from:"Michael Hayes"

[geo] Re: MERGING 'climateIntervention' AND 'geoengineering' GOOGLE GROUPS BACK INTO geoengineering@googlegroups.com

2011-03-13 Thread Michael Hayes

Thanks Ken,

One observation tho, if the Intervention moderator is now the primary
moderator for Geo, doesn't that mean that Geo has become Intervention?
These type of online groups are as much a reflection of the moderators
strengths and limitations as they are a reflection of the overall
membership's strengths and limitations. With Andrew at the helm, I can
only say to the Geoengineering side, Welcome to Climate
Intervention. In either case, I do enjoy the educational aspects of
the work presented and I thank ALL of the moderators for their time
and effort. Any group which publicly discusses the moving of the Moon
to Earth/Sun L1 is, in my opinion, worth being a member of and worth
getting mail from.

Thanks and congratulations to Andrew for the promotion.


On Mar 13, 8:20 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Folks,

 The experiment to separate the geoengineering group into
 climateintervention and geoengineering seems to have failed in a morass
 of confusion and redundancy.

 The original idea was to have one group be more lax, and open to
 climate-related discussions and so on, retaining the other for more
 narrowly-focused academic announcements and discussion.

 The idea is now is to admit defeat and merge both groups back into the
 original geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

 The revamped geoengineering@googlegroups.com will relax its moderation
 criteria to be open to geoengineering-related discussion that is not
 narrowly focused on geoengineering. However, moderation may be slightly
 tighter than with the existing climateintervention group.

 Therefore:

 1. If you are
    (a) a member of climateintervent...@googlegroups.com and
    (b) you are not a member of geoengineering@googlegroups.com and
    (c) would like to continue receiving relevant email,
          please sign up to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. You can do
 this by sending an email to geoengineering+subscr...@googlegroups.com.

 2. Andrew Lockley will do the heavy lifting of day-to-day moderation, with
 Mike MacCracken and me filling in when Andrew is busy, on vacation, etc.

 3. ClimateIntervention will continue running in parallel for a month or
 so, but people who post to this group will be reminded to switch over to 
 geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

 We hope this better meets the need of this community.

 Best,

 Ken
 (following discussion with Andrew Lockley and Mike MacCracken)

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://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.

Re: [geo] warming drastically underestimated

2011-04-03 Thread Michael Hayes

 by the end of this century.

 That compares with current levels of about 390 parts per million, and
 pre-industrial levels of about 280 parts per million.

 Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in Earth's
 atmosphere, it is critical for regulating Earth's climate.

 Without carbon dioxide, the planet would freeze over.

 But as atmospheric levels of the gas rise, which has happened at times in
 the geologic past, global temperatures increase dramatically and additional
 greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and methane, enter the atmosphere
 through processes related to evaporation and thawing.

 This leads to further heating.

 Kiehl drew on recently published research that, by analyzing molecular
 structures in fossilized organic materials, showed that carbon dioxide
 levels likely reached 900 to 1,000 parts per million about 35 million years
 ago.

 At that time, temperatures worldwide were substantially warmer than at
 present, especially in polar regions--even though the Sun's energy output
 was slightly weaker.

 The high levels of carbon dioxide in the ancient atmosphere kept the
 tropics at about 9-18 F (5-10 C) above present-day temperatures.

 The polar regions were some 27-36 F (15-20 C) above present-day
 temperatures.

 Kiehl applied mathematical formulas to calculate that Earth's average
 annual temperature 30 to 40 million years ago was about 88 F (31
 C)--substantially higher than the pre-industrial average temperature of
 about 59 F (15 C).

 The study also found that carbon dioxide may have two times or more an
 effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models of
 global climate.

 The world's leading computer models generally project that a doubling of
 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have a heating impact in the range of
 0.5 to 1.0 degrees Celsius watts per square meter. (The unit is a measure of
 the sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in greenhouse gases.)

 However, the published data show that the comparable impact of carbon
 dioxide 35 million years ago amounted to about 2 C watts per square meter.

 Computer models successfully capture the short-term effects of increasing
 carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 But the record from Earth's geologic past also encompasses longer-term
 effects, which accounts for the discrepancy in findings.

 The eventual melting of ice sheets, for example, leads to additional
 heating because exposed dark surfaces of land or water absorb more heat than
 ice sheets.

 This analysis shows that on longer time scales, our planet may be much
 more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we thought, Kiehl says.

 Climate scientists are currently adding more sophisticated depictions of
 ice sheets and other factors to computer models.

 As these improvements come on-line, Kiehl believes that the computer models
 and the paleoclimate record will be in closer agreement, showing that the
 impacts of carbon dioxide on climate over time will likely be far more
 substantial than recent research has indicated.

 Because carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere at a rate that
 has never been experienced, Kiehl could not estimate how long it would take
 for the planet to fully heat up.

 However, a rapid warm-up would make it especially difficult for societies
 and ecosystems to adapt, he says.

 If emissions continue on their current trajectory, the human species and
 global ecosystems will be placed in a climate state never before experienced
 in human history, the paper states.

 -NSF-

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] Another look at gunnery?

2011-04-05 Thread Michael Hayes

 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.comwrote:

 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 version, check
 http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/icders/cd-rom/EXTABS/178_20TH.PDF

 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.




 --
 *Michael Hayes*
 *360-708-4976*
 http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site



 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360

[geo] Will Geoengineering be a Considered (Planed) Undertaking, Or an Act of Desperation?

2011-04-13 Thread Michael Hayes

All indications point to an ecological collapse in the not to distant
future. We now have the means and technology to do remarkable things.
If an abrupt global ecological collapse happens, we will not have that
advantage. It will be too late.

Many competent scientists and engineers have come up with pieces to
the puzzle. Yes, there are reputations and large wealth at stake. But,
the puzzle is not complete to absolutely everyone's satisfaction. Do
we need a complete knowledge of the most complex system known to
humankind to start gearing up? As a layman, I hope that some group
will risk an effort to show (even on a small scale) that, yes, we have
some control.

I think I speak for the informed Layperson.

Please let me know why this thought train is wrong.

-- 
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: New SRM risk/cost analysis

2011-04-19 Thread Michael Hayes

 is the first to quantitatively
 examine issues of intergenerational justice raised by aerosol geoengineering
 for the case that aerosol geoengineering can be intermittent and the aerosol
 forcing can cause harm. Our analysis shows, for example, that substituting
 aerosol geoengineering for CO2 emissions abatement is a risk transfer from
 current to future generations (Figures 4 to 7). In addition, the impacts of
 the abrupt warming due to a discontinuation of the aerosol forcing would
 place a heavy burden on human communities and ecosystem integrity (Alley et
 al., 2002) and thus threaten the conditions required to satisfy basic
 welfare rights of future generations. Substituting aerosol geoengineering
 for CO2 emissions abatement decreases the required abatement costs in the
 near term but imposes sizeable risks for more distant generations (Figure 4
 a, b). Since Rawlsian intergenerational distributive justice requires that
 current generations avoid policies that create benefits for themselves but
 impose costs on future generations, substituting aerosol geoengineering for
 CO2 abatement fails on the grounds of this particular approach to ethics.
 
  It would appear that what science advisor John Holdren reasserted in 2009
 remains true today, “The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far
 appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage,
 and a high likelihood of serious side effects.“
 
  Mitigate, mitigate, mitigate — or punish countless future generations.
 
  Related Post:
 
  Key ‘geoengineering’ strategy — cloud whitening — may yield warming, not
 cooling
  Science on the Risks of Climate Engineering: “Optimism about a
 geoengineered ‘easy way out’ should be tempered by examination of currently
 observed climate changes”
  Share Print
  This entry was posted by Joe on Sunday, April 17th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
  and is filed under Geoengineering. You can follow any responses to this
 entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a
 response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] Testing brightwater

2011-04-20 Thread Michael Hayes

Andrew, Bright Water is not a new concept. It was proposed as a means to
reduce hull drag some time ago. Funding is the issue
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi

 It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and
 indeed would greatly benefit from this work.  Water bodies are very variable
 by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc.

 Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by
 people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in
 California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland.

 I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 gallon
 bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle and a
 ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness).  A colour-
 comparison chart may also be useful.  Sure, these would be very basic
 results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that
 water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines.
  I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average
 home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50
 dollars.

 I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high
 standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on
 this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond.
  Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and
 colleges?

 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] Lackner/Bedini hybrid system for accelerated CCS

2011-04-25 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi All,

I am proposing to significantly increase atmospheric CCS rates through the
use of the Lackner type polymer-based ion exchange resin CCS system with the
energy efficient ambient air flow induction potential of a Bedini Motor.

The Bedini Motor US Patent is here
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=Ddate=20060919DB=locale=CC=USNR=7109671B2KC=B2

This is *Not* an over unity device! Here is a mathematical consideration
showing 1.0
efficiencies.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qYUcrZ-2ZUfeature=related.

Here is an animated schematic of the motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd2172V0w_Qfeature=related

Here is a short and simple table top demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_f4cXKjybIfeature=related

Here is a table top kit for experimenters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2KtZ45nXAfeature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2KtZ45nXAfeature=related

The Bedini Motor is capable of providing low torque and high RPMs with a
high energy efficiency. I see a potential within the CCS field to develop
high volume atmospheric CO2 removal using this hybrid concept. The Lackner
ion exchange resin can be integrated into the Bedini Motor's rotating disk
(or spokes) or a Bedini fan can be fitted to an artificial tree to
pump ambient air past the Lackner collector. Thus, the volume of ambient air
coming into contact with the resin can be significantly increased over that
of a static (wind) based system.

This is a broad brush explanation of what I see as
being technically possible. The Bedini Motor has some controversy. *I ask
that those concerns not be considered relative to this proposal*. It does,
however, maintain RPMs with minimal energy input and *that* is the aspect I
am pointing out in this post. *I am not a OU fan! *

The concept of pumping huge masses of ambient air past a passive Lackner
type collector has been rejected as the energy to drive such an operation
would simply be a CO2 net gain. The Bedini Motor does seems like a
reasonable means to address that issue. Dr. Lackner's proposal of passive
elevated collection structures is elegant in it's simplicity. Yet, the
capital investment required for meaningful CCS through passive wind systems
does appear to be a limiting factor in the deployment of artificial trees.
This hybrid concept may be able to reduce, by a large factor, the number and
or size of Lackner instillations and thus reduce capital outlay.

Possible engineering variants of this hybrid concept could include super
conductive magnets within the motor, as well as, sc magnetic bearings. Solar
power input would also seem like a reasonable upgrade. A coal
fired electrical plant may be able to use a modified variant of this hybrid
concept on site as this type of system could potentially be trained together
to provide the needed energy efficient high through put CCS processing at
such a site.

I do realize that for me to introduce such a fringe concept into this
forum could be risking my ability to make further posts. I do believe,
however, that being able to propose new combinations of known work is
important. I bring the Bedini Motor to this forum not as a means to solve
the world's energy problems! It may or may not be the worlds best battery
charger! It is, however, a highly efficient means for moving high volumes of
ambient air if the needed engineering effort is invested. The numbers on how
many hybrid systems needed to produce significant CCS will be difficult to
estimate until the actual engineering parameters are established. Neither
Lackner nor Bedini have probably considered this hybrid concept as the 2
fields are so different. This may be the only public forum on the planet
that has the depth of knowledge to judge whether or not this is a useful
combination of ideas.

I personally would like to see a home owner's scale Lackner/ Bedini CCS
system which incorporates solar panels developed. This would potentially
give a home owner an ability to be a part of CCS and renewable energy
production though one system. Much larger industrial level systems could
obviously be built. Starting at the home owner level, however, may provide
the fastest return on the investment. I, as a home owner, would greatly
appreciate the ability to collect solar energy and potentially earn some
income from possible carbon capture credits. I believe a ball park figure
for prototyping a home owner scale product would be $75k
(excluding technology licencing fees) and probably could be demonstrated
within 9 months.

Ideally, in the long run, I would like to see a Lackner/Bedini hybrid system
coupled to a Sabatier Reactor. Here is an interesting related SBIR proposal
summary concerning work on Novel Catalytic Reactor for CO2 Reduction via
Sabatier Process
http://www.sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/09/sbir/phase/SBIR-09-2-X2.01-8688.html
This type of small reactor (coupled to the hybrid CCS concept) would allow a

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-26 Thread Michael Hayes

Please help me understand the mechanics of Bright Water deployment. I have 
spent many months living on the Bering Sea (in winter) and have piloted 
150ft fishing vessels in that area for countless hours. I have watched the 
sea continually produce white caps for as far as I could see for days and 
weeks at a time. How can a practical, cost effective and meaningful use of 
bright water be deployed which comes even close to .0001 percent of the 
natural production of white caps? The energy and equipment needed to cover 
any meaningful amount of the sea is difficult for me to comprehend. 
Outfitting fishing fleets with the needed equipment and paying the boat 
owners to run the gear is possible. But, we are only talking about a bright 
water wake which lasts for only a short distance...at best.

