission to this group was on the subject of a similar concept 
and it was a clumsy effort. I was too focused on nuts and bolts and not on 
theory. At that time, I had not found the concept of the Space Fountain, yet 
there are some similarities. I did call for a vacuum tube extending up into the 
stratosphere and the use of High Temp. Super Conductive Magnetic in a coil gun 
fashion. The main difference was that I proposed a more mechanical lift system 
than that of the Space Fountain concept.


We do need all of the benefits that the Space Fountain has to offer to launch 
us beyond this time of critical energy/pollution problems. Huge amounts of 
capital are going to be spent one way or the other to deal with the issues we 
face. A concept like the Space Fountain can be a focus for that investment and 
it can be a net benefit as opposed to a net loss.


I am not an expert on any aspect of this issue, however, I believe this type of 
multi problem solving approach is something that might be supported by most 
sides in this debate.


Thanks,


  


  

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote:

Hi


I've been going over some reports and notes recently, notably the Aurora report 
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Misc/AuroraGeoReport.pdf


The report makes it pretty clear that they've not done a huge amount to expand 
on gunnery as a tool.  Specifically, the report states that:  In the 80-100 
kft range, the relative simplicity of 
the gun system begins to look attractive despite the high recuring cost of 
shells, if the payload fraction can be increased


Back to basics here.  Gunnery was developed by the military.  Navies need 
portable guns that aren't fired often - the exact opposite design criteria that 
geoengineers need.  Sailors therefore have short thick barrels with massive 
overpressures, and robust shells to withstand the high g forces a short barrel 
requires..  This is absolutely nothing like what we need for geoengineering.


We need long guns that work at low overpressure.  Low overpressure means a 
lightweight shell casing, a less tight barrel seal leading to lower friction 
and hence lower wear and thus lower costs.


I think we need to look at completely different gunnery technologies, as well 
as just looking at gun redesign.  My favorite is the ram launcher.  This works 
with a loose (sub calibre) shell as it doesn't rely on barrel friction, so 
there's not the wear and cooling problem you get with a gun.  It doesn't 
require expensive propellants, as you can run it on a cheap fuel/air mix.  The 
acceleration is continuous, not declining like with a gun - so it's much 
gentler.  In fact, accelerations as low as 600g with a 1.2km barrel are 
possible - and that still gives you 8kms/s launch speed - well over what's 
needed for accessing the stratosphere.  That's 1/10th the acceleration in a 
conventional gun (although you do need to initiate the projectile with a 
primary launcher - a ram accelerator can't self start).


In case people need a reminder, the ram projectile works by firing a 
loose-fitting projectile which relies on aerodynamic effects to ingnite fuel 
behind it by compression ignition, like a ramjet.  It travels through the 
propellant, rather than being pushed in front of it.


As a result of the loose fit and low launch stresses, the shells are likely to 
be very much thinner, cheaper and less well-engineered than conventional 
shells, and it may even be possible to make the shells reusable or at least 
recyclable.


What do other people think of this?


For more info on the technology, check the following links:
http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf
and for an improved 

RE: [geo] Another look at gunnery?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 
I'll call it the supersonic Ferris wheel.  ... or could it work? Could a 
centrifuge design be adopted to sling material up at high speed.
 
From the mining industry vertical shafts have been proven usually more 
economic than use of conveyor belts that were tried in 1960's and 1970's. I 
believe the simplicity of gun designs will reduce the amount of moving parts 
plus wear and tear. Using ferris weels or centrifuges means more moving parts 
and maintenance. High speeds required also wear materials. As per these I 
think the gun blasting stuff remains likely to be the best option besides 
using stratospheric balloons and aircraft that are readily available.
 


Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:48:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery?
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

The design of the Iraqi supergun is also not appropriate for geoengineering, as 
its range is far too long.  I don't know the payload, but it is likely to be of 
the order required, as the bore was 1m.  With a lower pressure, I guess it 
could be used


An alternative gun technology is here: http://www.physorg.com/news183023838.html



I'm not sure about your idea of using frozen sulphuric acid.  Surely the 
acceleration of launch would cause the particles to fuse?  My suggestion is to 
use a supercritical H2S payload (+90bar, +100C), which is slow-bled from a 
supersonic/hypersonic shell, rather than a bursting charge.  This should ensure 
much more efficient mixing into ambient air, and should also give the shell a 
bit more lift as the critical fluid escapes in gas form. You'd need a bit of 
overpressure to keep it supercritical until largely emptied.


I'd be interested to know if anyone has an opinion on the use of steam to 
launch projectiles?  This would likely be cheaper than a lifting charge, and 
furthermore the existence of a large reservoir should allow a leak-tolerant 
seal between barrel and round.  Steam catapults launch fighter jets around 1 
order of magnitude slower than is required, but with a far greater mass than 
would be needed for geoengineering - so the external forces would be similar.  
What are the limits to steam pistons?  Does anyone on this list have experience 
of their design?


I've conceived of a further idea, which I'd be grateful of comment on.  I'll 
call it the supersonic Ferris wheel.  Imagine, if you will, a large Ferris 
wheel, such as the London eye.  If this were made from appropriately strong 
materials (eg kevlar), could it spin fast enough to drive the 'carriages' at 
the ~M2.5 required to launch from the ground to the stratosphere?  By firing 
explosive bolts, the carriages would be freed to follow their own trajectory 
upwards.  As I see it, the main limitation is the g-force tolerated, which 
drops as a larger wheel is used.  Is this just bonkers, or could it work?


A


On 5 April 2011 09:38, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:


I think the bulk volume is a crucial element of the effectiveness. The 
economies of scale is important just like Saddam Husseins supergun. Could we 
get the design for geoengineering tests. He inteneded to shoot 1.2 tonne 
projectile to suborbital tracts. What I suggested was perhaps somewhere around 
10,000-15,000 kilogram projectiles of frozen, pulverised sulphuric acid in an 
explosive projectile shell.
 


Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:11:23 +0100

Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery?
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com





I don’t think that mine shafts are necessarily the right answer.  The best 
approach IMO would be to use either a vertical tower on a high-altitude 
plateau, or an inclined gun built up the side of a mountain.  Altitude saves 
propellant and money.  The advantage of using a mountain gun is that easy 
access to all parts of the gun would be available.  Sections could be easily 
refurbished, aligned or replaced.  Crucially, for a Ram Accelerator, there has 
to be a series of either frangible diaphragms or fast acting valves along the 
length of the gun, and easy access for heavy plant, stores, workers, etc. would 
be needed.  The gun relies propellant supply and pumping along its length, to 
maintain the variable pressures along the length.
 
The advantage of the Ram Accelerator over other techniques is that it’s a 
fairly developed technology – far more so than the space fountain concept.  We 
already have fairly decent ram launchers which can fire small payloads at high 
velocity.
 
A

On 5 April 2011 08:43, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote:


A good starter could be a study to identify the worlds disused mine shafts to 
test the concept of long barrels firing shells made of supercooled sulphuric 
acid. The shell casing could be considerably reduced, but ultimately these 
shafts would have to be dug into mountains to make the benefit of altitude and 
thin atmosphere to help them carry payloads higher

RE: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Although I am member of Environmentalists For Nuclear (EFN) I suspect that it 
is our nuclear sponsors and Australian uranium mining who have concocted this 
concern of winds running out in the aftermath of Japan nuclear disaster in 
order to dismiss the renewables as serious alternative. In any case, it will 
take decades to build such capacity which should not be our immediate concern 
at all.  Albert
 


Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:17:40 +
Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
From: voglerl...@gmail.com
To: d.na...@gmail.com
CC: agask...@nc.rr.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hi All, Last year I read a short comment by Dr. Caldera on High Wind energy 
harvesting posted on Bill Gates website 
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Conversations/What-About-Wind. Dr. Caldera stated 
if we were to meet future power demand by this source exclusively, we must 
intercept more than 1% of natural flows. I think when we get above a 1% change 
in a natural system, we need to be concerned about large scale unintended 
consequences.. And, now I see this report by Dr. Kleidon reporting concerns 
about Boundary Layer Winds and Wave Energy. I am somewhat disappointed that 
such exotic extrapolations are getting serious play on the issue of renewable 
energy. 

First, I believe Dr. Gaskill statement in this tread is the the clearest 
thinking on this issue of the use of these renewable energies. This planet is 
in fact solar powered and the solar energy that it receives is far more than we 
can use. Also, Boundary Layer winds are effected by the difference between the 
rotational speed of the planet and that of the total (fluid) mass of the 
atmosphere. High altitude winds also get impacted by this differential to a 
certain degree. Wave energy has not just the solar energy input, but, the added 
lunar diurnal gravitational influence.

I am not an expert in any shape or form, but, I have twirled a coffee cup and 
watched how the boundary friction between the cup and fluid causes the fluid 
to move. And, I have stood by the shore and watched the force of a tide rise 
and fall and watched the wave production from that force. On a global scale, 
these basic physical forces are clearly significant enough to be considered 
into the equation. Looking beyond just the solar energy input/effect seems 
worth factoring into these types of calculations. 

We should not be looking to calculate any renewable energy option into the 
ground. We will need all of them (including High Wind) to power our 
civilization.

Dr. Gaskill, when they wake you up, I'll cook breakfast! 











 My reading of the article suggested that the authors of the study were 
 principally claiming that wind has an impact on climate, so it is already 
 being used. What wasn't clear from the article was what type of impact 
 reducing the energy level of winds all over the globe through the prolific 
 use of wind turbines might have. In a warming world, I understand we should 
 expect stronger winds. On a simplistic generalized level that might not be 
 relevant to local climate, slowing those stronger winds down might have an 
 ameliorating effect on climate change. Hence the claim that The magnitude of 
 the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling 
 atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide might not be as bad as it is 
 made to seem.
 
 
 As usually, I'm grasping at straws, but as a layman, that's what stood out 
 for me.
 
