Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right
or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1
--
You received this message because you are
Do you really believe you could simply go in and trigger a volcanic eruption?
Are you willing to take responsibility for unexpected consequences?
- Original Message -
From: draco6...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: and...@andrewlockley.com
Sent: Wednesday, January
Interesting. Unfortunately you ignore that fossil fuel based power won't sit
still and allow itself to be preempted by new non fossil fuel technology. If
necessary it can be a lo t cheaper especially if t here is competition. Given
that investments in facilities have already been made, t he
That you would have to ask the question suggests the group should adopt a
definition of geoengineering that applies to the group interest and activity.
If geoengineering applies only to CO2 concentration reduction then the grass
approach is not geoengineering. On the other hand many of the
Your point and suggestion is well taken. OK is a very loose term. Is suffering,
is famine, is war, is illness OK if one is at the bottom end? While we worry
about warming we might do better to worry about increasing overpopulation and
the bottom end. Is global warming going to take care of the
The goal is not weather modification or anything to do with weather but to
alter/control slightly the average, local, long term temperature i.e. local
climate modification not weather control. Hence your comments on controlling
weather offer no insight into a totally different issue. Limited
Simon; you ignore the possibility of very small experiments designed to grossly
limit possible negative effects. Moreover proposed very small experiments can
be reviewed by others to seek out possible negative consequences. I think
scientists are capable of doing that if they concentrate on the
I disagree strongly. Careful well thought out experimentation is allowed in
engineering. Experiments can be allowed to fail if the damage from failure is
well thought through, designed to be limited and lives are protected. How would
we have developed the atom bomb if failure was not allowed?
John:
When have you experienced international cooperation with a common goal? The
first step is that all have to believe survival is at stake and for sure that
conviction does not currently exist. For that we need a world dictator that
does not exist. When it is absolutely clear to all that
? Hence, a patent is unlikely to pay off
to the inventor. Better to publish and get the appreciation of ones colleagues
and self satisfaction.
-gene
- Original Message -
From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineeringit @ gmail .com
To: Gene Gordon euggordon @comcast.net
Cc: Chris Vivian
Mike you are right about the bubbles. As you certainly know hair turns white
because of bubbles appear in the hair as one ages. It still retains its
original pigmentation and but for the bubbles would retain its coloration.
Polar bear hair is not white but has bubbles so appears white. White
some minor issues:
If one uses a technique to achieve cooling and it is not patented in a
particular country how does one enforce it in that country? How does one claim
that country is using the patent if it claims no interest in the technique and
is an unwilling beneficiary.
Countries may
In contrast I have been involved in IEEE (while also maintaining a serious RD
job outside IEEE ) since ~1960 having run conferences, served on publication
committees, founded and served as an assistant editor on 2 publications, and
founded and run one IEEE society, served on the IEEE awards
Ron:
Good comments. You win some and you lose some.
However, you cannot sort out the winners and losers without trying. We had
solid state, semiconductor and gas lasers, UV, visible, IR and far IR. We made
high bandwidth optical communications happen as well as local loop. Many
military
Fred:
You give some good reasons not everyone would belong or want to belong but
right now no one belongs. Perhaps membership might not include everyone but it
would be a viable group and it would enhance the credibility of geoengineering.
Belonging to a particular group (possibly among
A:
If there is any money available use it to form a geoengineering society to
which members belong and pay dues, receive a publication with peer reviewed
papers on geoengineering technology and experiments, and can attend an annual
meeting; which society is managed and run for all the members
Imagine if we procrastinated about raising families. Perhaps some experience
with an early limited geoengineering fix would allow a much better, later one
when really needed. The side of the coin left unturned here relates to the
nature of the warming and the predictive reliability.
-
With all due respect Dr. Tuck, the earlier cosmic ray hypothesis was not a
Theory but a hypothesis and if comprehensively debunked who will voucher for
the validity of the debunking and on what basis? is not a recent hypothesis to
be reviewed and also debunked comprehensively or perhaps
Emily:
Good point.
It is also true that at 400 ppm the global temperature has not increased by
several degrees as it did way back (temperature units not given) yet 3-5
million years ago the same concentration presumably produced a much larger
temperature increase if the units are Celsius.
And some parts of the world; northern Canada, Alaska Northern Europe for
example, may prefer some warming and will prosper.
- Original Message -
From: Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
There are obviously different perspectives on this issue of the northern
regions preferring cold or allowed to get warmer as global warming proceeds;
different strokes for different folks and the animal species have no say. I
think Mike's absolute statement that the people of the north prefer
This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world prefer
warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather localized
control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since I doubt they
can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a
As long as I can re member people have experimented with weather modification.
It is very localized and has a very short timeline. This contrasts with
geoengineering which deals with climate over large areas and over long times.