Designing autonomous platforms specifically for the mission may be possible, 
but, one storm could beach every single platform within a few hours. Who and 
how will they be collected and sent back out? This, from a seaman's point of 
view, is difficult to see as being practical. I have studied the concept 
though what has been offered here and through other links. The 
mechanical challenge of producing such small bubbles is interesting and I 
have even spent time thinking through the possible use high throughput 
ultrasonic injectors. But, I still come back to the questions of; 1) how can 
bright water be practically deployed? 2) How can the investment be justified 
when the wide area effect is so tenuous? 3) Would not reflective large 
surface rafts provide a more cost effective long term overall result?

There is the option of a reflective form of the Dracone Barge as a useful 
way to deploy large area ocean surface SRM. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracone_barge.

If such barges were deployed in large numbers a large area rafting system 
could be secured in needed areas and moved as the season changes. With small 
desalinization pods attached, we could have not just have low cost/long 
term/flexible ocean surface SRM but a nice supply of needed fresh water. 
Sell the fresh water and buy more bags

I ask your help in understanding how bright water can be a competitive form 
of SRM.

-- 
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] Plan C?

2011-04-26 Thread Michael Hayes

 history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans
 have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right
 and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to
 humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous
 wildfires;
 NOW,THEREFORE, I,RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested
 in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby
 proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April
 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of
 all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of
 our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our
 normal way of life.
 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and have officially
 caused the Seal of State to be affixed at my Office in the City of Austin,
 Texas, this the 21st day of April, 2011.
 RICK PERRY
 Governor of Texas

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-27 Thread Michael Hayes

Thank you both for the insight.

Yes, I do now recall the dual boat tether concept and I have some working
back ground in towing a long array of gear. From a pilot's point of view, I
can see an advantage of the dual boat/tether over the towed array. In that,
turning would be easier as well as being able to lay out a broader path
than a towed array.

The need for a sail boat to tack back and forth into the wind does
seem challenging with a tether between the 2 boats. But, I can see how a
spring line rigging could adjust for any lag between boats in that type
of maneuver. The symmetrical hull concept is interesting in that I have
never considered a sail boat being able to immediately reverse direction.

I personally would like to play with the idea of modifying the bright water
injectors along the tether to act as a bow truster type of directional
control for the tether. That may help in overall control of the
configuration.

The recommended bubble diameter is .002mm. I can only see ultrasound
providing that type size for a high throughput operation. I believe a table
top experiment can possibly be done using the parts from an off the self
ultrasonic humidifier and deep well pump. Measuring such small bubbles is
something I have not studied yet.

I did read in the paper Dr. Caldeira offered of observations of long lived
bubbles through possible contamination of a natural surfactant film. Yet, I
don't think the nature of the surfactant was mentioned. I refer to the first
page 2nd section
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=forumssrcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMDA1OTY0NDQ3MDgzNzU0NTIwODkBQkFOTGtUaWtZQ0pLSmJ2UzFRdFAzbmFrTHZkUTl3ay1kd0FAbWFpbC5nbWFpbC5jb20BNAEpli=1

Well, again, thank you both for the feed back. I will spend more time
thinking about this.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:

Stephen,

This technology is already used for towing hydrophone streamers in geophys,
but it doesn't work quite like you suggest. There's no need for two boats,
and instead there's a paid of towed hydrofoils behind one boat, with the
support line tensioned between them. The low mass of the hydrofoils means
that there's no real shock on the cable in rough seas. The bubble
generators would be strung out on streamers behind this towed line.

The bubbles would be distributed by a number of 'birds' which are depth-set
from the control room - just like the hydrophones are currently.

To get good saturation with bubbles, I suggest that they'd need to be
delivered at a variety of depths - but whether that's worth doing depends of
course on the lifetime. No use dropping them ten metres down if they don't
last long enough to mix or rise.

On 27 April 2011 13:05, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

Hi All

Michael Hayes asks about how bubbles could be deployed.

One possibility would be for a pair of wind-driven vessels to sail side by
side at, say, a kilometre separation, attached to each other by a buoyant,
streamlined tether.

The chord of the tether would be about 100 mm. In plan it would form a
catenary with a generous bulge to reduce the tensile load. The nose of
tether would contain a strong Kevlar or carbon tension member. Behind this
would be a number of high-pressure air-lines taking very well filtered air
from each vessel to a porous strip near the nose of the foil section and
running the full length. The drag of the tether would be reduced by the
bubble layer on the underside.

The tether would have to be elastic enough to follow the curvature of the
wave slope. In most sea states this is surprisingly low but elasticity can
be increased by running the tensile member in a series of S shapes.

The vessels need power but could generate this in the same way as
suggested for the cloud albedo project. Indeed it would not be difficult to
design a dual purpose vessel which would change mode according to cloud
conditions. It would be convenient if the vessels were symmetrical fore and
aft so that they could tack by going into reverse.

The design does need information on bubble life and the best bubble
diameter and I would be most grateful for any advice on this matter.

Michael mentions the Dracone project. I worked on this in a very junior
capacity in 1960 but a kilometre wide bubble wake would be cheaper if the
bubbles can last long enough and less of a risk than a Dracone that got
loose.

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 26/04/2011 23:21, Michael Hayes wrote:

Please help me understand the mechanics of Bright Water deployment. I
have spent many months living on the Bering Sea (in winter) and have piloted
150ft fishing vessels in that area for countless hours. I have watched the
sea continually produce white

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-27 Thread Michael Hayes

I have played with the idea of designing a prop which incorporates
ultrasonic cavities to produce bright water. But, the modeling is beyond my
capabilities. If it can be shown to the boat owners that such a prop would
generate more thrust by breaking up the cohesion of the water just forward
of the blade (as a ultrasonic cavity should), the owners would have
an economic encouragement to retrofit.

Again, I have no way to go forward with the idea.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netwrote:

Another approach to the bubble generation effort, and one Russell has
suggested, is to take advantage of existing ships (of order 1000 to 10,000
commercial ships at sea on a given day) and to put bubble generators on
them—perhaps doing so in a way that reduces their hull friction to make up
for power of bubble generation. Indeed, lifetime matters, but that depends a
good bit on bubble size, and extrapolating from big bubbles in a present
ship’s wake must be done cautiously.

Using commercial ships is also an approach that could be used for CCN
generation as well, again depending on lifetime, etc. Indeed, there are
areas where no ships go very often, but commercial ships would seem a fine
starting approach.

Mike

On 4/27/11 10:14 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you both for the insight.

Well, again, thank you both for the feed back. I will spend more time
thinking about this.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com
wrote:

Stephen,

The bubbles would be distributed by a number of 'birds' which are depth-set
from the control room - just like the hydrophones are currently.

On 27 April 2011 13:05, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

Hi All

Michael Hayes asks about how bubbles could be deployed.

One possibility would be for a pair of wind-driven vessels to sail side by
side at, say, a kilometre separation, attached to each other by a buoyant,
streamlined tether.

The tether would have to be elastic enough to follow the curvature of the
wave slope. In most sea states

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-27 Thread Michael Hayes

Here is a short overview article which points to a possible use for bright
water if a long lasting variant can be developed.

Agulhas leakage fueled by global warming could stabilize Atlantic
overturning circulation: study
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-agulhas-leakage-fueled-global-stabilize.html

Long lasting bright water may help track this change in currents. Stationing
a few Salter tethers equipped with bright water injection in this area could
provided interesting satellite images. It may be an overkill as current
sensors are available. However, the sensors may be (at this time) to limited
for wide area mapping. Having long lasting bright water trails could provide
a higher detailed visualization.

Also, I have read a media report concerning large releases of methane
(hydrate form) which have been reported along in the western African coast
where some of the Agulhas eddies seem to migrate. The reports of unusual low
atmospheric pressure was associated with the releases, but, a warm eddies
moving into that area would also set up a release.

I think it is reasonable to believe that if Global Warming is to increase
and this Agulhas leakage is to increase. The methane hydrate release on the
west coast of Africa could be expected to be as significant as a arctic
release.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-agulhas-leakage-fueled-global-stabilize.html

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

Again, I have no way to go forward with the idea.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netwrote:

Mike

On 4/27/11 10:14 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you both for the insight.

I personally would like to play with the idea of modifying the bright
water injectors along the tether to act as a bow truster type of
directional control for the tether. That may help in overall control of the
configuration.

Well, again, thank you both for the feed back. I will spend more time
thinking about this.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com
wrote:

Stephen,

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-27 Thread Michael Hayes

I ask for your patients!

-- 
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: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

2011-04-27 Thread Michael Hayes

Sorry, the message did not send right. Let me try it again.

Here is a patent concerning a possible means for producing Stable (long
life) Bright Water.

http://www.patents.com/us-5531980.html

http://www.patents.com/us-5531980.htmlHere are key passages;

'The tensides or surfactants which are convenient in this invention can be
selected from all amphipatic compounds capable of forming stable films in
the presence of water and gases. The preferred surfactants which can be
laminarized include the lecithins (phosphatidyl-choline) and other
phospholipids, inter alia phosphatidic acid (PA), phosphatidyl-inositol
phosphatidyl-ethanolamine (PE), phosphatidyl-serine (PS),
phosphatidyl-glycerol (PG), cardiolipin (CL), sphingomyelins, the
plasmogens, the cerebrosides, etc. *Examples of suitable lipids are the
phospholipids in general, for example, natural lecithins, such as egg
lecithin or soya bean lecithin.*

Sonification with high pressure (and release) seems to be the preferred
method of production.

I have just started reading the IP in this area and will build a list of
links if anyone is interested.

Thanks,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here is a short overview article which points to a possible use for bright
 water if a long lasting variant can be developed.

 Agulhas leakage fueled by global warming could stabilize Atlantic
 overturning circulation: study

 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-agulhas-leakage-fueled-global-stabilize.html

 Long lasting bright water may help track this change in currents.
 Stationing a few Salter tethers equipped with bright water injection in this
 area could provided interesting satellite images. It may be an overkill as
 current sensors are available. However, the sensors may be (at this time) to
 limited for wide area mapping. Having long lasting bright water trails could
 provide a higher detailed visualization.

 Also, I have read a media report concerning large releases of methane
 (hydrate form) which have been reported along in the western African coast
 where some of the Agulhas eddies seem to migrate. The reports of unusual low
 atmospheric pressure was associated with the releases, but, a warm eddies
 moving into that area would also set up a release.

 I think it is reasonable to believe that if Global Warming is to increase
 and this Agulhas leakage is to increase. The methane hydrate release on the
 west coast of Africa could be expected to be as significant as a arctic
 release.
 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-agulhas-leakage-fueled-global-stabilize.html


 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have played with the idea of designing a prop which incorporates
 ultrasonic cavities to produce bright water. But, the modeling is beyond my
 capabilities. If it can be shown to the boat owners that such a prop would
 generate more thrust by breaking up the cohesion of the water just forward
 of the blade (as a ultrasonic cavity should), the owners would have
 an economic encouragement to retrofit.

 Again, I have no way to go forward with the idea.



 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netwrote:

  Another approach to the bubble generation effort, and one Russell has
 suggested, is to take advantage of existing ships (of order 1000 to 10,000
 commercial ships at sea on a given day) and to put bubble generators on
 them—perhaps doing so in a way that reduces their hull friction to make up
 for power of bubble generation. Indeed, lifetime matters, but that depends a
 good bit on bubble size, and extrapolating from big bubbles in a present
 ship’s wake must be done cautiously.

 Using commercial ships is also an approach that could be used for CCN
 generation as well, again depending on lifetime, etc. Indeed, there are
 areas where no ships go very often, but commercial ships would seem a fine
 starting approach.

 Mike



 On 4/27/11 10:14 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thank you both for the insight.

 Yes, I do now recall the dual boat tether concept and I have some working
 back ground in towing a long array of gear. From a pilot's point of view, I
 can see an advantage of the dual boat/tether over the towed array. In that,
 turning would be easier as well as being able to lay out a broader path
 than a towed array.

 The need for a sail boat to tack back and forth into the wind does
 seem challenging with a tether between the 2 boats. But, I can see how a
 spring line rigging could adjust for any lag between boats in that type
 of maneuver. The symmetrical hull concept is interesting in that I have
 never considered a sail boat being able to immediately reverse direction.

 I personally would like to play with the idea of modifying the bright
 water injectors along the tether to act as a bow truster type of
 directional control for the tether. That may help in overall control of the
 configuration.

 The recommended bubble

[geo] Re: Fwd: Re: Testing brightwater

2011-05-05 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi All,

The Home Brew experiment setup seems like a good idea for
education/experimentation. I would like to offer a few layperson
suggestions.

For the diffuser, what about using a water filtration element that filters
water down to the micron level? This may produce micron sized air bubbles if
you pump air, as opposed to, water through it. Here is a 0.5 micron filter
cartridge costing $25
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=micron+water+filter+cartridgeshl=encid=4793115905088379626#p

Attaching the bare cartridge to a air hose is something the local hardware
store would help with. You can buy threaded metal tubing and use that as a
rod to bolt plates to the top and bottom and simply drill a few holes into
the threaded pipe section which is within the filter area. An end cap would
be needed. The air hose can be fitted to the pipe with a nipple screw on
adapter. The normal water pressure limit for this type of cartridge is 45
PSI which seems reasonable for hydrosol production.