 
 Nando
 
 On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wind and wave energy are the result of the conversion of 
 solar energy into kinetic energy, i.e. the motion of molecules.  Once 
 converted into kinetic energy it's a use it or lose it proposition.  
 Extracting kinetic energy from the atmosphere or the ocean doesn't mean it 
 won't 
 be replaced by more energy from sunlight.  Planting more trees will also 
 intercept winds, albeit without the electricity generation.  Who funded 
 this research?  The same people who want to prevent contact with alien 
 civilizations?  I note that the Royal Society was also a party to that one 
 too.  Note to Royal Society.  When you actually find something under 
 the bed I should be afraid of, wake me up.
 
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 
 From: 
 Andrew Lockley 
 
 To: geoengineering 
 
 Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:10
 
 Subject: [geo] Wind and wave energies are 
 not renewable after all
 
 
 
 
 
 Wind 
 and wave energies are not renewable after all
 
 
 30 
 March 2011 by Mark 
 Buchanan 
 Magazine 
 issue 2806. Subscribe 
 and save 
 For 
 similar stories, visit the Energy 
 and Fuels and Climate 
 Change Topic Guides 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Editorial: The 
 sun is our only truly renewable energy source
 
 Build 
 enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels and we could do as much damage to 
 the climate as greenhouse global warming
 
 WITNESS a howling gale 

RE: [geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Wouldn't it make more sense to blow dust out of moonscape by using 
thermonuclear devices, although this is bad for satellites, it could create a 
rotating dust cloud to dim some of the sunlight. It would destroy astronomy, 
but save the Earth? 
 
Albert
 
 
 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:25:51 -0800
 Subject: [geo] Re: Relocate the moon to Earth Sun L1
 From: bradg...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 Using the centripetal force of a tethered mass (say 10 million
 tonnes), as the tug that's located 2x L2 (122,700 km) further out, is
 what’s going to literally pull this off. Don’t always trust my math,
 because I’ve estimated an initial tug force of only 3.466e6 kg, though
 obviously this tethered mass and/or its radii can be adjusted to suit,
 and of course this only gets better as the moon is moved further away.
 
 3.466e6 kg of pulling force doesn’t sound like all that much, but then
 it’s continuous, whereas an hour it becomes worth 12.477e9 kg, and a
 month becomes worth an impulse of 8.984e12 kg, and a full year
 provides an impulse worth 1.078e14 kg.
 
 I give this centripetal applied force at least a good century to
 create a significant exit velocity once the tethered mass has been
 established, that way if anything goes terribly wrong, at least I will
 not be around to take any heat. Realistically this moon relocation
 could take a thousand years, and that’s a very good thing because by
 then we’ll be at each others throats or otherwise going postal.
 Obviously there'd be some reaction thrusting taking place for
 navigation of the tethered mass, as well as using additional reaction
 thrust on behalf of pulling harder is obviously another option,
 including what the William Mook version of his thermonuclear rocket
 impulse thrust could speed this whole process up considerably.
 
 This entire process is certainly a whole lot more complex than I’ve
 suggested, mostly because the moon velocity by itself is representing
 a lot of kinetic energy that has to get diverted and spent (slowed
 down) before parking it in the sun-Earth L1 halo zone, but at the very
 least this could be fully computer simulated in full 3D interactive
 format that I bet a smart 5th grader could manage.
 
 http://translate.google.com/#
 Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 
 
 On Feb 16, 9:47 am, BradGuth bradg...@gmail.com wrote:
  As long as I’m crazy enough to be proposing the use of our moon in
  order to geoengineer a way out of our GW/AGW mess, we might as well
  consider directly utilizing the moon itself.
 
  Our moon has been shrinking and/or deflating as it cools (roughly 100
  nm/year) and further solidifies, so we might as well take full
  advantage of whatever's inside of its extremely thick and robust crust
  of paramagnetic basalt that’s highly fused and protecting the inverted
  density of whatever’s within its thick shell.
 
  At 7.35e22 kg, our moon is definitely a heavy sucker that’s perhaps
  only 0.1% hollow or porous as is.  However, besides our desperate need
  of creating interactive shade for geoengineering our GW and AGW
  problems away, Earth can always use minerals and precious metals or
  rear-earths, and what could possibly be more rare-earth than our
  paramagnetic moon.
 
  So, before and/or during the relocation process of gradually moving
  our moon out to Earth L1 where it’ll be interactively maintained as
  our station keeping shade, we should also tunnel into and mine out
  that moon to the tune of at least extracting 10%, leaving us with a
  6.615e22 kg moon that’s nicely hollowed out below that extremely thick
  and  highly protective crust.  Actually most of that tunnel excavated
  mass would remain with the moon, as well as converted into basalt
  tether fibers and otherwise utilized for the 2xL2 centripetal mass
  that’s necessary for pulling that moon further away.
 
  This vertical tunnel of 12 meters diameter (or if you like as tight as
  4 meters) and the interior excavation process leaves us with an extra
  or surplus 2.5e19 m3 of vacant space, in addition to all that’s
  otherwise exposed as naturally hollow and/or porous about our moon.
 
  Giving everyone a volume of 1e9 m3 or one km3 is enough to accommodate
  25 billion of us humans in relative safety (in some ways better than
  anyplace on Earth could provide, because the crust of Earth is
  relatively thin, broken and very unstable).
 
  I’m certain that others here in this Geoengineering Group of expertise
  can muster up creative alternatives and/or suggest better
  utilizations, but just to kick this moon relocation topic up a spare
  notch or two is what I’ve intended by suggesting this excavation
  process that offers many advantages besides providing for the tethers
  and most of the tethered tug mass that’s going to gradually pull our
  moon further away from Earth.  Just tunneling in at 12 meters diameter
  through 60 km of its fused paramagnetic basalt crust is going to be
  

[geo] Oxford Round Table Climate Change Conference: March 27 – April 1, 2011.

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,
 
Do you now anything about this Oxford conference on Climate change in March 
2011? 
It looks interesting and I would be interested in presenting geoengineering 
perspectives on this climate change conference. 
Do we have any voices from our group attending on this climate forum?Please let 
me know asap if you are attending this.Kind regards,Albert 
 
 
- Original Message -
From: Oxford Round Table coordina...@oxfordroundtable.com
Sent: Tue 01/11/11 10:01 AM
Subject: Fwd: Factors Affecting Climate Change  
Oxford Round Table Two Decades of Academic Discourse 
Advisory Committee: 
 
Don Aitkin
President Emeritus
University of Canberra
Canberra, Australia 
 
Hugh Benjamin
Deputy Director
Stantonbury Campus
Milton Keynes
United Kingdom 
 
María Elvira Gómez
Rectora, Unviersidad
Nacional Experimental
Franciso de Miranda
Facon, Venezuela 
 
James Giordano
Samueli-Rockefeller Professor
Departments of Medicine and 
Neurosciences, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University
Medical Center
Medwin Hughes
DPS FRSA-Principal
Trinity College in the
University of Wales 
 
J.M. Irvine
Former Vice Chancellor
University of Birmingham
United Kingdom 
 
Rassie Malherbe
Professor of Public Law
Rand Afrikaans University
Johannesburg, South Africa 
 
Charles Mould
Fellow, St. Cross College
Oxford University 
 
Canon Brian Mountford
Vicar, University Church of St. Mary’s
Oxford University 
 
Godehard Ruppert
Rektor, University of
Bamberg, Germany 
 
Ryszard Tadeusiewicz
Rector
AGH University of Science 
and Technology
Krakow, Poland 
 
Mamuka Tavkhelidze
Rector, Grigol Robakidze
University Tbilisi, Georgia 
 
Geoffrey Thomas
President, Kellogg College
Oxford University 
 
Richard Tur, Benn
Professor of Law, Oriel
College, Oxford University 
 
Julie Underwood
Dean, School of Education
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
 
David Vaisey, CBE
Bodley’s Librarian Emeritus
Oxford University 
 
David Woods
President Emeritus
Rhodes University
Grahamstown, South Africa 
--FROM: Yehia Khalil, Ph.D., Professor of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering, Yale University 
 
RE: Environment Session 
 
We hope that you are in receipt of your invitation letter to the
Oxford Round Table, March 27 – April 1, 2011. 
 
We are pleased to invite you to join a small interdisciplinary group
of approximately thirty five (35) attorneys, academics and policy
makers to attend the Oxford Round Table which will be held from
Sunday, March 27 to Friday, April 1, 2011 at Lincoln College in the
University of Oxford. Lincoln College, founded in 1427, is one of 
the thirty-eight colleges forming Oxford University. 
 
The purpose of the meeting is to present papers and engage
discussion of recent developments in Environmental Regulation. The
title of the conference is: 
 
Factors Affecting Climate Change and International Governmental
Regulatory Responsibility 
 
Conference issues include, but are not limited to: *Climate Change: Research 
and Proofs 
*BP Gulf Oil Disaster: The Consequences 
*The Greening of the WTO: Developing a Rules-Based Framework to
Promote Conservation and Free Trade 
*The Implications of the 2008 Financial Crisis for Protection of
the Environment 
*Poverty and Pollution – The Dark Side of Globalization 
*Global Management of Climate Change: The Aftermath of 
Copenhagen 
*Moving into Position: India, China and the Controversy over
Global Warming 
Should you accept this invitation, you will be joined on the
programme by: 
 
Dr. Yehia Khalil, Ph.D., Professor of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering, Yale University 
 
You are invited and encouraged to make a presentation and to
provide a paper on a relevant aspect of the topic. If you wish to
present a paper, you should so indicate when you respond to this
letter. Thereafter, you will be requested to submit an abstract for
review by the Programme Committee. Papers presented at the Round
Table may be subsequently submitted for publication in the Forum, a
journal of the Oxford Round Table. The Forum on Public Policy is
published in both hard copy and on-line formats. Papers considered
for publication in the Forum are evaluated by peer reviewers as to
technical and substantive quality and for potential to make a
significant contribution to new knowledge in the field. 
 
Papers may also lend themselves to publication as an edited book. 
A well-regarded book of Round Table papers titled Climate Change and
Sustainable Development, edited by Ruth A. Reck, Ph.D., Professor of
Air, Land and Water Resources, University of California, Davis,
Linton Atlantic Books, Ltd. was published in 2010. 
 