Is the goal to expand the scope of geoengineering to weather as
John:
When you consider that Hurric an S andy caused at least $80 billion in damage
to NY, NJ and Conn plus the negative impact on people (as a victim I can attest
and my neighbor totally lost their uninsured home at the Jersey shore) it is
clear that the topic raised here is of extreme
It takes one to know one.
- Original Message -
From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:47:50 PM
Subject: [geo] At his AGU Tyndall Lecture: Raymond Pierrehumbert calls SRM
geoengineering ideas crazy, and barking
Should we end fish farming?
- Original Message -
From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:43:13 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics
Can We Stop Modern-Day Yellow
The problem with Lathan's comments is his insistence that warming of the earth
results only from CO2 emissions associated with use of fossil fuels ignori ng
the fact that the earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years and will
continue to warm long after all fossil fuel that is
We each have our favorite source.
Mine is
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Scotese has no skin in the game , he is just a simple, but highly respected
geologist plotti ng the cli mate record of the past 450 M years. The climate
has historically warmed to 25 C and remained there for
After I finished my PhD in 1957 I took a Postdoc to work on fusion energy;
Project Sherwood at MIT
I decided after a year it would not happen in my lifetime, clearly a good
prediction, and left to work at a practical place like Bell Labs. I chose to
work on lasers before there was a
Good technical discussion, the key negative point omitted is that it would not
be a local solution and would be good for somecountries or regions; not good
for others. Such a solution would be acceptable only if global warming gets
really bad and is unacceptable to all.
- Original Message
Thanks. This is an interesting opinion article which may be seen as an
argument for geoengineering solutions. There is plenty of evidenc e that a
generally warming planet going forward would be destructive for much of the
planet --- but not all of it.
However, n o one has demonstrated
For whatever it is worth!
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/22/youll-be-amazed-by-what-was-observed-inconvenient-arctic-observations-before-satellite-measurements/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
geoengineering group.
To post to this group,
Toby Svoboda
You don't get it. Ethicist are not prevented from commenti ng on geoengineering
options so long as they do not int erfere with the work being funded, underway
or contemplated. No one here is saying that. When it comes to implemen tation
no one is saying ethic ist should not
Nobody says it is hostle. Ethics just has no role in influencing research and
development of b asic principles of geoengineering. As soon as you say 'course
of action' and apply it to geoengineering you have lost the argument. What you
are talking about is implementation and geoengineers will
What an outrage! Should engineers apply philosop hical theory to determine what
they study? I n any case politicians and related will decide what is
implemented, not the engineers. Most politicians are unimpressed by ethics.
Tell the e thicists to stuff it; but in any case leave geoengineering
Pak:
Geoengineers develop options. If they move into implementation then they assume
a different role where ethics can play a part . However, ethics has nothing to
say about Geoengineering RD other than ' do no harm' .
-gene
- Original Message -
From: Pak-Hang Wong
The ethicist have nothing else to jump on. A nyway climate control is not an
ethical issue.
Geoengineering practice will not be decided by the whole worl d but by parts
with similar needs for climate control and it will be local climate control. It
won't ever be a matter of ethics
There will always be rogues. It is the nature of mankind. T o limit rogue
behavior mankind uses punishment. F or example robbers and murderers etc. are
put in prison. One needs s ome form of punishment for rogue scientists and
engineers; ostracize severely and ruin their careers if possible.
One of the problems with sulfate engineering is that it can't be easily
localized, if at all. On the other hand warming should be combatted locally if
it is to be accepted by all countries. S ome would use it, some would not or
use to variable extent. Why is this so hard for people to gras p?
While the rates and economics are issues to be discussed it seems reasonable to
do a very careful limited experiment in which the CO 2 concentration is reduced
by a small but measurable amount so that the temperature drop to whatever
extent there is one can be observed. That would help greatly
Does this mean that manufacturing soot and lofting controlled amounts into the
stratosphere would be a viable geoengineering technique? How long would the
soot persist ? Is it better or safer than lofting sulfates ? D o massive forest
fires produce enough soot for cooling? I s there data? D
(not a claim just an
observation).
-gene
- Original Message -
From: rongretlarson @comcast.net
To: euggordon @comcast.net, bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv .64@ gmail .com,
Geoengineering Geoengineering @ googlegroups .com
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:56:01 PM
Subject: Re
for the foreseeable future. The
funding should be used instead for defining, inventing, and testing
geoengineering solutions.
-gene
- Original Message -
From: Mike MacCracken mmaccrac @comcast.net
To: eSubscription @ montgomerycountymd .gov euggordon @comcast.net
Cc: Geoengineering
Bhaskar:
You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, p otential solutions
depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the
last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100
years. That gradual rise is not the current or
Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take exception
to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human driven' cause
ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven that global warming is
human driven and because it has been warming on average for
It was not too long ago that it seemed difficult if not impossible to get
funding and get geo off the ground. The CO2 crowd is not getting the attention
it wants. Maybe it is time to to try hard for geo funding rather than complain
about it.
- Original Message -
From: Veli Albert
46 matches
Mail list logo