I would like to propose the use of a biodegradable surfactant in a
controlled variant of the experiment. Soy oil is used in some medical
related microbubble production techniques. A few drops being delivered into
the air stream should prove interesting. This also brings up the potential
contamination of air compressor oil. Most larger air compressors will put
out a trace amount of oil in the air and that would be an uncontrolled
surfactant. Controlling for that would seem important. The use of a hand
pump would go around this, but, would you get the needed continuous pressure?
Fluctuations in air pressure may produce different bubble sizes(?). This
type of diffuser could be linked together to provide a long line of hydrosol
dispersion.

There are low cost light meters used in photography which would help provide
a reliable light (opacity) reading for the experiment. A large fish aquarium
would allow for the use of such a meter. Having a meter on one side and a
light bulb on the other side of the tank seems like a good set up. This is
more of a hunch than advice.

Also, working with a local marine aquarium for the temporary use of their
larger display tanks may be another educational/experimental option. The
marine biology community will obviously be taking a high level of interest
in hydrosol deployment. Gaining their cooperation at this stage would be
important and possibly helpful in choosing an expectable list of
surfactants.

In a slightly off topic subject; If hydrosol deployment can be coupled to
the issue of ocean acidification, the combination of the 2 may find broader
support. Finding a way to deliver an PH treatment while deploying the
hydrosol would seem technologically simple. Injecting small measured amounts
of Ammonia (?) gas into the hydrosol air injection system could adjust PH
levels
in the surrounding waters. This, obviously, has many questions concerning
marine life health and hydrosol stability. I only offer it as a possible
variant to the proposed table top experimentation. The production of
hydrosol would use the exact type of operation needed to introduce a gaseous
PH treatment for wide ocean areas.
The issue of bubble adhesion (growth) may possibly be addressed through
manipulation of the surfactant's lamination ion load along with that of the
internal air. One would be ionic, the other anionic. This may set up
a tenergistic bubble structure. Here are 2 clips giving a visual of what I
have in mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOoCHQIyF0sfeature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6I3utbJ1M8

Thus, ion manipulation of the two bubble components may produce a
more resilient bubble by strengthening the surfactant lamination cohesion
(compression) through static electrical adhesion to the internal air. This
is pure speculation and may violate numerous known laws of biology/chemistry
and general physics...
Sonification of the surfactant in the presence of a high voltage current may
be a possible experimental path. As surfactants are typically long chained,
sonification in a high electrically stressed environment may produce an
interesting experiment (or simply a beaker full of gooo). Sonification is
used, however, in medical micro bubble preparations as a fluid/surfactant
mixing means. The introduction of electrical stress into the process is
something that I can not find background information on at this time. If ion
manipulation proves out to be practical at the table top level, rigging up
an experimental high throughput diffuser should be relatively straight
forward.
Multiple surfactant laminations are possible, but, that leads into greater
complications of production, cost and possible second order
chemical/biological effects within the real world.
These suggestions do go well beyond the simplicity and lower cost of the
bucket/penny experiment. I have no expertise in any of the chemical issues
and thus may be completely

Re: [geo] Mission impossible - stop the methane

2011-05-06 Thread Michael Hayes

Thanks John,

Yes, I do now recall the study review on that website. I came across it 
shortly after publication. I have not read the full text of the study as my 
budget for science journal subscriptions is maxed out. If you know of anyone 
with a file copy, I would like to read the full text of the study.

Based only upon the Summary of the study, it is clearly a geological area 
which needs close monitoring. I was hoping to find references to the hydrate 
formations in that ocean region. Low atmospheric pressure has been indicated 
in methane hydrate release in other areas. I have worked for a few years in 
the Bering just east of the ESAS and know how that area is constantly 
exposed to low pressure systems. My interest in reading the study was to 
find any references to any studies linking atmospheric conditions with 
methane release rates in the ESAS. The severe conditions in that area (and 
particularly during low pressure events) would make longterm monitoring 
 tough, dangerous and an expensive campaign. 

I was hoping to build a knowledge base to allow me to put forth a proposal 
to use commercial fishing vessels working those waters to take methane 
samples during sever weather events. Both American and Russian commercial 
fishing fleets operate in the general area much of the year. NOAA does send 
out marine fishery observers on American fishing vessels and that is a cadre 
which could be easily trained to do the sampling work. Long Liner fishing 
gear is perfect for taking samples from the sea floor to 50 ft above the 
surface (during severe weather conditions).  

After my initial interest and thinking through the potential for better 
sampling, I started to become aware of the space based assets now in place. 
Here is visual mapping of atmospheric methane as of 2/2010; 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airs_methane_2006_2009_359hpa.png

Over this past year, I have periodically tried to educate myself on the 
current information through the parent website for that map. 
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_e.html  

That program is a resource within this broader effort; 
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/acdisc
 
In short, I have some reason to believe that methane release in ESAS is 
under reportedProbably buy a significant factor due to limited sampling. 
Space based assets are hobbled by heavy cloud cover. There is reason to 
believe that the low pressures associated with heavy cloud cover are 
probably producing spikes of methane (hydrate) release. The ESAS is a 
shallow area and thus would be more suseptible to atmospheric pressure 
related releases than those of deeper hydrate formation areas. Direct 
surface and sub surface sampling would seem like the only way to verify 
weather related releases in the ESAS or other similar areas.

With all this said, how do we start to manage the situation? 
Geoengineering is just now getting minor formal recognition. The US spent 
less than $2m on direct GE reseach last year. Consepts for localized 
application of SRM are being developed simply at the Hobby level from a 
funding perspective. As a layperson who has spent time reviewing the extent 
of the current and possible near term enviromental conditions, I am alarmed 
at what I see. But, again, what Can we do?

Thanks for your reply, John.  

-- 
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

2011-05-09 Thread Michael Hayes

On the issue of using Lair as a vent sealant, I may be wrong, but, I do
believe the ice formed would most likely float away. And, a vent would be
most likely more of a diffused field of bubble streams as opposed to a
central vent. Also, capping such a vent with even cement will be
eventually compromised by the build up of pressure. Finding even a small
fraction of the expected release areas would be difficult. Overhead imaging
may help in that chore, yet, I personally do not know how a methane release
point can be remotely detected.

As far as Oxides of nitrogen/hydroxyl radicals. Yes, NOX is reactive with
many GHG. It is also known to produce significant health risks at long
distances and acid rain. Here is a short health effects list from Wiki;

Health effects

NO*x* reacts with ammonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia, moisture,
and other compounds to form nitric
acidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_acid vapor
and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive
lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases.
Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such
as emphysema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphysema,
bronchitishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchitis it
may also aggravate existing heart
disease.[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-6

NO*x* reacts with volatile organic
compoundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compounds in
the presence sunlight to form Ozone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone.
Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction
in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly,
asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health
impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association
estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in
counties that are not in ozone
compliance.[8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-7

NO*x* destroys ozone in the
stratospherehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NOAA_N2O-8 Ozone in the
stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet
lighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_light,
which is potentially damaging to life on
earth.[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NASA-9
NO*x* from combustion sources does not reach the stratosphere; instead, NO*
x* is formed in the stratosphere from
photolysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolysis
of nitrous oxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NOAA_N2O-8

NO*x* also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to
form a wide variety of toxic products:
nitroareneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitroarenesaction=editredlink=1
, nitrosamines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrosamines and also the nitrate
radicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitrate_radicalaction=editredlink=1
some
of which may cause biologicalmutationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations.
Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that
predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when
NOx comes into contact with salt mist.
[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453175/

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

Production of NOx does require high temperatures or strong UV exposure. Open
air release of LN2 would not entail heat, but, the Arctic Ozone Hole does
migrate over the ESAS and thus, the volume of released LN2 would potentially
be exposed to a strong enough UV energy to produce significant amounts of
NOx. I could be wrong on this.

Finding a way to use NOx to neutralize GHGs without open air release would
seem optimal.

Efficient high volume air movement through the system would be a key factor
(as it is in all air capture concepts). High volume air contact systems
stationed in remote areas is even more challenging.

I have a few thoughts on how to approach the technical side of the issue
which are not far removed from what I have already brought to this forum in
past posts. A much larger version of this tethered system could provide a
base structure for a GHG Scrubber.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14529376@N00/2730542642/ A Salter Tether Ship
wold be a good base for this approach.

Hearing concepts on remote area high volume air contact means/methods from
others would be helpful.

Albert, I found this article on N2O which was a real eye opener for me.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090827_ozone.html

Using liquid air to seal methane vents may well work. Using it for general
cooling of the sea or land surface will not.
Oxides of nitrogen are critical in the formation of hydroxyl radicals. They
therefore play a key role in the breakdown of methane. Although greenhouse
gases in their own right, it's vital to accurately judge the effect of
manipulations. An

Re: [geo] Re: Arctic methane

2011-05-09 Thread Michael Hayes

Unfortunately, my personal belief is that we have already failed (time wise)
and that the policy makers will not recognize the need for large scale
efforts in time to avoid the first tipping point from developing.

Look at the arctic data for April. There is an unusually high temperature
formation in Siberia which will soon cause warmer water both off shore and
that of the river water input, as well as, increased methane out gassing
rates. The Ozone hole anomaly will deepen do to the acceleration of the
upward arctic cell circulation from such high temperatures. This cell
circulation acceleration means higher rates of ozone depleting gases being
transport into the stratosphere. This, in turn, can cause a larger and more
prolonged plankton kill off than usual, which will in of itself, can produce
added methane release from the plankton biomass decay. This could be a
perfect storm like combination.

The ice is holding later than usual and that is good to see. Yet, the extra
methane/moisture being produced by the high continental temperatures could
swiftly create significant atmospheric hot spots over the ice. Greenland is
enjoying lower than normal temperatures. Yet, the arctic cell is being
loaded with allot of moisture right now and that can predictably cause
higher overall arctic temperatures these next few months.

The CBD evaluation of GE coming up in June, if positive,  it could get some
governance momentum moving. Or, if it develops a negative evaluation, could
simply close the door to any broad based cooperation. If the latter happens,
unilateral efforts should be seriously considered. Humanity needs a
workable emergency response means to sudden climate change. Development of
Direct Injection SRM should not be held up..

.





On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 You should be able to detect methane release using gas samplers on buoys or
 the sea bed. Hydrophones may also detect bubbles. Autonomous ships could
 also be used, or data could be collected from any existing marine traffic.
 Aerial imaging could detect larger releases.

 Putting liquid air into the sea is a non starter. Injecting it into the sea
 bed might help, but it would be energy intensive. Venting would be a
 problem, so a closed system using cooling pipes may work better. It's only
 going to be practical with a small leak in a large reservoir.

 In my personal opinion, this issue is make or break for our society.

 A
 On 9 May 2011 10:52, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
  On the issue of using Lair as a vent sealant, I may be wrong, but, I do
  believe the ice formed would most likely float away. And, a vent would be

  most likely more of a diffused field of bubble streams as opposed to a
  central vent. Also, capping such a vent with even cement will be
  eventually compromised by the build up of pressure. Finding even a small
  fraction of the expected release areas would be difficult. Overhead
 imaging
  may help in that chore, yet, I personally do not know how a methane
 release
  point can be remotely detected.
 
  As far as Oxides of nitrogen/hydroxyl radicals. Yes, NOX is reactive with

  many GHG. It is also known to produce significant health risks at long
  distances and acid rain. Here is a short health effects list from Wiki;
 
  Health effects
 
  NO*x* reacts with ammonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia,
 moisture,
  and other compounds to form nitric acid
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_acid vapor
  and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into
 sensitive
  lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases.
  Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases
 such
  as emphysema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphysema, bronchitis
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchitis it
  may also aggravate existing heart disease.[7]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-6
 
  NO*x* reacts with volatile organic compounds
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compounds in
  the presence sunlight to form Ozone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone.

  Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and
 reduction
  in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly,
  asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health
  impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association
  estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in
  counties that are not in ozone compliance.[8]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-7
 
  NO*x* destroys ozone in the stratosphere
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
  .[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NOAA_N2O-8 Ozone in
 the
  stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet light
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_light,
  which is potentially damaging to life on earth.[10]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#cite_note-NASA-9
  NO*x* from combustion sources does

Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report

2011-05-09 Thread Michael Hayes

I would like to offer two suggestion.

There is growing use of Biochar in china at the consumer level through this 
type of product. http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/singfieldgas Close 
evaluation 
of that trend may prove insightful to the Biochar issue. Please note that 
this type of reactor is leaky, difficult to keep at optimal performance and 
trash is often used as a fuel.

Separation of the different GE aspects is probably best for general public 
understanding of the different concepts. Emergency response type of 
projects, like particulate stratospheric injection, should be a 
clearly separate issue in the minds of the public and policy makers. 
Longterm concepts, such as Biochar, should be judged and evaluated by the 
public/policy makers through completely different means along the lines of 
longterm carbon cycle management. Projects like direct 
point source CCS/transportation emission reduction should also be 
clearly separated in the minds of the public/policy makers.