You will have living accommodations in Lincoln College in the
University of Oxford. Cost of participation in the Round Table, 
including room and meals, is borne by the invitee or the
invitee’s institution or organization. The fee of $2940 covers
registration, lodging for five nights, breakfast, lunch, and dinner
each day (except for a free evening on Wednesday). The only
additional 

[geo] Seeding Sea Ice - New SRM Method

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Geoengineering Group,
 
For over a year now I have concentrated on occasional information relays to 
Climateintervention rather than on the more demanding creative sides, due to my 
other climate-related projects.  However, I think this observation is important 
sea ice aspect to be considered.
 
I would like to draw an observation and suggest a geoengineering application 
from the following statement by NSIDC on 6th Dec 2010:
 
As temperatures drop in autumn, open water areas on the Arctic coastal seas 
quickly refreeze. After this rapid increase in ice extent during October, ice 
growth slows in November. This November, ice extent over the entire Arctic grew 
at an average rate of 74,000 square kilometres per day (28,600 miles per day), 
which is slower than average. However, local weather conditions kept ice extent 
very low in some locations, contributing to the low extent for the month.  
NSIDC November Arctic Sea Ice Report. 6th Dec. 2010
 
 
From the above NSIDC statement which says that the sea ice growth is very 
rapid in October, but contrarily slows down in November which is colder, I 
suggest that floating cables or levees, even platforms, could act as seeding 
points to fasten the seasonal growth of the Arctic Ocean's sea ice. This, in 
particular, is important as all climate solutions that rely or require a 
future presence of multi-year sea ice are doomed. However, sea ice generating 
schemes that rely on seasonal ice growth to be enhanced will be more 
successful.
 
Perhaps this overcomes the earlier shortcomings of the suspension cabling 
systems blocking the southward movement of sea ice in the Nares Straight 
(Ellesemere - Hans Island - Greenland) or on the straights on the Queen 
Elizabeth Islands (that bring ice to the NW Passage). Such schemes will fail 
the moment the sea ice has started to melt on the north side of the sea ice 
blocks. As we saw the sea ice disintegrating and opening seas on the North Pole 
in July, August and September we should plan for a total sea ice loss situation.
 
NSIDC indicates clearly that all multi year ice has gone and now we are down to 
thin, if not single season, ice. But either as a fixed or free-floating cables 
or platforms could seed ice formation around themselves and stabilise the sea 
surface for sea ice growth. Floating platforms and levees would pose least risk 
for wildlife, floating mesh wire nets or cables could prove more problematic 
for wild life. 
 
Floating net for ship would cause issues, but if we want sea ice on the North 
Pole it will have to happen at the expense of some shipping. However, by area 
management such a usage issues can, and must be avoided. This is nothing more 
than the cloud seeding and rain harvesting to provided surfaces that then start 
build up ice around themselves. 
 
If the sea ice could be introduced 4 weeks earlier, say from November to 
October in higher seas, this would mean a thicker ice for the spring and more 
sunlight reflection for the following season. The sea ice creation will be 
enhanced by this.
 
Also, as a refresher of some earlier discussions in the past, please note that 
in the cold and dark autumn conditions (just like in seas around Antarctica), 
the breaking-up of sea ice itself tends to seed the rapid ice area growth. 
These conditions are much stronger in Antarctica due to the reverse arrangement 
of continents to ocean, but can be seen also at times working also in the 
Arctic Ocean. 
 
In the warming-up of the spring season, the effect of sea ice break up is the 
opposite (as ocean has been mopping up heat). Russian government and the Far 
East Shipping Company (FESCO) calls this kind of sea ice manipulation to make 
the sea ice melt faster (sea ice demolition) as ice chipping and these 
operations are carried out at Amurskaya Bay area every year to cut sea ice off 
following coastline by driving ice breaker along precise coastal margins in 
suitable wind conditions for loosened ice to escape to a warmed-up ocean to 
disappear and let the albedo to take over the better weather.
 
Please give comments, I would like to see our group turning up new ideas like 
in the heydays in the past.
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Geoengineering Videos

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Some new videos have been put on Geoengineering (mostly critical) on YouTube. 
 
 
To have an idea what is said about geoengineering, please have a look:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfwfeature=player_embedded
 
http://www.realityzone.com/whatspray.htmlwww.youtube.com

http://www.realityzone.com/whatspray.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/LoneStar1776?feature=mhum#p/c/F1C61CF5A3E443A2/0/-K9rXydMmfw
 
http://www.youtube.com/user/LoneStar1776#grid/user/F1C61CF5A3E443A2
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM - plane pricing

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I think that just like catalysator was added to the car engines, by requlatory 
dictat jet engines could be required to have injection nozzle that 
automatically activates when the plane reaches a certain altitude. It took over 
a decade to get catalysators fully deployed in cars. It might not be 
practiceable in jet engine retrofit, but for all future planes it would be fine.

I am not convinced that a specialist stratospheric planes should be as the 
starting point. Remember both supersonic Concorde (English/French) and Tupolev 
Tu-144 civilian aircraft have been mothballed and taken out of active service 
due to cost consideration.

It remains my view that even if subsonic commercial jetliners had 90% shorter 
athmospheric half-life in spreading sulphur or carbon silicates, this would be 
a break-even point as supersonic jets are 10 times more costly. Remind my 
practical allegory from Farnborough Air Show when the manager felt it was still 
more sensible to leave brochure cases back and send someone to pick them up 
with several hours drive by a packet van, rather than dumping them to the back 
seats of the helicopter and go home at once after the event.

Similarly, NASA uses nose diving subsonic jets for some short duration 
microgravity experiments, rather than loaded them on space shuttle or boarded 
on the ISS. What is ideal is not always cost effective. If I can hire a 
commercial jet, so it should be easiest to assume that universities would find 
it also easier to fund such a flights. In my experience, commercial flight at 
11,000 metres (33,000 feet) is at least 10 times cheaper than planes that go 
above this (as these are not standard civilian aircrafts). So my question 
remains, is the half-life at 11,000 metres over  10 times shorter, or not, to 
justify ultra-expensive stratospheric specialist flights.

It may also boil down as VHS versus BETA. The latter was far more 
sophisticated, but due to former's established presence it won the old video 
recorded market, whereas the more compact beta lost it. A plain stupid 
commercial jetliner is a far easier to sell as practical idea.

For political reasons, I would suggest any nozzle would not be switched on 
below toposphere. The open skies really begin above that.

  8,000m  13,000m  18,000m  23,000m  28,000m
  9,000m  14,000m  19,000m  24,000m  29,000m
10,000m  15,000m  20,000m  25,000m  30,000m
11,000m  16,000m  21,000m  26,000m  31,000m
12,000m  17,000m  22,000m  27,000m  32,000m

Can someone give me the following figures: 

(a) athmospheric half-life of the substance at this altitude, 
(b) quantity you want to load for the plane?

I will be able to to give to cost of such operation.
I will look into balloon costs separaterly from jets.

Please lets not build hose of straws relying on some magical plane to be 
developed for us to do the trick.
Otherwise it is just another concept car we try to do research which will never 
see daylight in use.

So far, all electric concept cars have proven my point. There is no climate 
solutions from concept oriented reasearch, but solutions oriented which have a 
clear costing and cost comparison.

Kind regards,

Albert

From: gorm...@waitrose.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:21:48 +0100










Thanks for the support, but I now think any thought 
of commercial fight use is just wildly premature at the moment.
 
For now we need to concentrate on the practical, 
one off, development of the ways of distributing particles at the heights 
required.
 
Trivial amounts of research money are required for this 
but so far I cant get any. Grant proposal attached again.
 
johngorman
 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Veli Albert Kallio 
  To: David Keith ; oliver.wingen...@gmail.com ; kcalde...@stanford.edu 
  Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com ; joshuahorton...@gmail.com ; Geoengineering FIPC ; 
oli...@nmt.edu ; Climateintervention 
  FIPC 
  Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:24 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem 
  with stratospheric SRM
  
 
 

  Note 
  that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial aircraft 
  exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. Commercial 
  aircraft don’t flight at the right height or location to efficiently deliver 
  materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical stratosphere 
get 
  reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond about 18 km. 
   
I think it is a very important fact to bear in mind that 
  the stratospheric flights are specialist flights, whereas the commerical 
  flights to certain extent will have a free-ride. One could argue equipment 
  added on same basis as catalysators on cars through regulatory directive. 
This 
  would effectively ensure a free ride, even though the flotation half-life 
  would be very much shorter. 
 
This recalls my experience

RE: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 
 
Note that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial 
aircraft exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. 
Commercial aircraft don’t flight at the right height or location to efficiently 
deliver materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical 
stratosphere get reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond 
about 18 km. 
 
I think it is a very important fact to bear in mind that the stratospheric 
flights are specialist flights, whereas the commerical flights to certain 
extent will have a free-ride. One could argue equipment added on same basis as 
catalysators on cars through regulatory directive. This would effectively 
ensure a free ride, even though the flotation half-life would be very much 
shorter. 
 
This recalls my experience at Farnborough Air Show where we were looking 
Locheed Martin F-130 Hercules aircraft and Sikorsky Helicopters. At the end of 
the meeting, some of the staff suggested a Sikorsky ride home to take down the 
stuff at the air show by chopper. But then the manager said no, we pack all 
stuff to packet vans and drive back and forth several hours to-and-fro (even 
though immensely multiplying the task of taking stuff home.)
 
As per the above experience, I have doubts about the practicality any 
specialist stratospheric flight programme by specialist aircraft: (even if it 
delivers ten or twenty times longer flotation half-times in stratosphere to the 
commercial flights). If spraying carbon tetrasilicate, sulphur dioxide, or H2S, 
or H2SO2 the cost of speciality flights may count against the ideal delivery 
such a way in quantities. 
 
Have anyone look at cost / half-life ratios if the startospheric flights would 
still end up as more expensive?
 
A commercial air craft flies at 11,000 metres: Wouldn't it make more sense to 
say that planes flying above, say, troposphere would be required by law to have 
an injector installed in them, which should be switched on when above say 
8,000, 9,000, 10,000 or 11,000 metres? Any feedback from this pragmatist 
viewpoint?
 
Kind regards,

Albert

 


From: ke...@ucalgary.ca
To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; kcalde...@stanford.edu
CC: kcalde...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; oli...@nmt.edu; 
climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:04:06 -0600
Subject: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM






A few comments on microphysics of stratospheric aerosols.
 
We have examine the microphysics in a recent GRL paper. We confirmed earlier 
findings that the standard SO2 injection can be surprisingly ineffective 
because most of the sulfur is deposited on existing particles making them too 
large.
 
We proposed a solution, injecting H2SO4 directly and showed that in the same 
modeling framework it worked far better than SO2. (Better=less sulfur mass to 
get same forcing, plus weak ozone surface-area benefits). This can be 
generalized to other condensable vapors.
 
The paper is enclosed along with slides that may be helpful. N.B., we have 
reexamine assumptions and discovered an minor error in the original 
calculation, as it happens the new results make the direct H2SO4 scheme look a 
bit better, the figure on the slide is the new version. 
 
We also reexamined ozone loss, this effort was directed by Thomas Peter, one of 
the collaborators on the paper who runs a major stratospheric chemistry group. 
 
We have examine the engineering with an aircraft engineering group and found no 
first-order problems (that report will be released soon).
 
I don’t think H2S would help. It has the same disadvantage as SO2.
 
Note that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial 
aircraft exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. 
Commercial aircraft don’t flight at the right height or location to efficiently 
deliver materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical 
stratosphere get reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond 
about 18 km. 
 
Yours,
David
 
 
 


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Oliver Wingenter
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 7:39 PM
To: kcalde...@stanford.edu
Cc: Ken Caldeira; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; Wingenter
Subject: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM
 
Dear Ken,

The problem is after the initial injections, i.e. the second yea of GE, can we 
even create new particles with a background now 15 to 25 times higher with or 
with out nucleation sites?  Under the present sulfate schemes it appears not. 
in order to tune in particle size and number ternary nucleation of sulfate, 
water and perhaps ammonia (NH3) will probably need top be invoked.  Let us 
remember that water vapor is not finite in the stratosphere and as more 
particles are produced additional sulfate will be needed to reduce the vapor 
pressure of the aerosols.  An additional species such as 

RE: [geo] Geoengineering in Plan B

[Veli Albert Kallio]

RE: FROM PLAN B TO PLAN ZERO - THERE IS NEED TO EXPOSE THE MISINFORMATION 
BY ANTI-GEOENGINEERING ALARMISTS

 

Time and again there appears references to a conspiratory individual who goes 
it alone to change world climate for good or bad by geoengineering. There is no 
ground in these ridiculous and overblown claims: 

 

 

Jason Blackstock, an international governance fellow at the Vienna-based 
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, thinks that the 
deployment of geoengineering technologies might ultimately come down to 
political narratives and unilateral action. A developing country ... might 
decide to undertake some geoengineering measure itself, he says. 

If I had to place a bet now, . There is also the prospect of private 
corporations or individuals using geoengineering technology to combat climate 
change on their own.

 

 

Let me propose this matter to the world's largest reinsurer Munich Re that they 
start doing now geoengineering at their own expense as an unilateral action 
to reduce their number of climate-related insurance claims. Where is the 
economics of unilateral corporate actionsto hijack world's climate to make 
money2 by putting out sulphur to negate the forcing of carbon dioxide that 
comes out of the smoke stacks.

 

 

If I had to place a bet now, . There is also the prospect of private 
corporations or individuals using geoengineering technology to combat climate 
change on their own.

 

Even powerful individuals will be capable and awaiting out there to change the 
world's climate at will to change the greenhouse gas load's effects for their 
benefit. Find me the powder that will deliver this at good cost so that my 
farmer friends can their pockets by changing the climate and the world to 
lengthen their carrot-growing season.

 

So far, there is not a single proven geoengieering ready for deployment that 
some individual or corporation or poor Bangladesh could deploy. These people or 
dreamers are only scare-mongering about the wide effects of geoengineering that 
are readily off-the-shelf.

 

It has been suggested that the clobal cooling from 1940's was due to increased 
sulphur from industries, but this was not a single firm or individual, neither 
the global effect was that remarkable, except the acid rains in Sweden and 
Finland which have now already recovered. There will not be any unitary action 
individual or corporate firm spoiling our global warming by unilateral 
geoengineering. 

 

I believe it is self-delusion of the anti-geoengineering alarmists to claim the 
existence of the willing individual or corporate to do the above. Not even 
countries seem to be contemplating these as unitary action.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert 

 


 


Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:30:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in Plan B
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com
CC: oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org


I think we need to stop having climate engineering thought of as a Plan B—it is 
not an alternative to emissions control nor to adaptation nor to both of them 
together. Without emissions control, neither CDR not SRM is likely to be able 
to keep up with emissions and warming influences, and while emissions control 
and climate engineering might reduce the needed degree of adaptation, the need 
for adaptation will not go away and there might well be different types of 
adaptation needed.

While some don’t like my burning house analogy, calling the firemen is not an 
alternative to turning off the torches that set off the fire (and should not 
slow that effort)--especially as it’s not yet clear how effective the firemen’s 
techniques might be. Turning off the torches and calling the firemen are 
needed, as well as dealing with the situation.

Mike


On 10/1/10 4:06 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote:



http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53021 

Geoengineering May Represent Earth's Best Plan B
By Matthew O. Berger
 
WASHINGTON, Sep 30, 2010 (IPS) - Beyond Copenhagen and Cancún, a different 
climate debate has been brewing. The outcome of this debate, however, will 
affect far more than the climate, and that is precisely why it is so 
contentious.

As many countries continue to refuse to cap their greenhouse gas emissions and 
climate change-induced emergencies become increasing likely – or frequent – 
some researchers are saying it is time to seriously look in to developing a 
plan B for stopping climate change. This plan B would consist of 
geoengineering whereby carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, the 
amount of solar radiation heating the planet is reduced, or both. 

There are several proposals that fit into these broad categories, and they vary 
greatly both in terms of their acceptance and in the likely feasibility that 
they can be done on a large enough scale. For now, though, the plans are still 
largely thin on specifics and relegated 

RE: [geo] Arctic ice at lowest point in recent geological history

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 I came across this issue of ice free Arctic Ocean in context of the 
 Independence I Culture of Greenland and the elevated beaches of the 
 Independence Fjord in North West Greenland. 

 

One Norwegian scientist wrote an article to the climate skeptics web site about 
it and claimed that the water-laden elevated huge sand beaches of the 
Independece Fjord are evidence of ice-free Arctic Ocean only some 7,000 years 
ago. She insists that the grounding marks of ice floes create rough and 
upturned seaside, not a neatly laden sandy beaches. In addition, the thin tents 
of the Independence I Culture of the area, are suggestive of warm climate.

 

We are trying to package an expedition to the Independence Fjord to sample mud 
cores in front of these beaches. When the United Nations General Assembly was 
presented proposition UNGA101292 by the World Indigenous Nations Summit, we 
have suggested a Mega-Surtsey volcanic lava floods heating parts of the ocean 
extensively at times. In fact, the World Indigenous Nations Summits' plea to 
the UN General Assembly will, of necessity, stipulate an occurrence of massive 
subsea lava floods around Icelandic Seas if their chronologies of rapid ice age 
holds water. These produced localised warming events.

 

As per the Independence Fjord, if there were a geothermally maintained volcanic 
jacuzzi east of Greenland, we try to obtain Apectodinium and Azolla fern 
deposits in front of the elevated sand beaches of the Independece Fjord which 
would appear there if ice age was caused by big sub sea lava floods (and 
Milutin Milankovic orbital forcing is put into coffin).

 

There are many potential heat sources in Arctic Ocean that could have caused 
parts of the ocean to heat up in the past. But this kind of ice free ocean has 
nothing to do with climate, except that steam generated in the winter would be 
an excellenct snow cannon just like the Native Americans insist at the UN that 
the ice age was fast event and they recall it. 

 

Kr,

 

Albert


 
 Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:51:23 +0100
 From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
 To: p...@cam.ac.uk
 CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jeff.rid...@metoffice.gov.uk; 
 maslo...@nps.navy.mil; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
 sam.car...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic ice at lowest point in recent geological history
 
 
 Dear Peter,
 
 That's most interesting. But, if the Arctic was ice free, why wasn't 
 there a methane excursion - or perhaps there was? Do we have records 
 going back 100,000 years, e.g. from ice cores?
 
 (I'm copying to John Gorman, Albert Kallio and Sam Carana as they'll be 
 interested in your response.)
 
 Best wishes,
 
 John
 
 ---
 
 P. Wadhams wrote:
  Dear John, This published work by Barber on rotten ice has been 
  questioned in terms of the possibility that he has mistaken a local 
  anomaly for a basinwide effect. Also, regarding when there was last an 
  ice-free Arctic, the Danish Geological Suvey has found two periods in 
  the last 100,000 years when there was warm-water plankton over the 
  Lomonosov Ridge, so I am quite sure that there have been more recent 
  open Arctic events than Barber says, Best wishes Peter
 
 
 
  On Jul 24 2010, John Nissen wrote:
 
 
  Hi again,
 
  I've always wondered whether there has been a seasonably ice-free 
  Arctic Ocean in recent interglacial periods, and an answer (no) came 
  in a plenary lecture at the International Polar Year Oslo Science 
  Conference in June by Professor David Barber, about 21 minutes into 
  his talk:
  http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55
 
  He says he has downcast his forecast for a seasonably ice free 
  Arctic to between 2013 and 2030. Then he says it's a long time since 
  there's been a seaonsably ice free Arctic, and one can debate 
  whether that's 1 million years or 14 million years.
 
  During the next minutes he describes how they discovered thin, rotten 
  ice where there was supposed to be multi-year ice. So satellite data 
  cannot always be trusted!
 