Thus, I propose the adoption of the following terminology;

1) *EGE*: That which is used to manage *E*mergency associated with abrupt 
climate change, thus, *E*mergency *G*eo *E*ngineering.
2) *LGE*: That which is used to manage the *L*ongterm anthropogenic use of 
the natural carbon cycle, thus, *L*ongterm *G*eo *E*ngineering
3) *RGE*: That which is used to produce *R*emedial effects related to the 
current use of fossil fuels, thus, *R*emedial *G*eo *E*ngineering  

Clearly, these 3 divisions can not be viewed completely separate from each 
other and gray areas will exist. However, they each need the 
focused consideration they individually deserve.

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.

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

2011-05-09 Thread Michael Hayes

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.

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

2011-05-10 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Albert,

I have actually spent some time looking at this type of system for my own 
lake. I am thinking through the design engineering details and will keep 
this suggestion in mind.

The use of a bubbler line has two advantage that I think will be important. 
In that, being able to adjust the depth of the oxygenation for each site 
will be optimize the oxidation time. Also, multiple bubbler lines could be 
used to extend the coverage area well beyond the buoy anchorage. This could 
greatly reduce the number of units needed to effect a large field of vents.

The type of mixer you mentioned will be important in regards to low current 
areas like a bay or lake.   

Invention can move quickly when it is collaborative. Thanks for your 
in-put. 
- Show quoted text -

-- 
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: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

2011-05-10 Thread Michael Hayes

Thanks for posting this link. This was a very interesting read.

I read your contribution concerning intergenerational equity and have a 
question on one concept. I quote:

Unfortunately, while a commitment to SRM geoengineering approaches in lieu 
of 
effective mitigation responses might prove effective and politically 
palatable for our 
generation, future generations may not feel the same way because of the 
threat posed by 
the “termination” effect.

I need help in understanding what would motivate a future generation to 
discard an active SRM effort due to the threat of the effects of discarding 
an active SRM effort. From a philosophical stand point, such a future 
generation, with that view, would simple be collectively suicidal. As such, 
should we be constrained by their irrational views (suicide is 
mainly considered irrational)? Your definition of intergenerational equity 
states fairness in the utilization of resources between human generations *
past*, *present* and *future*.. We, today, will be the *past* generation 
to this hypothetical *future* suicidal generation. Thus, the question comes 
to mind, in that: Do they not owe us, as a *past* generation, fairness in 
the utilization of resources (ie. SRM) if SRM is deemed by us as crucial to 
our generations' survival? Do we not owe them our survival so that they may 
even come into existence?

Is there a flaw in my logic? This issue does seem to me like Schrodinger's 
Cat is vigorously chasing a lifeless tail!

I do need help in understand the rational nature of your argument.

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.

[geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

2011-05-11 Thread Michael Hayes

It is my understanding that Normative Jurisprudence Law, such as treaties 
and conventions, is an exercise in political philosophy. As a layperson, I 
am very concerned with any political philosophy which calls for a 
non emergency response to an emergency situation.

1) The Esppo Convention model would be extremely difficult for most smaller 
nations to comply with on both the financial and science level. Should we 
provide massive grants? Science and Technical Advisors? Whoops, where do we 
find the trained Geoengineers to do the evaluations? The intra and 
intergenerational(?) transfer of wealth for such a model is 
substantial while producing no... zero... progress towards an actual 
solution.for decades!

2) Ultra-hazardous activity liability can not be truly evaluated for SRM by 
any current or historical equivalent, SRM does not have a radioactive half 
life! Apples and oranges...This is more of a liability issue concerning the 
*Social Fence (*refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals 
that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group). 

3) Pooling vast amounts of money for largely unverifiable claims is not 
realistic in todays environment and probably not in tomorrows. Providing 
regional technical adjustments to the (proven) adversely effected areas (if 
any) is reasonable and funding for that should be secured. There will always 
be adjustments with such a global effort. 

The word Emergency should be on the lips of anyone interested in this 
debate. Emergency Geoengineering has no historical precedent in law and 
contorting the current (largely) dysfunctional environmental pacts only 
insures that those familiar with manipulating them will gain. The rest of us 
will hit a Social Fence. We need a transformational treaty concept which 
provides for the development and testing of the science/technology 
of emergency forms of geoengineering and the means to use it. Coupling this 
ability to progressive CO2 reduction, unreasonable impact reviews, lengthy 
negotiations entwined with other legal issues is simply not prudent given 
the potential sudden nature of climate change.

Doing business as usual got us here. Maybe, we should try something 
different? 

-- 
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

This idea is just an early thought and may not be practicalBut, here it 
goes.

If you take a look at this paper 
http://www.mumm-research.de/download_pdf/treude_et_al_aom_hr.pdf Pg 2

The AOM consortium predominant at HR consists
of sulfate-reducing bacteria of the branch Desulfosarcina/Desulfococcus and 
archaea of the ANME-2
group (Boetius et al. 2000b). The archaea are surrounded by the 
sulfate-reducing bacteria and both
grow together in dense aggregates that comprise up
to 90% of the microbial biomass in hydrate-bearing
sediments. The current hypothesis on the functioning
of AOM assumes that archaea oxidize methane in a
process that is reverse to methanogenesis (Valentine
 Reeburgh 2000, and references therein). The role
of the sulfate-reducing bacteria in AOM-consortia is
the oxidation of a *so far unknown intermediate *by
simultaneous reduction of sulfate, thus maintaining
thermodynamic conditions allowing methane oxidation to proceed 
exergonically.

Now take a look at this: 
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-scientists-links-biology-cloud-formation.html

The so far unknown intermediate seems to have been found by the second 
group. Thus, I believe sulfite enhancement might be used to both feed the 
sulfate-reducing bacteria in the vent areas to enhance the biomass around 
vents and thus methane oxidation. There may also be a synergistic link 
between increasing this process and believe it on not.cloud 
nucleation.

This brings up the possibility of transplanting biotic colonies to less well 
populated vents to kick start the natural process. Methane hydrates 
are associated with local sulfate production in some vents. This may be a 
clue as to how we might get new biotic masses growingfeed them sulfate 
through dispersing blocks of compressed sulfate around vents.

Just a thoughtAny comments, suggestions?   

-- 
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: Fwd: Re: 1. Using Lair to plug methane vents, 2. Using LN2 to fight tundra wildfires, 3. Capturing methane during Lair/LN2 liquefaction

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

Dr. Salter,

This came through yesterday and your cloud brighting effort came to mind. 
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-scientists-links-biology-cloud-formation.html

 What would you think of spicing up the cloud brighting with this (*
dimethylsulfid)* compound? I could see the bilge water growing 
the surfer eating bacteria and venting the compound to the stacks. A few 
blocks of compressed sulfur could keep the colonies fed for some time.

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.

Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 9 Messages in 1 Topic

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Nathan,

Please let me clean up my statement here. I think you have just made my 
point in that we are getting a good handle on the complexities of the many 
chemical/biological issues of the different aspects of GE. And, that 
accumulation and synthesis of knowledge isby and largefrom 
individual efforts associated with non-direct GE investigations. If GE is to 
go forward as a supported effort, un-known/hypothetical feedbacks will be 
exceedingly improbable.

BC is an important way to lock in carbon and increase soil quality. But, 
international permission is not needed. I was trying to address the 
international perspective.

The methane issue should scare the pants off of any thinking person! And, 
yes, it needs as much clearance and support as it can get..ASAP!

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.

[geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

Will, 

You can be persuasive..are you a lawyer?:)

If it may please the court..?


* Somehow I think we know a lot more about the brake systems of cars, 
borne out by 100 years of experience, than the effectiveness of SRM 
technologies. Beyond the fact that a number of experts have 
acknowledged potential diminution of effectiveness (and yes, including 
feedback mechanisms) or downright failure, this issue can't be 
blithely dismissed. The US spent less than $2m last year on dedicated GE 
research. Most of the knowledge accumulated on the concept has been through 
unrelated investigations. Even so, there is a substantial amount of 
knowledge available to guide the initial effort. If GE becomes mainstream 
ie. Strong Normal, the issue of unknowns will be resolved in quick order.

Plus, I think you miss the larger issue, which is 
the fact that a future generation might wish to no longer be under the 
yoke of SRM given potentially very negative impacts (e.g. impacts on 
monsoons or ozone depletion), yet it would be compelled to do so 
because of termination effects that far exceed business as usual 
warming impacts Hold on, business as usual warming impacts can mean that 
your off-springs never see the light of day. A methane tipping point is 
highly probable.  

(that's why your argument below, that we're already 
geoengineering the climate via our current policies is not entirely 
compelling from my perspective).() It may not be compelling to you, 
however, it is a fact!

The point is that intergenerational 
equity requires us to provide future generations with free choices in 
terms of policymaking. SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of 
technologies that future generations might consider anathema Great 
humanitarian philosophy.. IF.. we were starting with a new planet! This one 
just happens to have a few ongoing problems that need immediate solutions. 
Have I mentioned Methane?

I think you are also completely shorting the inventive nature of mankind. 
Problem solving is our strong point, well... that and making babies! 

 Not true, see analysis above. And, again, that's an infirm argument 
from an ethical perspective. It's an argument that gives succor to the 
likes of the American Enterprise Institute, who has embraced 
geoengineering, arguing that our choices are binary: a future ravaged 
by climatic effects from unstinted initiatives or the magic bullet of 
geoengineering. I could say the same about your position giving succor to 
the likes of ETC.

There is a third way, which is substantive reductions 
in emissions, using both short-term stop gap measures, e.g. a focus on 
reducing black carbon, and policies designed to effectuate a longer 
term structural decarbonization of the world economy; Will, did you miss 
that Copenhagen thing?

see McKinsey and 
Tellus's analyses in recent years for a highly cost-effect vision of 
the way forward. However, the siren song of geoengineering provides 
cover for entrenched fossil fuel interests to resist such policy 
prescriptions; we shouldn't permit this to happen. GE is not a siren song, 
it is a response to an emergency sirenbig difference.

 I'm sorry, I don't accept this analysis. The simple truth is that my 
child, and her children, will live a discrete existence from me after 
my passing, and it's incumbent upon this generation to both leave the 
Earth in a condition that can support their existence in a comparable 
fashion to that left by my predecessors, and which does not lock them 
into policy prescriptions that they might deem undesirable. Erecting a 
social fence on the issue of GE will limit their options for survival. Ask 
your daughter to watch these 2 lectures and ask her if she wants to throw 
the dice on thisnot... happening

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

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

 * This casting of intergenerational equity as a religion or media 
hype smacks of the same kind of rhetoric used by climate skeptics, 
though I fully acknowledge that principles of ethics and morality and 
religion obviously have a common heritage. As far as an atheist such 
as myself can embrace the tenets of a religion that recognizes the 
rights and interests of future generation, then I guess I found 
religion! wil Will, we should all hold ethics and morality as 
guiding principles and I can see how my words can 
be confusing and misconstrued. However, Existential Philosophy should not 
blind us to the train coming down the track. The light that 
intergenerational ethics sees at the end of the tunnel, may actually be a 
train called Methane Tipping Point.. 

Thank you for your patience,

Michael   
 

-- 
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] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

Ok Will,

I also enjoyed the the challenge of our exchange. I learned much from it. 
Locking reduction with deployment would be ideal and logical; a rare 
combination. You have faith in policy and I have faith in our ability to 
solve technical problems. Those that come after us may look back on this 
time with historic interest. Let's just hope we can show them that we did 
tried our personal best.

Michael



-- 
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: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

2011-05-12 Thread Michael Hayes

One last thought, Wil.

Don't bet on rare combinations! Casinos make Lots of money of those.for 
a reason!

Michael

-- 
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: Can SRM save our bacon? An honest answer shows why more/new SRM options are needed

2011-05-13 Thread Michael Hayes

Hello Mark,

Concerning cryogenic use, have you factored in the Atmospheric Electrical
aspects of CCN? It is a rarely talked about issue, but there is clear
indications that CCN has an electrical aspect.

Here are a few references. If your concept gets to the modeling stage, the
modelers may want to take this type of electrical dynamics into
consideration to show a more realistic model.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JD00627.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93JD00627.shtml
http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf

http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Tin_rev.pdf
http://www.accessscience.com/content/Atmospheric-electricity-and-effects-on-clouds/YB071070

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0506/0506077.pdf

Have you worked up any quantitative idea of how cryo release would effect
local air moisture content?