  At 40 minutes he comes to something that's new to me: that CO2 is an 
  important part of the sea ice formation process. He even likens the 
  sea ice to a rain forest!
 
  Later on, around 45 minutes, he discusses the importance of opinions 
  of Inuit peoples and how they see the effect of global warming in 
  their daily lives.
  So there's lots of interesting stuff about the sea ice - but there's 
  nothing about what we should do about its decline. His conclusion - 
  just continue research for another decade.
 
  Cheers,
 
  John
 
  ---
 
  John Nissen wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  Here's a posting on Climate Progress that I missed in June: 
  http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/06/arctic-death-spiral-maslowski-ice-free-arctic-watts-goddard-wattsupwiththat/#more-26815
   
 
 
 
  This refers (1) to a presentation by Maslowski here: 
  

RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - sea ice galaxies, circles and ovals tell the story

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Good observation otherwise, but the thinned ice breaks up and scatters more.

 

If you look at satellite pictures a few years ago the sea ice was not nearly as 
fluid as it is today. The North Pole sea ice is predominantly arranged such a 
way that some of the regular geometries resulting from the rotation are 
constantly almost always visible. In the past the rigid and thick multi year 
sea ice caused a lot more ridges and strengt variation within ice impeding a 
regular contraflows and centrifugal scattering of sea ice from the pole. In 
addition, the same laws of water displacement by floating ice become 
applicable. As much of the sea ice has been pushed towards perimetry of the 
Arctic Oceans coastal containment margin, the movement of ice towards equator 
from the pole requires displacement of the corresponding sea ice volume. So, if 
North Pole has 70-80 of sea ice, 20% of the surface water has been uplifted as 
the ice has been slinging towards perimeters. This kind of water upswell was 
irregularised dissipated by the ice ridges of pack ice, variable sea ice 
thickenesses randomising the effects. Withnessing patterns like cirles and 
ovals and spiralling ice galaxies do not increase my confidence that all is 
well as it used to... Some years ago the Arctic sea ice was so rigid that when 
Siberian rivers poured warm water into sea these weakened the sea ice from the 
estuary and the ice split all across the ocean to Canada. It was solid like the 
sement wall, not a fluid ice of today.

 

I do not remember who called it the rotten ice on the Beaufort Sea last 
autumn, but that's it. Anyone who has been living in the Arctic knows that 
spring ice is thick but weak. The autumn ice is thin and strong. Between the 
two is the winter ice which Arctic used to be. Seeing the coriolis forces 
arranging highly regular patterns result from ice uniformity.
 

Kr, Albert

 


Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:13:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: wig...@ucar.edu
CC: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; p...@cam.ac.uk; 
gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; sam.car...@gmail.com; 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; lind...@apl.washington.edu; 
serr...@kryos.colorado.edu

The current extent of ice coverage is no different than it was 20 years ago:







And, it appears to be tracking the 2006 decline, which makes sense as the wind 
patterns are about the same, and wind  has far more to do with the extent of 
ice coverage than temperatures of the kind we have today.


As I have written repeatedly, wait until the end of September and we will be 
able to argue from actual data on ice loss.  These hysterics are getting in the 
way of actual observations - what some of us like to think is the baseline for 
science.


d.


On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote:

John,

You say ...


we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as early 
as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and 
abrupt climate change.

This is guesswork, not science.

I do not want to sign this letter.

Tom.

+




John Nissen wrote:


In view of the situation in the Arctic, I would be grateful for support for an 
open letter to John Holdren, along the following lines.  Please let me know 
whether you agree with this text and whether you'd be happy for me to add your 
name at the bottom.

Cheers,

John

---

To John P Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dear Dr Holdren,

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into space 
and cool the Earth. The sea ice has been retreating far faster than the IPCC 
predicted only three years ago [1]. But, after the record retreat in September 
2007, many scientists revised their predictions for the date of a seasonally 
ice free Arctic Ocean from beyond the end of century to beyond 2030. Only a few 
scientists predicted this event for the coming decade, and they were ridiculed.

In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in end-summer sea ice extent, 
and it appears that the minimum 2010 extent will be close to a new record [2].  
However the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very sharp decline in 
volume [3], which is very worrying.

The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect permafrost to release 
large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead 
inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change.  All this 
could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further than ever before this 
summer.  We could be approaching a point of no return unless emergency action 
is taken.

We suggest that the current situation should be treated as a warning for us 
all. The world community must rethink its attitude to fighting global warming 
by cutting greenhouse gas emissions 

RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to Arctic Council

[Veli Albert Kallio]

When I was press-spokesman to Arctic Mirror of Life symposium (convened by HE 
Kofi Annan and HE Jose Manuel Barroso) with Robert (Bob) Correl, he was the 
lead author of the Arctic impact report of the Arctic Council. (J. Lubachenko 
was our third spokesman.)

 

Bob Correl is extremely concerned of the huge increases of moulins and 
crevasses in Greenland over his long career observing them to increase 
massively in numbers. So, he will support anything reasonable put to him. I 
know he agrees the risks are understated.

 

Last Autumn I also sponsored to the UN General Assembly some Sami members of 
the Arctic Council from Lapland (Finland) when the North American indians 
invited me over to New York to discuss their climate worries (emanating from 
thier perceived ancient native memories). When President Evo Morales visited 
Helsinki in April 2010 I met them last time. Sami and Inuit will give the 
maximum support on issues vital for them, i.e. the sea ice.

 

The Arctic Council could be a good place for propositions or letter. The inuit 
people risk their lives on weak sea ice. They do worry a lot about the 
deteriorating sea ice and would not mind overstating this, provided things are 
approximately right and try to capture essense of their problems and they will 
give all support they can do.

 

I think it is necessary to await until Autumn. Usually some methane expedition 
reports also come in from the seasons' expeditions to study feedback CH4 
emissions.

 

In my view too Manhattan Project analogy is off-the-mark. CERN is a far more 
positive collaborative venue whitout negative or national connotations like the 
Manhattan Project. Manhattan Project is also now in far distance timewise. 
International Space Station (ISS) could also be a much more positive project to 
refer as an example.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert


 


Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:49:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
From: xbenf...@gmail.com
To: dwschn...@gmail.com
CC: wig...@ucar.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; 
lind...@apl.washington.edu; serr...@kryos.colorado.edu

I agree with David that we should wait for the September data. 


But on the Manhattan Project analogy: 



The Manhattan project went through just this. (I know this history well; I was 
a postdoc of Ed Teller, knew Szilard,  my father in law invented centrifugal U 
isotope separation with Harold Urey in 1939.) The project in its early phase 
lost more than a year of mother-may-I before getting real support, and so could 
not stop the war in 1944. That's about 12 million lives...


There are plenty of well thought through ideas, but they don't get funded--just 
as in the Manhattan example. (They spent a year and all their money 1938-39 
checking the German results, against Fermi's advice; he thought they were 
obviously true.) 


I was a postdoc with Holdren and suggest he's open to an increased funding 
argument, and maybe setting up a group to coordinate Arctic observations, 
geoengineering ideas, and even some diplomatic approaches to the Arctic Council 
downstream (2011) -- but yes, we need a sound argument. This is not the same as 
another government panel agreeing to insert lines in a report!


Gregory Benford


For all his admirable qualities, you seem to be a process guy, not an outcome 
guy.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com wrote:

The current extent of ice coverage is no different than it was 20 years ago:







And, it appears to be tracking the 2006 decline, which makes sense as the wind 
patterns are about the same, and wind  has far more to do with the extent of 
ice coverage than temperatures of the kind we have today.


As I have written repeatedly, wait until the end of September and we will be 
able to argue from actual data on ice loss.  These hysterics are getting in the 
way of actual observations - what some of us like to think is the baseline for 
science.


d.





On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote:

John,

You say ...


we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from as early 
as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and 
abrupt climate change.

This is guesswork, not science.

I do not want to sign this letter.

Tom.

+




John Nissen wrote:


In view of the situation in the Arctic, I would be grateful for support for an 
open letter to John Holdren, along the following lines.  Please let me know 
whether you agree with this text and whether you'd be happy for me to add your 
name at the bottom.

Cheers,

John

---

To John P Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dear Dr Holdren,

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into 

[geo] DARK SURFACES DO GET WARMER, ENHANCING GLACIER MELT

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Alvin,

 

I am born and from an Arctic region and can refute your comments outright.

 

It is just like your car bonnet, the rocks get hot when they are dark and 
exposed to sun, the dark rock surfaces can become really hot in sunshine, 
turning them white keeps cool.

 

The cooler rocks melt less, also the dark wetted surface turns even darker.

 

We all sometimes throw babies with bathwater, but your comments on this 
occasion were quite misplaced. I also disagree, the bankers throw money in the 
wind unreasonably.

 

It all comes from an experience: My sister-in-law jumped into huge wave 
thinking its safe. 
 

Kr, Albert

 


From: agask...@nc.rr.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:33:56 -0400




Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology...
 
 
1. Making surfaces more reflective doesn't make it rain or snow on such a small 
scale.  There are other more important factors.
 
2. If it did rain because of this (not likely, see 1), the coating would be 
washed away.
 
3. Good to see that the World Bank has its act together.  Can't wait to hear 
about the other 25 winners.

- Original Message - 
From: Veli Albert Kallio 
To: Geoengineering FIPC 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:59
Subject: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/1004.stm
 
 
Can painting a mountain restore a glacier?


Page last updated at 09:27 GMT, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:27 UK 

By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Ayacucho 
 
The team has nearly reached the peak of Chalon Sombrero 

 
Slowly but surely an extinct glacier in a remote corner of the Peruvian Andes 
is being returned to its former colour, not by falling snow or regenerated ice 
sheets, but by whitewash.  
It is the first experimental step in an innovative plan to recuperate Peru's 
disappearing Andean glaciers. 
 
But there is debate between those who dismiss the idea as just plain daft and 
those who think it could be a simple but brilliant solution, or at least one 
which should be put to the test. 
 
The World Bank clearly believes the idea - the brainchild of 55-year-old 
Peruvian inventor, Eduardo Gold - has merit as it was one of the 26 winners 
from around 1,700 submissions in the 100 Ideas to Save the Planet competition 
at the end of 2009.
 
Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology, is enthused that the time has come to put his theory into practice. 



Eduardo Gold explains the whitewashing process 
Although he is yet to receive the $200,000 (£135,000) awarded by the World 
Bank, his pilot project is already underway on the Chalon Sombrero peak, 4,756 
metres above sea level, in an area some 100km west of the regional capital of 
Ayacucho. 
 
The area has long been denuded of its snowy, white peaks. 
 
Four men from Licapa, the village which lies further down the valley, don 
boiler suits and mix the paint from three simple and environmentally-friendly 
ingredients: lime, industrial egg white and water. 
 
The mixture which has been used since Peru's colonial times. 
 
There are no paint brushes, the workers use jugs to splash the whitewash onto 
the loose rocks around the summit. 
 
It is a laborious process but they have whitewashed two hectares in two weeks. 
 
They plan is to paint the whole summit, then in due course, two other peaks 
totalling overall some 70 hectares. 
 
 
'Cold generates cold' 
 
Mr Gold may not be a scientist but his idea is based on the simple scientific 
principle that when sunlight is reflected off a white or light-coloured 
surface, solar energy passes back through the atmosphere and out into space, 
rather than warming the Earth's surface. 
 
The US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has endorsed a similar idea using white 
roofs in the United States - possibly more pragmatic than painting mountains. 
 
Changing the albedo (a measure of how strongly an object reflects light) of the 
rock surface, would bring about a cooling of the peak's surface, says Mr Gold, 
which in turn would generate a cold micro-climate around the peak. 
 Real snow on Chalon Sombrero - not paint 
 
Cold generates more cold, just as heat generates more heat, says Mr Gold. 
 
I am hopeful that we could re-grow a glacier here because we would be 
recreating all the climatic conditions necessary for a glacier to form. 
 
The 900-strong population of Licapa, the village which depends on Chalon 
Sombrero for its water supply, did not think twice about accepting Mr Gold's 
proposal and the funding it would bring. 
 
When I was around 15-20 years old, Chalon Sombrero was a big glacier, all 
white, then little by little it started to melt, says 65-year-old Pablo Parco, 
who is one of the project's supporters. 
 
Forty years

RE: [geo] Hypothetical SRM Question

[Veli Albert Kallio]

If there were need to have a counteracting agent (that would not have long life 
span like CFC's), I would think that the carbon black could be used to trap 
heat. However, as an aerosol, it also acts as a condensing surface, creating 
cloud droplets, and if flushed to snow, darkening.

 

The toxicity could be an issue. Any ash can trap some extra heat, but it also 
acts as a shield cooling air below it. Its usefulness depends on altitude and 
whether a smog is an issue for the area where the counter-effect is sought. 
This just a brief thought what stuff I might deploy.

 

kr, Albert


 
 Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:14 -0700
 Subject: [geo] Hypothetical SRM Question
 From: joshuahorton...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 Group members,
 
 I need help answering a hypothetical question about SRM
 countermeasures. Specifically, if one country were to implement
 stratospheric aerosol injections on its own, do technical means exist
 for other states to counteract such a deployment? If so, what are
 these means? Which effects associated with stratospheric aerosol
 injections could be offset by such means?
 
 Any insights you could provide would be much appreciated - thanks.
 
 Josh Horton
 joshuahorton...@gmail.com
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 geoengineering group.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
 
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Geoengineering and Role of Algae on CDR: Study at sea assesses ash impacts

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This major study is helpful in assessing geoengineering potential from the 
artificial algae booms

as a viable CDR method:

 

 

Study at sea assesses ash impacts


Scientists hope to gather ...


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/science_and_environment/10091568.stm 
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Geoengineering Event Approved for COP15/COP16 Intermediate Climate Change Summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

RE: COP15/COP16 Intermediate Climate Change Summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia

 

Just as an update, I glad that we have got an approval for The Peoples’ World 
Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights from 20th to 22nd April 
2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia subsequent to my initial invitation from His 
Excellency Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia 
via the Permanent Delegation of Plurinational State of Bolivia to UNESCO in 
Paris. I subsequently had this followed up here in London with Her Excellency, 
Ambassador Maria Beatriz Souviron - Crespo whom I met on the 11th February 2010.


Please find enclosed an approval for the plenary discussion. If you still think 
you have something to pass us for presentation there in person or by proxy, 
please let me or Julius know urgently. We try to ensure that approppriate 
consideration for geoengineering will be presented there.

 

With kind regards,

 

Albert

 


From: jul...@justassociate.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
CC: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: FW: Some necessary steps to save the 
planet...Geoengineering
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:05:46 +







Congratulations! John The event Geoengineering has been accepted. 
Attached is the logistics form that the organisers require completed.
We need to discuss this so as to define our requirements.
Let’s speak ASAP.
 
Kind regards
 
Julius Just
  




From: Selforganized Coordinator 
Sent: 26 March 2010 23:05
To: Julius Just
Subject: Re: FW: Some necessary steps to save the 
planet...Geoengineering
 

Dear Mr, Julius, 

 
Thank you for the information. 
 
We would like to inform you that your application for participating with a 
self-organized event in the People´s World Conference on Climate Change and 
Mother Earth Rights has been accepted. Attached is the form for general 
requirements that should be filled out and sent as fast as possible in order to 
inform you about the economical aspects (two excel versions). 
 
Best regards,
 
Karen García
Selforganized Events Committee
 
P.D. The assigned code number for your event is 127.  
  
_
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Paul, 

 

STRAND How to Deal with the Losers.  I would like to reply briefly to your 
rhetorical question: What am I missing?


 

First of all, I think you are absolutely right that geoengineers would be 
accused of causing any unpleasant weather and if there were severe weather's 
like some town severely flooded, or unusual hurricane path or tornado, it would 
be the blame of the geoengineers.

 

This leads to a legitimate question, whether a hatred of geoengineers could 
develop into a life-threatening obsession by some crack pots.

Somebody loosing home or memorabilia for a flood or house burning into ashes 
due to forest fire by a perceived geoengieered draught.

 

Safety of geoengineers could become an issue, in some societies which have high 
endemic violence or social exclusion or high unemployment.

These are questions that few or if any geoengineers have ever thought. If the 
current climate change animosities are anything to go by, I am almost certain 
that some corners of the public could suddenly feel aggrieved enough to take a 
revenge against geoengineers.

 

However, this is nothing new: animal testing laboratories have been fire 
bombed, abortion clinics blown up, wasn't there a little Osama bin Laden so 
angered agaist the tax office mistake that he committed a suicide by flying his 
plane into the tax office in Texas the last week, setting the building ablaze, 
one person dead and twelve injured and all the tax records and account keeping 
going in a smoke to the sky.

 

We could see this kind of retaliatory measures from the people perceiving 
themselves as victims of geoengineering when the weather related events have 
inflicted them. In any case, you raised an excellent new aspect that few 
geoengineers have given thought about so far.

 

However, as per the climate change scepticism in the United States and also 
elsewhere. If a person is a hard core anthropogenic climate change denialist, 
then by definition he or she should also dismiss our (geoengineers) ability to 
influence changes in the weather patters. If so, I cannot see them being too 
much against geoengineering as they will think the whole concept is obvious 
nonsense.

 

I sternly disagree that the geoengineers will be causing more damage than good. 
The man is interfering the climate system by cutting the forests, releasing 
ozone destroying chemicals, even sea ice is demolished in some places to induce 
earlier spring, and then there is the much talked about emissions from the 
fossil fuels, farthing of the ruminants for ultimate human consumption as meat, 
milk or butter. It is nonsensical to claim that we do not effect changes to the 
climate both short and long term. We do lots of harm to the climate without 
geoengineering.

 

The purpose of geoengineering is to alleviate the negative impact from 
increasing and historic concentrations of greenhouse gases, not to aggrevate 
them. Many of the projects can be turned off with instant effect, if the doubts 
are growing of more damage than benefit. It is not too conceivable to see that 
a therapy would be described which can be seen detrimental to the overall 
health of our planet and is sustained.

 

For God's sake the widespread climate change denialism has been largely nesting 
in the United States and some in England. There are sceptics to be found 
everywhere, but they are not very much organised resistance like those of the 
United States, Australia or even England.

 

Albert
 
 
 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:38:35 -0800
 Subject: [geo] Re: SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers?
 From: ppcr...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 STRAND How to Deal with the Losers
 In preparation for Asilomar I’ve been reading or re-reading some of
 the exchanges on this group. This strand's theme is ‘how to deal
 with the losers’. It seems to assume that the ‘we’ is obvious. It
 sure isn’t obvious to me. My reading of Fox news and the like, plus
 conversations with lots of ‘ordinary folk’, leads me to the conclusion
 that following intervention by ‘the experts’, virtually every weather
 anomaly they don’t like will be blamed on you geoengineers. Whether
 the blame is right or wrong; whether what’s going on is climate
 related or short-term weather related. Won’t matter. A big fraction
 of the US public doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming.
 Those folk will conclude – not necessarily incorrectly - that you
 experts are doing more harm than good.
 
 What am I missing?
 Paul
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 geoengineering group.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
 
  

RE: [geo] Methane - time for realism

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Further to Mike's comments:

 

When methane seeps into sea water and gets dissolved, it gets attacked by 
methanogenic bacteria that cosumes this to carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide 
then dissolves again into water. However, there are about 22,000 methane 
clathrate explosion craters in the Arctic. The largest methane escape crater on 
the sea floor measures over 750 km2 in area.

 

Royal Society's science book of the year award for 2008 was awarded to Mark 
Lynas' The Six Degrees which refers to the methane clatrate explosion sites 
in the Arctic sea beds. 

 

The off-shore methane craters have resulted from violent gas bursts of methane. 
As methane itself is soluble to a sea water in a limited degree, a gradual 
build up of carbon dioxide is often required to necessitate the nucleation of 
dissolved gases.

 

Carbon dioxide is dissolving in cold and deep waters sometimes 5 times of the 
volume of water or more, methane is dissolving considerably too, but not nearly 
as much as carbon dioxide. When outgassing event and methane clathrate 
explosions do occur, methane that has been converted to carbon dioxide acts as 
the active ingredient of gas nucleation.

 

Michel Halbwachs has successfully neutralised three deep water methane/carbon 
dioxide laden deepwater pockets that have been nucleating (or pose major risk 
of gas nucleation). He has three successful projects under management on 
controlled outgassing of highly dissolved deep water pockets that can cause 
fatalities if gas is not leaked out.

 

As methane clathrates dissolve in innumerable sites across deep Arctic lakes 
and coastal deep water pockets (that lack adequate water circulation), as the 
methane leaks out and gets converted to carbon dioxide, it builds up and 
eventually starts to sizzle out (like champagne) when there are disturbances in 
the vertical water column, or excess heating.

 

These can also be stirred and triggered by vessels traveling over and can be 
extremely dangerous due to density of nucleating water being much lower due to 
its high, nucleated, foamy gas content. When the carbon dioxide sizzles out, 
the methane comes out with it.

 

The high carbon dioxide content of water may also shut down some methanogenic 
bacteria, this effectively stopping further conversion of methane into carbon 
dioxide. Thus, the proportion of gas dissoleved will eventually consist high 
volumes of methane as well.

 

I have also been in touch with some scientists who believe that there were 
recently a huge methane explosion resulting from the conical deep water basin 
of Lake Cheko, where a sub lake bed may have collapsed due to melting of 
permafrost layer that was retaining a gas field. The lake and trespassing river 
may have fallen into the cavity of gas field triggering huge methane explosion 
3-5 miles above nearby Tunguska forest in spring 1908. This explosion killed 
and injured about half a dozen people due to its remoteness. Microdiamonds and 
molten rock materials have been discovered. The standard idea is that it was a 
meteorite impact (a bolide fire ball) rather than an on-shore methane explosion.

 

For the COP15/COP16 intermediate summit at Copababamba, I yesterday received 
petition to put forward from the First Nations' as some ancient first nations 
of the Americas recall seeing these immense fireballs, what they say, at the 
end of ice age, perhaps in Beringia when they were forced to move out as sea 
levels rose which area is near to the methane explosions and migrants came 
roughly via the same area (North East Coast of Siberia) as Mark Lynas', Euan 
Nisbet and others reported findings of sea floor methane escape craters. 

 

Back in July 2008 there were also huge explosion on the North West Passage, 
Nunavut, Canada, about ten days to two weeks after the NW passage cleared 
itself off sea ice, which was second consecutive summer when the area was sea 
ice free. The sound were heard hundreds of miles away and whales were spotted 
moving away from the area. 


Therefore, we need to keep in mind and search for the still deep water pockets 
or areas that may be excessively accummulating methane and carbon dioxide when 
permafrost soils and methane clathrated sea beds are melting.

 

If you know of any extremely carbon dioxide and methane laden sites (still deep 
water pockets) please contact Michel Halwachs who has been successfully 
contracted to defuse these. It would also make sense to controllably neutralise 
some of them and burn nucleating methane-carbon dioxide mixtures rather than 
letting them GHGs to go for birds.

 

Wint kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio

 


Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:55:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Methane - time for realism
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: john.dav...@foe.co.uk

While I wholeheartedly agree that methane is a critical issue, it would sure be 
nice if they got the facts right.

Consider this paragraph

[geo] Global Solicitation for Alternative Schemes - Invitation to Join COP15 Follow-up Summit

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I would like to invite people to give presentations to the COP15 follow-up 
meeting at Copababamba. It is my understanding that travel will be fully 
covered for a limited number of delegates. If you are able to join us 
20-22.4.2010, let me know and I pass your details to my coordinator.

 

I cannot guaratee, but I believe this meeting is one of the big ones and we 
need to be there in order to refute all rubbish some conservationists throw at 
us. 

 

I look at horror how environmental organisations are becoming distorted about 
Copenhagen's failure. Environmental charities are dependent on donations. The 
climate change earmarked donations are on the dry down. As a result, the 
marketing departments fighting for the campaigners jobs are now focused 
developing campaings like: nuclear-scare, GM-food scare, biofuel-scare and 
geoengineering-scare to raise donations.

 

I think this is a distortion and distraction of potential ways of addressing 
climate problems as all the blanket bans throw baby with bathwater.

 

I cannot stress enough that we need early dialoue to engage with those people 
groups and organisations that are otherwise prone to be mislead by this fund 
raising oriented climate-scare industry, such as Greenpeace, where it applies 
in particular.

 

Copababamba climate summit may also open doors to people from other cultures 
and regions such as the Persian Gulf that do not carry the same preconceptions 
and mind sets that apprear in the West. Who cares if the sources came from 
eccentric environmentalist from the Middle East or some other parts of the 
world if we can get something funded and closer to the realisation.

 

However, I would try us be present to give information about geoengineering so 
that people can make informed decisions what is worth to be funded without 
being first immersed in the misinformation disseminated by Greenpeace and the 
likes and some of the most outrageus claims can be dismissed on the spot 
provider we have a goal-keeper in this soccer game.

 

I will do my best to take geoengineers either under my own quota, or, get your 
institution represented, may be even as private individuals.

There might be as many as 150 sponsored delegates departing from London, and 
the same perhaps from the USA.

 

Please, if you can make time on that week for 20-22.4 summit. From London the 
departures are either 15.4. or 17.4. and returning London no later than 25.4. 
Shorter time periods may be possible. I will do my utmost in securing as many 
sponsored delegates / places as possible. 

 

 

A UK magazine specializing political gossips mentions a plan of a meeting on 
the Arctic Ocean, convening perhaps as early as next month (the marine buoys 
show now the weakness [thinness] of Arctic Ocean's sea ice much alike the story 
the visual images [area] from the satellites):

 

As the rapid disappearance of sea ice cover a rapidly convened global summit 
concerning series of issues, including the law of the sea, control of fish 
stocks, limits to territorial waters and claims for control of th Arctic and 
Antarctic. The govenrment analysts' estimate that the Copenhagen style impasse 
is likely as agreements reached now are unlikely to be long-lived. Foulsham, 
Ref: ISSN 0071-8084, p. 39, col. 3.  

 

If you have any idea who is, or has been planning for this conference, it would 
be interesting to know more about what is going on, or where this gossip 
originated that suggests open-waters sharing conference convening in March 
2010 - and if this converence is still on agenda.

 

This would again suggest me that there are at least some parties, may be, in 
the military that knows the sea ice conditions is even worse.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio


 
 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:22:26 -0800
 Subject: [geo] Re: Global Solicitation for Alternative Schemes
 From: m2des...@cablespeed.com
 To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 Thank you Ken for your response.
 
 My main concern is that a formal solicitation and ranking of
 geoengineering schemes has not yet been done, but that I believe the
 scope and complexity of the problem absolutely warrants (and
 necessitates) doing this.
 
 It wouldn't be a list that would stand the test of time, necessarily,
 but one that has been through a disciplined and transparent process,
 that we and others could look back against and have best confidence
 with at the time.
 
 Though some ideas have been proposed through this site over the last
 few years, because a formal evaluation process hasn't been in place,
 and because there may be some very good ideas from those not yet
 connected with this site, important concepts may have been missed that
 could make a big difference in our future.
 
 Finally, it seems like site participants have mainly been limited to
 the US, Canada and the UK. What about the French? The Chinese (who
 have a huge weather modification agancy)? India? There are a hell of
 a lot of smart people out

[geo] COP15 follow up summit invitation

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

As per COP15 is going, I think that aerosol is most likely to work due to its 
simplicity when capital investment and political factors are accounted over 
which methods are more likely be chosen. But like chemotherapy, its assistance 
is very limited and likely when people are desperate but by then the Arctic 
permafrost and ice free Arctic Ocean would be seeping out their own emissions 
undoing the effect. But I am otherwise a great fan of cloud whitening as a way 
of increasing cloud cover and sky brighteness to counter effect of reducing 
snow cover.

 

More efforts need to be done. I see this like a soccer match. Any geoengineer 
interested to be giving a good defense for our actions, or even act as a goal 
keeper would be welcome to join non-aligned countries, APC countries, and the 
First Nations summit. 

 

I would like to see a plenary on geoengineering and also perhaps a side event 
to explain various technologies of geoengineering. I do not think this summit 
is a good with attack players getting the funds, but if we can get wider 
acceptance to our activities and even act as a goal keeper to keep out the most 
stupid fears and accusations, we would be able to prepare the home side of the 
field when asking funds from the First World Nations who are much more capable 
than African, Asian, South American and Pacific countries to fund our 
experiments.

 

Our meeting on Wednesday was extended from one hour to 3 1/2 hours with the 
government officials as we poured over all the minutiae of the First Nations' 
view what will happen soon to Greenland's ice sheet based on their 
recollections (my role is to put supply geophysical framing of the ancient 
recollections and probe the unattended claims to UN General Assembly with 
various testable experiments).  

 

If you think you have opportunity to deliver presentation on geoengineering 
20-22 April 2010, plus few extra days aside for side events and travel, please 
get in touch with me.  I will not be able to do presentation on this matter as 
I am looking after the First Nations' complaints.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio


 

 


Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:43:09 +
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; 
lat...@ucar.edu
Subject: [clim] Re: [geo] Polar Sea-Ice Maintenance


Hi John,

While I absolutely agree that a joint approach of stratospheric aerosols and 
marine cloud brightening would be ideal, I don't believe we have the luxury of 
time to wait until the latter is ready for deployment.

There is a very fundamental difference of view between people in this group as 
to the severity of the situation in the Arctic, and hence the balancing of 
geoengineering risks against the risks of not geoengineering.  I find myself at 
one end of the spectrum, believing that we are if anything verging on being too 
late to save catastrophe, with the sea ice imminent disappearance being a 
catalyst for the dual catastrophes of methane release and Greenland ice sheet 
disintegration.  I suspect others in this group, perhaps Alan Robock may be an 
example, are at the other end of the spectrum, believing that there is not 
significant risk of reaching a tipping point in the Arctic for many decades, 
and hence emissions reductions should be given a chance to work.  People at 
this end of the spectrum would consider the dangers of geoengineering are 
inevitably greater than those of not geoengineering.