Also, there are a number of potential climate intervention investigations
going on that are not being currently discussed within this forum. Here is
an innovative approach that has interested me for some time.

http://wemustknow.net/2011/04/haarp-atmospheric-heating-as-a-research-tool/

http://wemustknow.net/2011/04/haarp-atmospheric-heating-as-a-research-tool/I
read the initial patent on this back in the early 90's and have been waiting
to see them get to this phase of investigations. If you read the initial IP,
this type of use of the concept is apparent. It can create hot spots in
the upper atmosphere. Eventually, I predict this type of technology will be
able to steer weather fronts. Creating a line of hot spots adjacent to a
natural front can create small low pressure troughs (hot air is light thus
less pressure). Adjusting the pressure around the weather front would be an
interesting experiment. IMHO

Here is the patent
http://conspiration.ca/brevet_chemtrails/United%20States%20Patent%204,686,605.htm

My concept (more of a thought experiment) was to possibly use the HAARP
method to power a high altitude tether for the purpose of providing low cost
regional geosat like communications and possible energy harvesting. The
concept was a chimney like tether. The Novim report (Pg 48) has
an analysis of one variation on concept.
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/119.Blackstock.etal.ClimateEngResptoClimEmerg.e.pdf

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/119.Blackstock.etal.ClimateEngResptoClimEmerg.e.pdfHowever,

my concept was not inflatable, a design some have suggested. It was more
of a tethered line of electrical powered large bore like airframe UAVs which
would adjust the individual UAV unit's lift/thrust to meet the different
flight conditions. The main advantage of the system, beyond flight
stability, was that the individual units could disengage from the tether and
land like aircraft. This rapid landing of the system would be important for
a number of operational needs. I envisioned liquid nitrogen as a working
fluid for certain lift, control and electrical aspects. Heated nitrogen was
to be used as lifting gas for the units stationed within the stratosphere.
So, atmospheric release of nitrogen is something I have looked into.

BTW, did I give you that old patent on the airborne rapid balloon inflation
apparatus?

Also, have you looked into the different SBIR opportunities? It is not
uncommon for an investigator to show their concept and their ability to
perform the research to a government lab and, if there is interest in the
concept, that lab will put out an SBIR solicitation. Just a thought.

Michael

--
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-13 Thread Michael Hayes


Hi Folks,

Andrew,
I did not have that extreme degree of aeration in mind. And, I can not see 
massively enhanced methane excursions happening if reasonable bubblers 
designs are developed. First and formost, the core of the concept is to 
increase the O2 saturation a few percent for as deep as practical without 
oxygenating the sea floor colonies and then start growing a capture/use 
means. I am not looking to sink ships with this idea! Although, I could 
if taken to the extreme and had the money. The aeration part of the concept 
is to deploy the ocean equivalent of garden soaker hoses!!! However, I did 
not go into technical detail and so I can't blame you for going to the 
maximum extreme. With that said, if everyone wants to jump in on this 
concept and help bootstrap it up, I have no problems with that. I 
welcome collaboration, not being clobbered!

Mixers are fine but they have significant limitations that I would like to 
work around. Lack of depth of penetration, high energy and maintenance are 
significant considerations in using mixers. If the use of mixers must be 
adopted, my recommendations for modifications for this use are below. The 
firm Albert pointed to could probably help with the prototypes and they may 
want to be CC.   Albert, I was very impressed with your other post 
today, thanks.

First, these are the design points I would work towards and would look for 
in any system:

1) Little to no maintenance.

2) Ease of deployment/retrieval and no longer than 18m/60ft (shipping 
restrictions) We are looking at using commercial fishing vessels for normal 
deployment/retrieval.

3) Low cost durable hull.

4) Adjustable depth of penetration.

5) Mass production.

6) Opportunities to stimulate production of new technologies ie. Hydrogen 
Fuel Cells, advanced materials etc

This is just the start of a design criteria list and so please feel free to 
pitch in. I don't think the above list need explanation with the possible 
exception of #6.

If this project ever goes forward, we have an opportunity to put new 
technologies into mass production. I think this project has the potential 
unit numbers to see a significant drop in consumer prices for any new tech 
we adopt. Small fuels cells are a case in point. Throughout this effort, I 
encourage everyone to shop around for new tech/materials and post. I have 
my own ideas, but I am looking forward to a collaborationhere in the 
opento get this moved to the prototype stage.

Second, I have been through the patent and product development routine and 
know just how complicated this can beor not be. I personally, would 
prefer the latter. This is a rather simple idea and has room for many people 
giving input. The IP issue will work itself out and I have no intentions of 
dyeing with a bank full of money. I just believe this is worth a trying. 

Here are my recommendations for adopting a mixer aerator product for this 
use:

To provide for adjustable depth penetration, I would choose a segmented 
design which, through adding/subtracting segments, can provide the needed 
depth adjustment. Here is the hull I would first look at 
http://www.canadaculvert.com/hdpe.php Simple, cheap, flexible and readily 
available. Penetrating as deep as possible has important advantages relative 
to oxidation time.  

Each end of the conduit would be fitted with a short internal scaffolding. 
This scaffolding can have a number of functions. The primary functions are 
to provide for connecting the segments together, giving rigid support for 
the system, providing equipment attachment points and anchoring points. The 
scaffolding can be made out of any durable/material.

This configuration can thus have multiple internal impellers staged along 
the conduit if needed. Also. this configuration allows for the main power 
and motor units to be at or close to the surface while energizing other 
internal/external equipment at depth if needed through appropriate means.

So, that is my idea of a basic structural starting point. I believe it is 
reasonable and meets the design criteria listed.

As an inventor, I would like to throw out some wild possibilities just so 
it is on the record. High temp. super conductors/coils/magnets may find a 
use here as a pumping means, deployment/relocation means and energy storage 
means (water cooling is a given). Graphene will find a home here. Wave 
energy additions will be added. Interferometry will be utilized. Means for 
pH balancing will also find a home here. These are just some ideas for the 
future. *They Are Not For Immediate Consideration*  Your ideas?   
 Sci-Fi writers could have a field day with this concept.

Please jump in and post your thoughts. I do hope this can be a quick and 
productive effort.

Michael   

  





























-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to

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

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

That post was impressive, Sam.

I have an 18 acre mountain lake in the North Cascades and watch each year 
how it goes though an analogy of what the Huttunen paper described. The lake 
has a bog at one end and is rather shallow throughout. So, it constantly 
produces methane. The lake has produced a brown bog-born algae bloom and I 
cured it with half a bag of yard lime spread evenly around the 18 acres. The 
O2 levels drop significantly in the summer and so I have been studying the 
best ways to oxygenate. And so, this issue is not academic for me, 
it exists right out my back door and I have studied it extensively.   

Mixer or bubbles? We will need both and possibly a third option. If I ever 
go into surgery, I hope the doctor bring more than one scalpelwhether he 
needs it or not! I will outline an advanced third option concept in a later 
post.

Testing, yes, is important and I don't think any option should be blown out 
of the water without testing.testing is cheap for this concept! I could 
test any method here at my lake, but, using a world class aquarium would be 
better. Or, best, we can use a well studied ocean site such as the Hydrate 
Ridge (HR) in the Cascadia convergent margin. This proposed field test can 
be a short wave test which would have no significant environmental impact 
beyond the rest. The HR also provides a wide range of different types 
of vent conditions.

On the one hand, adding oxygen bubbles seems beneficial, given the need for 
oxidation of methane in the water. Also - as John Nissen said elsewhere - 
bubbles could form an insulating layer in between an ice-cap and warming 
water underneath the cap. Thirdly, bubbles could brighten the water, 
changing albedo and thus reflecting more sunlight back into space. Thanks 
for bringing up these second order aspects. Microbubble/albedo has already 
been put through the ringer on this forum and I believe it has a reasonable 
place here. The big issue was not whether it would be effective, but, how 
can it be deployed. A Methane powered buoy network deploying hydrosols seems 
like a reasonable approach...to me! Think about the possibility of having 
the hydrosol equivalent of ice coverage (albedo) in those hot spots pointed 
out in the Berkeley paper...during the summer.

Initial real world deployment highly focused upon these hot spots would be 
ideal. And, we already have the computer models to work with! Thank you, 
Berkeley.

On the other hand, though, bubbles could disturb a hydrate and accelerate 
release of methane. Rising bubbles could take more methane along upwards 
than they help oxidize. Testing could reveal what impact can be expected. The 
avoidance of oxygenation of the seabed is a point I pointed out in 
the original post. I realized both the importance of maintaining the biotic 
layer and not disturbing the actual deposits. If you go back to the lecture, 
it demonstrates how fragile is and how quickly it decomposes once disturbed. 
take more methane along..than help oxidize.I can not find the lab 
video from Seitz's work right now, however, I would like to reference it 
here as a visual aid to address this point. In that, hydrates do not act as 
a normal bubble do. They tend to have long residency time in the 
water column. Microbubbles, if assimilated by the larger methane bubbles, 
would be directly injecting O2 into the larger methane bubble. Whereas, the 
methane bubble, on it's own,  is only being oxidized through it's surfactant 
outer film. I believe any test along these lines will show a significant 
oxidation rate do to this process of hydrosol assimilation. Using pure O2 
hydrosols would enhance this

Thanks again, Sam. This type of input/questioning is important. Those links 
are top oder information for this effort.

Michael

   

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

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Sam, I missed one of your points, an important one. 'bubbles could form an 
insulating layer in between an ice-cap and warming water underneath the 
cap. Ice is warmer than sea water at that interface. An oxygen 
enriched gaseous  layer could help the surface biota thrive under the 
icemore methane oxidation!  

-- 
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] Can SRM save our bacon? An honest answer shows why more/new SRM options are needed

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi folks,

I tried addressing the bubble issue in a response to Sam under the main 
Lecture on Methane Hydrates... thread.

Michael 

-- 
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

I want to repost the main reply to Sam as I have realized it is loaded with 
typos and some may be misleading.

That post was impressive, Sam.

I have an 18 acre mountain lake in the North Cascades and watch each year 
how it goes though an analogy of what the Huttunen paper describes.  The 
lake has a bog at one end and is rather shallow throughout. So, it 
constantly produces methane. The lake, in the past, has produced a brown 
bog-born algae bloom (low pH water) and I cured it with half a bag of yard 
lime spread evenly around the 18 acres. The O2 level drop significantly in 
the summer and so I have been studying the best ways to oxygenate. This 
general issue is not academic for me, it exists right out my back door and 
I have studied it extensively.   

Mixer or bubbles? We will need both and possibly a third option. If I ever 
go into surgery, I hope the doctor brings more than one scalpelwhether 
he needs it or not! I will outline an advanced third option concept in a 
later post.

Testing, yes,it is important and I don't think any option should be blown 
out of the water without testing.testing is relatively cheap for this 
concept! I could test any method here at my lake, but, using a world-class 
aquarium would be better. Or, best, we can use a well-studied ocean site 
such as the Hydrate Ridge (HR) in the Cascadia convergent margin. This 
proposed field test can be a short wave test which would have no significant 
environmental impacts beyond the test. The HR also provides a wide range of 
different types of vent conditions and biotic layers.

On the one hand, adding oxygen bubbles seems beneficial, given the need for 
oxidation of methane in the water. Also - as John Nissen said elsewhere - 
bubbles could form an insulating layer in between an ice-cap and warming 
water underneath the cap. Thirdly, bubbles could brighten the water, 
changing albedo and thus reflecting more sunlight back into space. Thanks 
for bringing up these second order, yet very important aspects. 
Microbubble/albedo has already been put through the ringer on this forum and 
I believe it has a reasonable place here. The big issue was not whether it 
would be effective, but, how can it be deployed. A Methane powered buoy 
network deploying hydrosols seems like a reasonable approach...to me! Think 
about the possibility of having the hydrosol equivalent of ice coverage 
(albedo) in the hot spots pointed out in the Berkeley paper...during the 
summer.

Initial real world deployment, which is highly focused upon those hot spots, 
would be ideal. And, we already have the computer models to work with! Thank 
you, Berkeley.

On the other hand, though, bubbles could disturb a hydrate and accelerate 
release of methane. Rising bubbles could take more methane along upwards 
than they help oxidize. Testing could reveal what impact can be expected.The 
avoidance of oxygenation of the seabed is a point I pointed out in the 
original post. I realized the importance of maintaining the biotic layer by 
oxygenating well above the floor and this also prevents disturbing the 
actual deposits. If you go back to the lecture, it demonstrates how fragile 
hydrates are and how quickly it decomposes once disturbed. take more 
methane along..than help oxidize.I can not find the lab video from 
Seitz's work right now, however, I would like to reference it here as a 
visual aide to address this point. In that, hydrosols do not act as a 
normal bubble do. They tend to have long residency time in the water 
column. Microbubbles, if assimilated by the larger methane bubbles, would be 
directly injecting O2 into the larger methane bubble. Whereas, the methane 
bubble, on its own,  is only being oxidized through its surfactant outer 
film. I believe any test along these lines will show a significant oxidation 
rate increase due to this process of hydrosol assimilation within the 
methane bubble. Using pure O2 hydrosols would enhance this.

I missed one of your points, an important one. 'bubbles could form an 
insulating layer in between an ice-cap and warming water underneath the cap. 
 An oxygen enriched gaseous layer could help the surface biota thrive under 
the icemore methane oxidation!  
 
Thanks again, Sam. This type of input/questioning is important. Those links 
are top order information for this effort.

Michael
 
 
 

-- 
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Here is a TED talk by Dr. John Delaney on the 
Oceans Observatories Initiative (OOI) This is the proper test site for any 
new ideas proposed for the ocean methane issue.

 http://www.ted.com/talks/john_delaney_wiring_an_interactive_ocean.html

Here is the construction schedule.

http://www.oceanleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Graphic_Schedule_OOI_2009-12-10_ver_7-163.pdf
 
 
Michael

-- 
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: bubbling treatment for methane

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

I would like to respond to this intricate assessment by Andrew. 