However, as David Keith has observed, the more scientists look at the dangers 
arising from excess CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, the more worried 
they become.  Many of us have been brought up to think of this world being 
created for our benefit, such that it will continue automatically to look after 
us, as a benign natural  system.  Interference with this system invites 
retribution - and geoengineering is seen as a dangerous interference.  However 
there is much evidence that our civilisation has developed over the past 8000 
years with the climate system precariously balanced between getting too hot 
(and sea level rising) and getting too cold (with sea level falling).  There is 
the Ruddiman hypothesis, that mankind has emitted just the amount of greenhouse 
gases over this period to maintain the precise balance to allow civilisation to 
develop.  Furthermore there have been no super-volcanoes (such as Toba) to 
upset this balance, although one or two are now overdue.  Thus it is entirely 
by luck that our society has been able to develop - with coal and oil at hand 
to fuel our growth to 6 billion people, globally trading.  There is absolutely 
no reason why this luck should continue.  And we have now upset the balance by 
injecting a colossal pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you start to look at geoengineering from this perspective, you see it as 
almost certainly the only way out of the mess we have got

[geo] Handling uncertainty in science, 22-23 March

[Veli Albert Kallio]

For your diary:

 

This conference is pertinent as one of the key argument against geoengineering 
is uncertainty. The filosophy goes if you do not know what you are doing, then 
it is probably better to do nothing. Then the issues of abrupt climate change 
(Type 2 climate change).

 

If able to make, this could help to formulate the soft problems and hard 
problems, how to deal with the situitions better and how to apply 
geoengineering.
 


Subject: Handling uncertainty in science, 22-23 March
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:20:40 +
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
From: discussion.meetings.cvlrivdmtye...@newsletters.royalsociety.org







If you are having difficulties viewing this email, click here for an online 
version









Discussion Meetings







Handling uncertainty in science

22 - 23 March 2010



 



Organised by:
Professor Tim Palmer FRS 
Professor Paul Hardaker
Location:
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG

























We encourage you and any staff or students in your department to register for 
this free two day Discussion Meeting, and would be grateful if you could 
circulate this appropriately.

Synopsis
A highly multi-disciplinary meeting discussing how scientists from a range of 
disciplines handle the issue of uncertainty in their area of specialisation: ie 
how uncertainty can be characterised, estimated, predicted and communicated. 
The meeting will also address the question of how decisions are made, and 
should be made, in the light of scientific uncertainty. An exceptionally 
eminent set of speakers have agreed to participate.


Speakers
Professor John Barrow FRS, Professor Harvey Brown, Dr Philip Campbell, 
Professor Sally Davies, Lord Smith of Finsbury, Lord Krebs of Wytham FRS, Mr 
Mervyn King, Lord May of Oxford FRS, Sir Roger Penrose FRS, Dr Nina M 
Skorupska, Professor Julia Slingo, Professor David Spiegelhalter FRS, Lord 
Stern of Brentford, Professor Ian Stewart FRS, Professor Kathy Sykes, Professor 
Peter Webster.

Registration 
This meeting is free to attend, but pre-registration (online) is essential. The 
online registration form and programme information can be found at 
royalsociety.org/events-diary


Between November 2009 and November 2010, the Royal Society will be celebrating 
its 350th anniversary, promoting a spirit of enquiry, excitement and engagement 
with science.

This meeting is part of the Royal Society's 350th anniversary programme.
More information about the anniversary year can be found at royalsociety.org 











If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe immediately.



© Copyright The Royal Society
The Royal Society,
6-9 Carlton House Terrace,
London SW1Y 5AG


t: 020 7451 2500
e: discussion.meeti...@royalsociety.org 
w: royalsociety.org/events-diary

Registered Charity No 207043



See further with the Royal Society in 2010 – celebrate 350 years of excellence 
in science

If you wish to unsubscribe, please click on the link below.
Please note this is an automated operation.
 http://newsletters.royalsociety.org/u/12hjvm5eAHd4p
  
_
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] CLOUD SEEDING WILL WORK - AFTER ALL ITS NATURAL AT LEAST IN THE ANTARCTIC SEAS

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This arrived via the UN Wire.

 

This article points to positive points of blowing sea salt into air once again.

The increases of ozone may on the other hand have also negative effects.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html?ref=world

The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’ 








The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’

By SINDYA N. BHANOO 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html
JAN 26 2010
The New York Times
 
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: January 25, 2010 

 

That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big 
victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say 
there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming. 

 

It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual 
clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by 
greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in 
Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters. 

 

“The recovery of the hole will reverse that,” said Ken Carslaw, a professor of 
atmospheric science at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper. 
“Essentially, it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the Southern 
Hemisphere.”

 

The hole in the layer, discovered above Antarctica in the mid-1980s, caused 
wide alarm because ozone plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth from 
harmful ultraviolet radiation. 

 

The hole was largely attributed to the human use of chlorofluorocarbons, 
chemical compounds found in refrigerants and aerosol cans that dissipate ozone. 
Under an international protocol adopted in 1987, many countries phased out the 
compounds, helping the ozone to start reconstituting itself over the Antarctic.

 

For their research, the authors of the new study relied on meteorological data 
recorded between 1980 and 2000, including global wind speeds recorded by the 
European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. 

 

The data show that the hole in the ozone layer generated high-speed winds that 
caused sea salt to be swept up into the atmosphere to form moist clouds. The 
clouds reflect more of the sun’s powerful rays and help fend off warming in the 
Antarctic atmosphere, the scientists write.

The sea spray influx resulted in an increase in cloud droplet concentration of 
about 46 percent in some regions of the Southern Hemisphere, Dr. Carslaw said. 

 

But Judith Perlwitz, a University of Colorado professor and a research 
scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that 
although the paper’s data were sound, she questioned the conclusions. 

 

Even as the ozone layer recovers, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to 
expand, she said. She predicted that the rise in temperatures would cause wind 
speeds to increase over time and have the same cloud-forming effect that the 
ozone hole now has.

 

“The question is whether the wind is really going to slow down, and that I 
doubt,” she said. 

 

“The future is not just determined by the recovery of the ozone hole,” she 
said. “We’re also increasing our use of greenhouse gases, which increases the 
speed of the winds all year long.”

 

Dr. Perlwitz also pointed out that the ozone hole was not expected to fully 
recover to pre-1980 levels until at least 2060, according to the World 
Meteorological Organization’s most recent report on the issue. 

 
  
_
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS BY UK AIR FORCE CREATE CLOUDS ABOVE BRITAIN

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 

The British Army created a circular holding pattern to create an immense 
artificial coil in the sky made of the military aeroplane's contrail. This was 
then easy to distinguish and track by satellites to see undisputed, how 
aeroplane emissions can be made to turn clear skies to artificial cirrus 
covered clouds.

 

Link to the slide show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8309629.stm

 
  
_
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I recall this too. But then I read that hydroxyl OH- has a positive effect on 
the ozone. Is there any way to send a generators of hydroxyl, some sort of 
catalysator that would turn up that and help to create ozone which is said to 
be higher in the presence of OH- ions.
 
 From: gorm...@waitrose.com
 To: sam.car...@gmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
 Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:55:16 +
 
 A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on 
 the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2 
 based transport energy idea.
 
 Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if 
 it would have other positive effects.
 
 John Gorman
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com
 To: geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM
 Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
 
 
 Good point, Oliver,
 
 Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was
 estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further
 hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing
 additional radiative forcing.
 
 However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much
 shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation,
 which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore,
 additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected
 back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds
 and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial,
 especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane.
 
 Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the
 aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding
 hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather
 than water vapor.
 
 Much research and testing has already been done and further research
 can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with
 testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely
 only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated
 conditions during lab testing.
 
 As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes
 catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost
 and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should
 aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs,
 feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be
 researched as a geoengineering project.
 
 If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to
 start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do
 this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have
 eventuated.
 
 Cheers
 Sam Carana
 
 
 On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote:
  Dear Sam and Andrew,
 
  Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect 
  GHG.
 
  H2 is a significant OH sink globally.
 
  Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes
  place,
 
  CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O.
 
  Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half
  of the H2 in the atmosphere.
 
  A good summary can be found in
 
  http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf
 
  Sincerely,
 
  Oliver Wingenter
 
 
 
 
 
  Sam Carana wrote:
 
  Andrew,
 
  Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to
  increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O
  and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in
  more hydroxyls.
 
  I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be
  produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of
  UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order
  to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare
  for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to
  dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means
  of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of
  biomass.
 
  You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion.
  The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could
  at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce
  ozone.
 
  You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this
  avialable online, or are you still working on it?
 
  Cheers!
  Sam Carana
 
 
 
  On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley
  andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
  In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, 
  we
  need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry. Making ozone isn't
  terribly difficult. You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite
  happily. If you sling them under a balloon, then they should 

[geo] USA Agrees Emission Cuts of Only 3-4% by 2020

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

I just noticed that USA has just announced 3-4% emission cuts by 2020 which is 
a way too low to address any of the issues for the practical purposes.

 

3-4% cut refers to the baseline which is comparable to one used by the European 
Union where the baseline year is 1990. The USA has its baseline set 15 years 
later, this produces much more impressive looking emissions cut of 25%, but 
21-22% of which is pre-2005 rise.

 

Thus the issue of Geoengineering is hot and alive as the conniving US will 
probably wreck the Copenhagen efforts to rain in fossil fuel consumption 
elsewhere if the USA doesn't join.

 

Effectively, the USA is pleading a status quo, a temporary hold on its growing 
emissions, not a difficult task considering the present, recessionary cut on 
fossil fuel demand.

 

Not too much hope for sea ice and stopping the permafrost melting.

Business as usual, tailpipe emissions as usual. 3-4% cut probably is from 
carbon trading.

 

Kr, Albert
  
_
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.