Albert is right that the ESS excursions are shallow.  All cold-environment 
excursions tend to be shallow as the clathrathe stability zone terminates 
closer to mean sea level in cold waters.  Therefore high latitude methane 
ebulliation is less susceptible to dissolution.  As such, oxygen treatments 
are less likely to be effective, as dissolution is a necessary precursor for 
aerobic metabolism of the methane excursions. The ESAS excursions are both 
a challenge and a benefit duo to the shallowness, yet it is not the only 
area of concern. Regardless of the reduction of dissolution, methane bubbles 
will be present and will represent a large percentage of surface out gassing 
to the atmosphere. As to oxygenation being less effective duo to cold water 
inhibiting bubble production, allow me to take that from two different 
angles. First, maintaining/enhancing the health of the biotic web, is 
important in metabolizing the dissolved methane and is far better at it than 
any effort we can even contemplate realistically. Second, as we know, 
the increased GW induced heating in that region will potentially illuminate 
that conditional situation.Let's hope we have time to avoid that..   
   

Steps could be taken to improve dissolution, such as by mechanically 
breaking up the bubbles, or pumping seawater across bubble vents which has 
low levels of solute gases in.  This will tend to increase dissolution. 
 However, the results obtained are likely to be no better than could be 
achieved by seeking to capture methane bubbles for flaring or 
bottling/piping, and without the according economic benefits. Industrializing 
these very fragile/remote areas for economic benefit is a 
thought pattern that has basically brought us to where we are. Flaring 
methane within the atmospheric Polar Cell region would be mainlining ozone 
depleting compounds directly to the Ozone Hole. ESAS just happens to be 
directly under the ascending cell flow. I think flaring, on a mass scale, 
would be profoundly catastrophic. Mechanical shearing of bubbles/pumping 
seawater I need help understanding the rational foundation for that 
idea.  

In environments where dissolution occurs, but where oxygen is scarce and 
methane therefore diffuses from the sea surface, input of oxygen into the 
waters may be of benefit.  However, this is far from simple.  As has been 
pointed out, disruption of benthic ecosystems due to stirring sediments and 
transporting surface waters or oxygen down is unlikely to be desirable. That 
important point is why I proposed oxygenation well above the biotic layer   
As such, any ducts would likely need to be moored some way off the seabed, 
suspended between floats and weighted anchors, or actively depth controlled 
using towed arrays from ships. Yes, that was also indicated in the original 
concept. Towed arrays are appropriate for localized areas needing 
intensive consideration.  In shallow seas this is even more difficult to 
acheive, as the clearance depth from the sea bed would be a significant 
fraction of the total depth of the water column. Multiple means 
of mechanically/logistically addressing deferent conditions are needed. 
Extreme shallow conditions could benefit from nutrient enhancement and maybe 
rafts of mixers autonomously roving the area guided by remote methane 
monitors. 

I do not think it viable to use ships for this task.  Oxygenation processes 
would have to be essentially continuous to be effective, and criss-crossing 
with ships is likely to be energetically and logistically expensive.  In 
order to provide year-round power in remote areas, we would need to consider 
wind turbines or tidal turbines, or shore-based power.  Turbines could be 
mounted on anchored barges, or set into the sea bed. See OOI links at the 
main thread.  Wave power is also possible, but only in non-arctic 
environments.  The power so generated could be used to aid downwelling, or 
used to pump air into ducts for venting near the sea bed. This project, if 
it goes forward, has the potential to stimulate needed new green energy 
systems through the sheer number of unit needed. I vote for methane and 
hydrogen fuel cells, as well as, hydrogen/methane uptake polymers. Here are 
a few links to that field.

http://chem.hust.edu.cn/tanbien/uploads/tan46.pdf

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la0355500

http://sqma.myweb.usf.edu/pictures/P-24.pdf

This is just a glimpse of what is available. Even so, with materials like 
these, we could engineer more advanced methane capture concepts. Being able 
to adsorb dissolved methane from seawater would not just allow better buoys 
to be developed, but could lead to mass means to cool/heat wide ocean areas 
and/or new industrial energy supplies. Any project of the size which is 
under discussion has game changing potential within the green energy issue. 
Energy is the foundational

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

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Here is my reply to Andrew's assessment of the oxygenation concept (Sea 
Worm).

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/1x25PF5audA/discussion 

-- 
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Thanks Sam,

As to micro-bubbles acting as insulation, this is perhaps applicable
where warm water of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean is entering
the Arctic Ocean. Micro-bubbles could possibly be added to the stream
close to the sea ice, to form an insulating layer underneath the ice,
when entering the Arctic, thus reducing heat transfer from the Gulf
Stream to the ice. It's just a thought that needs further discussion
and research, but it could add to the functionality of micro-bubbles,
i.e. 1. bright water (albedo change), 2. adding oxygen (methane
oxidation in water) and 3. insulating the ice. That is a very interesting 
path to think about. Autonomous buoys that can relocate themselves is an 
advanced concept I am currently thinking through. And, your application 
would be a perfect fit. I did not see that potential. A buoy swarm could be 
guided by daily sat. data concerning heat eddy movement along the front of 
the ice sheet. This is very interesting!   


As to adding oxygen to the water, the optimal size of bubbles needs
further testing, as well as their make-up. Apart from loading
micro-bubbles with oxygen, further testing could look at also adding
nutrients inside the bubbles for bacteria that could help with methane
oxidation Dr. Seitz has worked out those issues and it is mainly a matter of 
deployment. The recommended hydrosol size is .002mm. The issue of using a 
hydrosol surfactant to feed the bacteria would be in the sulfur class and it 
has been in the back of my mind all day. If this is even remotely possible, 
the effects on the entire food web will need extensively evaluated. I do 
know that soy oil is a surfactant used in medical microbubble preparations, 
however that is a dead end duo to the needed logistics and being the wrong 
food group.LoL

Supplying a surfactant to the buoys is possible at a limited scale, but 
would be a major logistics/energy issue on regional scale. However, I am 
starting to learn of the efforts in understanding of bacterial genetics and 
would not rule out the future possibility of that work leading to a path to 
couple hydrosol surfactants to the food chain. Getting the 2 fields to 
understand the synergistic potential would be important. Many time, one 
field will have absolutely no understanding of their work in other fields. 
Finding those links is what I am trying to do here.  

I assume that the bubbles are best produced by buoys floating on the
water. Such buoys will also have a valuable monitoring function,
measuring methane concentrations, water and air temperature, etc. It could 
be a virtual world wide extension of the Ocean Observatory Initiative. I can 
get real excited about that. Here is the main link to OOI 
http://www.oceanobservatories.org/science/major-science-themes/   

Buoys could be powered by solar panels, but could also be powered by
the motion. I add two links on viability of the latter:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/9237529/wave-energy-buoy-launched-in-world-first/
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/09/25/ocean-buoys-to-provide-10-of-us-energy-requirements/

Thanks for the links. I waited years for the development 
of wind-able superconducting elements. I remember the day I head that it had 
been achieved, I was on the Bering Sea. That type of magnet actually has 
2 functions. Beyond the obvious, it is also a means for storing energy. And, 
the more energy it stores, the stronger the magnetic field. I think 
this development path could be important to the concept we are working on, 
as well as, the general area of wave energy. Using the induction form of 
wave energy production, enhanced with super conductive magnets, seems well 
worth the added cost. The more energy it stores, the stronger the induction, 
the more energy is available for storage, etc. etc. 

If you take that type of super conductive enhanced buoy and use the energy 
to do nothing but cool the local waters, it would be worth the added cost 
and complexity. Here is a link to our largest induction type wave proposal 
here on the West coast. 
http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Task-4.2-Integrated-Systems-Analysis.pdf

If this buoy concept (Sea Worm) ever gets serious attention. I would hope 
the advanced induction wave concept would be used. The cryo system itself 
would be a local water cooler. Yet, it would require a completely autonomous 
subsystem to compress air down to liquid. However, look at what we could do 
with the LO2!

The buoys, their power, the measuring equipment, lights,

communications and all that is involved seems feasible with products
that are available off-the-shelf, but further testing is recommended
regarding the functionality of the bubbles. Hydrosol use *has * to pass 
muster with the marine biology field. Some organisms can not tolerate air 
bubble injections. Reviewing that issue is on my list in the next few days. 
A comment was posted to Ken(?) from a marine biologist and I need to find 
that

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

2011-05-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Methane Tipping Point Early Warning System and Electromagnetic Mapping of 
Hydrate Fields.

I was downloading the relevant papers from the U.of C. library and found 
this 08 PhD dissertation on mapping hydrate fields.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/61x1136v?query=ocean%20methane%20hydrate#page-150

I think this is extremely important for this issue on two counts. First is 
the ability to use this method for locating Sea Worm buoy deployment in 
general. However, *If we focus in upon key environmental factors and use 
this method to locate actual vents/fields within the key hot spots, we may 
be able to see the early stages of a methane tipping point.*

Low oxygen, high temperature, shallow waters, possibly continental shelf 
edge potential landslide areas, new arctic thaw areas all add up to the 
perfect hallmarks of a weak point. I would also throw in the trawler 
wild card (areas of current or past bottom drag net use). Using our 
best resources to develop a list of sites that meet that criteria would let 
us focus immediate resources on mapping and getting monitoring equipment on 
site. By going the weakest of the weak sites, we can basically develop an 
early warning system for a methane tipping point.

I think this might be a good focus for this summer. Any thoughts or 
comments?

Thanks,

Michael 

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/61x1136v?query=ocean%20methane%20hydrate#page-150
  

-- 
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] robot sailing ships that definitely work :-)

2011-05-15 Thread Michael Hayes

 Roland Stelzer of the Austrian Society for
 Innovative Computer Sciences.

 In the future, autonomous sailing boats will be used for tasks such as
 maritime monitoring, reconnaissance and surveillance, and carbon
 dioxide-neutral transportation of goods, he says. Robotic sailboats could
 also operate in swarms, allowing them to tackle large-scale problems like
 gathering meteorological data in remote stretches of ocean or measuring
 water pollution. They could even be used to rescue refugees.

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] robot sailing ships that definitely work :-)

2011-05-15 Thread Michael Hayes

Andrew, if you block my last post, I will go over your head.

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

Andrew, this statement I'm certainly not going to be wading through
Stephen's maths to check whether he's got his sums right! Should be your
resignation statement from this forums Moderation post.

Any comments or suggestions?

Thanks,

Michael

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Andrew Lockley
andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

There's been some discussion about Stephen's ships recently. For an
article about alternative robot sailing boat designs which are fully
operational, you can see this link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028126.400-sailbots-head-for-the-high-seas.html?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028126.400-sailbots-head-for-the-high-seas.html?I'm
certainly not going to be wading through Stephen's maths to check whether
he's got his sums right!

PEOPLE have been sailing the world for centuries, but ask a robot to do
the same and it quickly falls down.

Last year Mark Neal, a computer scientist at the University of
Aberystwyth, UK, oversaw the launch of Pinta, a robotic sailing boat that
set off from the west coast of Ireland in an attempt to be the first
automaton to cross the Atlantic Ocean. His team lost communication with the
boat just over two days later. The voyage was still an achievement:
Forty-nine hours is the longest period of unattended autonomous sailing
that has happened, says Neal.

When uncrewed aircraft can master flight so readily, it might seem strange
that it is so hard for a robot to sail a boat. In fact, the challenges are
very different. Some of the longest unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flights
are a day or two. If something stays up for 24 hours, that's a pretty
outstanding achievement, says Neal. In contrast, a useful robo-boat needs
to run for months using only sails and solar power (see Why build a
robot
sailor?)http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028126.400-sailbots-head-for-the-high-seas.html?full=true#bx281264B1.
During that time the solar panels could get caked with salt, the craft could
be damaged, and barnacles and weed could grow on the rudder.

What's more, while UAVs have to cope with weather changes, the conditions
they operate in are fairly stable compared with those of the ocean, Neal
says. The boat needs to deal flexibly with an unpredictable environment,
says Roland Stelzer of the Austrian Society for Innovative Computer Sciences
in Vienna. Stelzer is in charge of Roboat, an automated 3.75-metre-long boat
that has won the World Robotic Sailing Championship for the past three years
by successfully completing tasks including a 24-hour endurance race and
navigation between tightly spaced buoys.

Stelzer puts Roboat's success down to its computer brain, which mimics
two human sailing abilities. One system plots the best route by calculating
the heading that takes best advantage of wind speed and direction in
relation to the destination.

The other keeps the boat on the desired course. It does this by
considering factors like how far the boat is heeling and whether waves have
pushed it off course, and then adjusting the rudder position to make both
small corrections and sudden turns.

However, each competition took place within 4 kilometres of the shore. We
had to monitor the boat all the time either from shore or on a chasing
boat, Stelzer says.

The Pinta is smaller and less sophisticated, in case the boat is lost at
sea. Stelzer's craft might be robust enough to cross the Atlantic, but he is
reluctant to try - losing such an expensive rig would be a huge setback.

Instead, the first robotic sailors to spend long periods at sea may come
from the Protei project, which aims to build autonomous craft for cleaning
up oil spills. Conceived by designer Cesar Harada, who also leads the
project, the boats have a unique articulated design that allows the hull to
flex in order to best use the wind while turning.

The hardware is open source, meaning that anyone can work on or modify the
design and help solve problems. It's a collaboration with people worldwide
contributing their best knowledge and enthusiasm, says Peim Wirtz, who
manages the project from the V2 centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The
concepts behind Protei have undergone small-scale tests, and the team will
now build a full-scale prototype after raising nearly $35,000 on the
crowd-funding website Kickstarter last month. We have over 300 backers that
thought the initiative was worth sponsoring, says Wirtz.

So will we see robots sail the seas any time soon? Wirtz hopes to complete
the Protei prototype by September and Pinta will be making another
transatlantic attempt at the same time. If we didn't think it was possible,
we wouldn't be trying, Neal says. Someone will do it, and I'd like that to
be us.
Why build a robot sailor?

A boat that sails itself would

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

2011-05-16 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi All,

I have pulled together a few Bubbler Buoy option.

Here is an Advanced Anchoring and Mooring Study.

http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Anchor-and-Mooring-Study_FINAL-mod-051010.pdf

http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Anchor-and-Mooring-Study_FINAL-mod-051010.pdfThis

study opened up a few useful bubbler buoy design ideas. The first concept
involves a modified Anaconda wave energy converter (Fig.5). I can see how
this would give good vertical control separation from the floor. While under
the ice (no waves), captured methane would be used as the sole
energy source . This concept could cover a good section of an area with
minimal anchoring/mooring. Here is an animation of the Anaconda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VamSAbwgJKkfeature=related

The principle modification would be the addition of a snorkel(s), bubbler
gear and energy storage means. I do like this idea as it can be a modular
system for ease of transport and expansion. The hydrosol injectors could act
as a means for lateral movement to increase the hydrosol coverage area. A
deflection of up to 45 degrees from the current flow may be possible. Fins
could be used to assist this lateral movement.

There is one anchor designs that stands out for use in a hydrate field. The
the suction pile method (Pg 35). This would penetrate well as I believe most
hydrate fields are an aggregate of materials. *This type of anchoring method
also brings up the possibility of harvesting methane directly from the floor
through the pile and using it on board the buoy via fuel cells*. I do like
the possibility of using this type of gear as not only an anchor, but as a
mast as well. This could help keep the mooring line from sweeping the
floor

Here is one off the shelf system that can be easily modified for immediate
use for bubbler/observation work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX44qY560KYfeature=related

This is a study on smart buoys.
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kfall/unbuoy.pdf I would like to work toward a
smart Pico bubbler.

Here are a few advanced concept which may be of some interest.

I took up a short study a few years back on electroactive polymers (EAP)
or artificial muscle. Here is the Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroactive_polymers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroactive_polymersThis type of polymer
could find many uses within this project. Here is a clip of a configuration
which could be used (at a much larger scale) as an autonomous methane bubble
capture means. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2mE0tUk7vANR=1 Try to
imagine what you viewed with a segmented ie. flexible Peltier cooler
skeletal structure cooling the water. The methane fuel cell and subsystems
would be central to the legs. A snorkel tube running to the surface
with bubblers attached to a small surface buoy communications package would
give us what we need.. I think we may be able to eventually design such a
system that would actually seek out vents autonomously and take up residency
over them. A *S*mart *PICO* with EAP/Peltier *S*kirt deployed down the
mooring line looks good to me. *SPICOS *buoys could be produced and deployed
in significant numbers, but I haven't looked at any cost figures. It won't
be cheap.

Carbon Nanotube muscle is also possibly available in the near term and here
is a short lab clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-zXKrBoJGsfeature=relmfu
.
This concept also allows for a movable swarm of bubblers (or other gear)
to follow seasonal changes in the ocean environment. Sam posted a suggestion
of using hydrosols along the interface between the Gulf Stream and the
leading edge of the polar ice sheet to possibly insulate the leading edge
through bright water use. A swarm of these autonomous bubblers could follow
the ice retreat and also be directed to the higher temperature areas through
sat. communications.

The last buoy concept I would like to introduce is a *Super SPICOS *buoy. It
is the SPICOS merged with a super conductive version of this design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phc9_h31JfE Superconducting Magnetic Energy
Storage (SMES) can be applied to a bubbler buoy as a way to store the
potential electrical power generated through the methane capture. This
eliminates the need for bulk gas storage, cools the surrounding waters and
makes for a more efficient wave energy capture. A *Super SPICOS* can be
moored to a suction piling along with the modified Anaconda. If stationed at
a large methane vent, the energy transfer from both the methane/wave action
to the cryogenic system, could produce significant local water cooling.

These different buoy concepts are reasonable in that I am only modifying
current designs. They are not that outside the box, just heavily modified
for this use.

As always, I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to

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

2011-05-17 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Bhaskar, I am linking a Diatom website which has a bank of other related 
websites. http://www.indiana.edu/~diatom/diatom.html#ultimate

http://www.indiana.edu/~diatom/diatom.html#ultimateThis is a new field for 
me to study and I apologize for not getting back to your PM this weekend. 
And, the lake has thrived once I balanced the pH, way beyond my 
expectations. 

From the little time I have had to study up on the subject, I can offer only 
two question. 

1) How do you envision deploying them in a way that can maintain a focused 
effect on a hydrate field?

2) Can you address the issue of their competitive metabolic needs with that 
of the surrounding biota. In that, would they pose a threat to the natural 
food chain if deployed and maintained in large quantities?

I want to thank you for your persistence in trying to raise the use of this 
path of thought. I personally am having to climb multiple steep learning 
curves on the methane issue and actually welcome another. I believe the most 
advanced ideas will come from what has been described by Matt Ridley as 
Ideas Having Sex. This is his TED Talk. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.htmlOn the issue 
of my first question to you. Would a type of  physical incubator for 
establishing colony growth be useful in deploying and maintaining diatoms in 
a prescribed area work in your opinion? If so, any ideas on the best way to 
design such an incubator? Sam brought up a study showing potential hypoxic 
ocean areas. Here is the link 
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/05/04/methane-arctic/ As 
you can see from the second figure, the entire north Pacific is becoming 
hypoxic due to methane dissociation. As a side note, that area has the most 
intense bottom trawling activity on the planet. The path of dead biota they 
leave behind has to impact O2 levels.

One potential benefit of mass stimulation of Diatoms has come to mind. Ocean 
Acidification is the elephant in the room, as far as marine health is 
concerned. Bhaskar, do you think it is possible that by increasing Diatom 
production in a local area that the pH level in the local waters can be 
adjusted? My thought is that if the acid is used up by dissolving this 
introduced mass, would it have a positive effect on the local biotic web?

We do need a marine biologist giving input here. 

Thanks again for bringing this forward.

Michael 

  

-- 
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: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

2011-05-17 Thread Michael Hayes

Bhaskar,

Here is a Google search list I will be working through in trying to
understanding on my last question as to the impact of diatoms on ocean
acidification.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Efficiency+of+the+CO2-concentrating+mechanism+of+diatomshl=enas_sdt=0as_vis=1oi=scholart

As I am just learning about this, please excuse my fumbling about.

As diatoms are the main means of transporting CO2 to the ocean floor, would
the idea of large-scale mid-ocean diatom farms appeal to you? Large scale
Diatoms Mats can be positioned in the Trash Gyres. The gyres are remote
and have little surface current. I am sure you know of them, but I will
include the Wiki for other readers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

Can you give some idea of the CO2 transport of diatoms to the ocean floor
per km 2/time? I am sure a number of factors, such as type of diatom and mat
depth would need to be considered.

I do realize that the use of equipment is not your first preferred option.
However, I can bring to the table a number of ideas on how to envelope
floating diatom mats which can cover latterly thousands of
square kilometers. These controlled mats could have a number of
other benefits if other concepts are married to it. One point being that
thick mats would entrain the decomposing trash in the gyres. This could lead
to a method to remove that pollution on an ongoing way. Another
potential benefit is the potential of large area cooling that would be
expected from such large controlled mats.

These mats do not have to be contentious. In that, open areas would
be incorporated. They would not completely block the sun light from the
underlying waters and passing sea life would adapt, probably in interesting
ways. This does seem like a good way to use the gyres.

Thanks again and please let me know your thoughts.

Michael

I will think about other additional possibilities for the concept and am
interested in hear your views on such the concept.

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

[geo] Mid-Oceanic Diatom Entrapment System Technology.....MODEST

2011-05-17 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi All,

Bhaskar has brought the use of diatoms up and I find the thought path
interesting. I would like to start this thread off in an effort to keep the
issue organized in one thread for easy reference and focused discussion on
his suggestion/concept.

The main benefits of diatoms are O2 production and CO2 sequestration.

How can those benefits be practically exploited on a significant enough
scale to impact Global Warming?

What would be the environmental impact of large-scale use be?

What environments can this biotic enhancement be practically carried out
within?

What type of diatoms can/should be used and in which environment?

These were my first questions in trying to understand Bhaskar's ongoing
effort to bring the use of diatoms up. If a focused attention can be
produced through this dedicated thread, the issue may find the fullest
evaluation this group can offer.

Here is a link to the Google results on scholarly papers concerning diatom
and CO2 transport to the ocean floor.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Efficiency+of+the+CO2-concentrating+mechanism+of+diatomshl=enas_sdt=0as_vis=1oi=scholart
This
is a repeat from my earlier post on the Lecture on Methane thread. I think
it might help the effort if all relative links are made available here.

Here is the Google search results on diatoms and O2 production.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+and+oxygenhl=enas_sdt=0as_vis=1oi=scholart

Here is the Google search results on diatom nutrient uptake
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+nutrient+uptake+ratehl=enas_sdt=0as_vis=1oi=scholart

Here are the marine species lists that I am initially finding;

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetailsid=156607
http://university.uog.edu/botany/474/mar-fw_diatoms.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlineaid=4244072
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag//artdec10/cuba-diatom.pdf
http://www.jsrd.org/Vol%2010/Vol%2010%20Art9.pdf

There are many more.

I proposed the use of gyres of large-scale diatom farms to provide CO2 ocean
sequestration, large area ocean surface cooling and possible pollution
mitigation. However, I may not be the first to propose it and I would be
interested in finding any previously published work. I try avoiding
reinventing wheels when I can.

That concept will initially take a survey of diatoms which have two basic
attributes. First is their natural existence in the coastal areas of the
ocean gyre that they will be farmed in. Second is their ability to form
mats. There may be a combination of species which would act in a mutually
supporting way to create prescribed mats. The hardware side of the
concept will need to be focus upon biomemecry and utilization of
available resources. The gyres have one resource which can be
usedplastic!

I hope this thread starts a way to keep the many issues, that diatom use
raises, in an easily referenced format.

Thanks again for your patience.

Michael

Re: [geo] Re: Mid-Oceanic Diatom Entrapment System Technology.....MODEST

2011-05-19 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi All,

MV, thank you for the input and I have spent a few days reading up on the
basics of the subject. I am just learning this field and so I ask your
patience. With that, I would like to ask two questions, if possible. Are
there diatoms that can regulate their buoyancy with intracellular lipids to
counter sinking. Would a Sargassum mat be considered a diatom mat?

I obviously need a little clarity on these points.

Michael

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:15 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Michael

A few points about Diatoms.
Most diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish and do not
accumulate, unlike other phytoplankton.
That is why you SEE fewer Diatom blooms in photos.

Diatoms sink, other phytoplankton float.
This is another reason why we SEE less diatoms.

To answer the two points you raised -

First is their natural existence in the coastal areas of the ocean gyre
that they will be farmed in.

Diatoms exist in all natural waters, they account for about 40 to 50%
of the oxygen and primary production in oceans.

Second is their ability to form mats.

As mentioned above they rarely form mats, most are consumed or the
dead diatoms sink.

Any attempt to 'farm' or grow diatoms to accumulate them will be very
expensive.

best regards

Bhaskar

On May 18, 2:54 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,

Bhaskar has brought the use of diatoms up and I find the thought path
interesting. I would like to start this thread off in an effort to keep
the
issue organized in one thread for easy reference and focused discussion
on
his suggestion/concept.

The main benefits of diatoms are O2 production and CO2 sequestration.

How can those benefits be practically exploited on a significant enough
scale to impact Global Warming?

What would be the environmental impact of large-scale use be?

What environments can this biotic enhancement be practically carried out
within?

What type of diatoms can/should be used and in which environment?

Here is a link to the Google results on scholarly papers concerning
diatom
and CO2 transport to the ocean floor.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Efficiency+of+the+CO2-concentrati...This
is a repeat from my earlier post on the Lecture on Methane thread. I
think
it might help the effort if all relative links are made available here.

Here is the Google search results on diatoms and O2 production.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+and+oxygenhl=enas_sdt=0;...

Here is the Google search results on diatom nutrient uptakehttp://
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+nutrient+uptake+ratehl=en...

Here are the marine species lists that I am initially finding;

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetailsid=156607http://university.uog.edu/botany/474/mar-fw_diatoms.htmlhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online...http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag//artdec10/cuba-diatom.pdfhttp://www.jsrd.org/Vol%2010/Vol%2010%20Art9.pdf

There are many more.

I proposed the use of gyres of large-scale diatom farms to provide CO2
ocean
sequestration, large area ocean surface cooling and possible pollution
mitigation. However, I may not be the first to propose it and I would be
interested in finding any previously published work. I try avoiding
reinventing wheels when I can.

I hope this thread starts a way to keep the many issues, that diatom use
raises, in an easily referenced format.

Thanks again for your patience.

Michael

--
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

Re: [geo] Re: Mid-Oceanic Diatom Entrapment System Technology.....MODEST

2011-05-24 Thread Michael Hayes

 Martin's prediction of a 12-fold increase. John won the
 chlorophyll
   pool, Johnson notes.
 
   Clumps of phytoplankton filled the fertilized patch. Of all the types
 of
   phytoplankton in the water, diatoms grew the most - to 85 times their
   normal number - and consumed an estimated 367 tons of carbon dioxide.
 To
   honor Martin, the most abundant diatom in the mix was dubbed Nitschia
   martini.
 
   Unfortunately the goal of Iron Fertilization is not clearly stated -
 is to
   cause a bloom of any phytoplankton or to cause a bloom of Diatoms.
 
   Diatoms are mentioned in all the literature but the actual goal and
 impact
   of bloom of each type of phytoplankton is not specified.
 
   regards
 
   Bhaskar
 
   *
   On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:56 PM, voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Yes, I understand the difference between micro/macro. I am trying to
   understand how any diatom can be used in a controlled/prescribed way
   concerning Geoengineering. In my cursory scan of the diatom field, I
 could
   not make the link, with the exception of possibly using macro forms.
 As to
   micro diatom use in oxygenating methane vent floor areas, the
 resident life
   forms are anoxic and micro diatoms (producing O2) would seem to be
   disruptive. The suggestion of using hydrosols was conditional on a
 clear
   separation of the natural anoxic floor zone and the higher water
 column. How
   would you suggest micro diatoms be used?
 
   I am trying to get to the point of understanding the means and motive
 for
   your suggesting the use of diatoms, micro or macro. The CO2 uptake
 and
   sequestration is great for most species. The O2 production is needed
 in may
   places. The potential for large scale oil production is well known.
 Yet, I
   need your help in understanding How you plan on utilizing this
 resource.
 
   Respectfully
 
   Michael
 
   On , BHASKAR M V bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote:
Sargussum is a macro algae and not a micro algae.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargassum
 
Live Diatoms rise and sink every day.
In lake they rise at sunrise and sink after a few hours.
 
I am not sure about marine diatoms in oceans.
 
Dead diatoms loose their buoyancy and sink.
 
Some Diatoms also expel the lipids and in tanks and ponds you can
 see
   the oily film floating on the surface.
 
regards
 
Bhaskar
 
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Michael Hayes
 voglerl...@gmail.com
   wrote:
 
Hi All,
 
MV, thank you for the input and I have spent a few days reading up
 on
   the basics of the subject. I am just learning this field and so I ask
 your
   patience. With that, I would like to ask two questions, if possible.
 Are
   there diatoms that can regulate their buoyancy with intracellular
 lipids to
   counter sinking. Would a Sargassum mat be considered a diatom mat?
 
I obviously need a little clarity on these points.
 
Michael
 
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:15 AM, M V Bhaskar
 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
wrote:
 
Hi Michael
 
A few points about Diatoms.
 
Most diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish and do not
 
accumulate, unlike other phytoplankton.
 
That is why you SEE fewer Diatom blooms in photos.
 
Diatoms sink, other phytoplankton float.
 
This is another reason why we SEE less diatoms.
 
To answer the two points you raised -
 
First is their natural existence in the coastal areas of the ocean
   gyre that they will be farmed in.
 
Diatoms exist in all natural waters, they account for about 40 to
 50%
 
of the oxygen and primary production in oceans.
 
Second is their ability to form mats.
 
As mentioned above they rarely form mats, most are consumed or the
 
dead diatoms sink.
 
Any attempt to 'farm' or grow diatoms to accumulate them will be
 very
 
expensive.
 
best regards
 
Bhaskar
 
On May 18, 2:54 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Hi All,
 
 Bhaskar has brought the use of diatoms up and I find the thought
 path
 
 interesting. I would like to start this thread off in an effort
 to
   keep the
 
 issue organized in one thread for easy reference and focused
   discussion on
 
 his suggestion/concept.
 
 The main benefits of diatoms are O2 production and CO2
 sequestration.
 
 How can those benefits be practically exploited on a significant
   enough
 
 scale to impact Global Warming?
 
 What would be the environmental impact of large-scale use be?
 
 What environments can this biotic enhancement be practically
 carried
   out
 
 within?
 
 What type of diatoms can/should be used and in which environment?
 
 These were my first questions in trying to understand Bhaskar's
   ongoing
 
 effort to bring the use of diatoms up. If a focused attention can
 be
 
 produced through this dedicated thread, the issue may find the
   fullest
 
 evaluation this group can offer.
 
 Here is a link

[geo] Re: Speaking of methane...

2011-06-01 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the 
methane release being caused by Fracking. Here is a link to a resent film 
on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you are 
interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the time 
to view this film. I do realize that any media based documentary is 
subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 
reasons.

1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2 
geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I 
have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this 
type of information should raise profound questions about the entire concept 
of geological CO2 sequestration.

2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this 
drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at 
the regional level.

Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field CO2 
sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas industry 
activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas industry be 
relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 
sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related pollution is 
important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying this 
industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be viewed 
with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do apologize 
to all used car salesmen for the comparison.   

Thanks for your patience.

Michael



 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK.
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] Skype-ing Conferences

2011-06-01 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

The meetings being set up are exciting to see come about. If a Skype link 
could be incorporated, I believe we could see a significantly 
larger participation. I personally can not afford the travel yet would very 
much like to be there. This group is global and these types 
of conferences/meetings will grow in number. If a Skype like link could be 
offered by the organizers, the non funded members would have a better means 
to stay abreast.

The UNEP Conference is offering internet participation for the selected 
experts. However, the proceedings should be opened to internet viewing by 
all interested parties on simple transparency grounds. There is no 
practical/technical reason why network viewing should not be made available 
to the general public. A side Google Group could be set up for those that 
are not invited experts but wish to make comments and/or discuss the 
issues being presented by the invited participants. as it happens. I am 
not any type of expert and thus would not qualify for direct involvement 
in the UNEP Conference, yet I would appreciate an opportunity to view 
the proceedings and express my views within a conference dedicated Google 
Group.

This is a critical meeting which has far-reaching potential. An 
internet version of a spectator gallery would seem reasonable for such 
a potentially historic conference. 
  
Thanks,

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/b1ktWFMzMm1tRGtK.
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: Speaking of methane...

2011-06-01 Thread Michael Hayes

Wide spread use of fracking only dates back to the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill
of 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005Current
methane measurements would be interesting to compare to the data Gregory
mentions!

I am clueless about what, if any, contributions to GE research the industry
is currently offering. However, I believe support for GE research would be
important to their strategic long term plans. If anyone can point out any
oil/gas industry funding activity *directly related* to GE, I would like to
read the info.

Thanks,

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of
 extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is a
 load of methane and the odd earthquake.

 Seems like a fair trade off to me!

 Obviously, it's a completely unacceptable technique for oil extraction in
 its current form. Nice data set, though. Shame it doesn't bode well for CCS,
 though - although I'm sure views may vary.

 If only we could get the oil industry to build us some cloud machines and
 high altitude planes...

 A
 On 1 Jun 2011 21:25, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the
  methane release being caused by Fracking. Here is a link to a resent
 film
  on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you are
  interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the
 time
  to view this film. I do realize that any media based documentary is
  subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2
  reasons.
 
  1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2
  geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table.
 I
  have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However,
 this
  type of information should raise profound questions about the entire
 concept
  of geological CO2 sequestration.
 
  2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this
  drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at
  the regional level.
 
  Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field
 CO2
  sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas industry

  activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas industry
 be
  relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2
  sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related pollution
 is
  important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying this
  industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be
 viewed
  with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do
 apologize
  to all used car salesmen for the comparison.
 
  Thanks for your patience.
 
  Michael
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 geoengineering group.
  To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK.
  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.
 




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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: Speaking of methane...

2011-06-01 Thread Michael Hayes

Tracer use would be the only way to assure we get what we pay for. The only
practical way to find a CO2 leak in an oil field would be to see the sand
kicking up around the leak. Well head monitoring will not be a reliable
means as CO2 can be absorbed into some rock formations. So, any leak related
drop in pressure could be readily explained away.

Fracking uses chemicals which would leave any clathrate area devoid of life
for centuriesif not longer. Calthrate drilling needs hot water which,
may itself, have significant effects on the local AOM community as most
hydrates are associated with loose sediment. The seepage of the
chemicals/hot water would be difficult to control for. Here are 2 papers I
base my views upon as they give a detailed view of what is known about the
physical reality of the hydrate fields.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/01k4m30p

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/01k4m30p
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2tz8x1ct

I have spent most of the last week studying their works and will try to pull
together some observations in the next few days. The main point that grabbed
my attention was the call for an engineered release to study what may be
expected by a GW induced event.

Thanks,



On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 It would be nice if that were the case, but even in heavily populated
 regions such as the Niger delta, where energy  infrastructure is extensive
 and sea ports are accessible, gas flaring is still common.

 Much methane released is in low concentrations, and can't be recovered,
 even if the will is there.  The oxidisers used for cleaning it out of mine
 air are serious bits of kit,  not installed lightly by operators.
 Substantial incentives are needed.

 On another note, can fracking technology be used to dissociate clathrates?

 A
 On 1 Jun 2011 22:31, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
  I think it is also important to remember the difference. Every reasonable
  effort will be made to capture any methane they can as it can be sold as
  energy. The same is not true of CO2, and with the higher background,
 leaks
  may well be harder to detect unless some tracer is added to the
 sequestered
  CO2.
 
  Mike MacCracken
 
 
  On 6/1/11 4:39 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of
  extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is
 a
  load of methane and the odd earthquake.
 
  Seems like a fair trade off to me!
 
  Obviously, it's a completely unacceptable technique for oil extraction
 in its
  current form. Nice data set, though. Shame it doesn't bode well for CCS,
  though - although I'm sure views may vary.
 
  If only we could get the oil industry to build us some cloud machines
 and high
  altitude planes...
 
  A
 
  On 1 Jun 2011 21:25, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
   Hi Folks,
  
   After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the
   methane release being caused by Fracking. Here is a link to a
 resent film
   on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you
 are
   interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take
 the
  time
   to view this film. I do realize that any media based documentary is
   subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for
 2
   reasons.
  
   1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive
 CO2
   geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the
 table. I
   have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical.
 However,
  this
   type of information should raise profound questions about the entire
  concept
   of geological CO2 sequestration.
  
   2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this
   drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at
   the regional level.
  
   Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil
 field
  CO2
   sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas
 industry
   activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas
 industry be
   relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2
   sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related
 pollution
  is
   important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying
 this
   industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be
  viewed
   with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do
 apologize
   to all used car salesmen for the comparison.
  
   Thanks for your patience.
  
   Michael
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   --
   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
  geoengineering group.
   To view this discussion on the web visit
  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK.
   To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 .
   To unsubscribe

Re: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

2011-06-03 Thread Michael Hayes

Large scale CO2 hydrate production and deposition may be expedited through 
the use of a large scale Ocean Thermal Conversion plant positioned over the 
target sequestration trough. Here is a paper outlining such a system (Fig. 
30). http://www.wolfhilbertz.com/downloads/1979/hilbertz_IEEE_1979.pdf

http://www.wolfhilbertz.com/downloads/1979/hilbertz_IEEE_1979.pdfThis type 
of instillation could have a number of second/third level advantages. I 
could list a half dozen, however the additional advantages should be 
obvious. Dr. Rau has compiled work which goes beyond Hilbertz yet I have to 
leave that to Greg to explain.

Thanks,  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/QS0zZTZSVVIwek1K.
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: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

2011-06-04 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the numbers on Ocean Algal Afforestation and the overall work you
and Dr. Stewart have presented. The ocean afforestation approach is an idea
which has made a good deal of practical sense to me for sometime. My post
concerning the MODEST concept was an attempt to either find projects like
yours or build a group which could detail the concept. I am glad to see a
team already putting work into this.

I have read your narrative and it does look like something the DoE should
fund.

I do realize that Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is still not typically
commercially viable. The point in using such a structure is that a deep
penetrating hull would help convert liquid CO2 into hydrate by using the
pressure of the ocean. *If a hull can reach down to the hydrate forming
depth, would there still be a need for bags? *

If such a hull was to be used for low-cost/high throughput CO2 processing,
why not go ahead and use it for thermal energy conversion. Also,
Solar/Thermal potential, as you know, is another energy input that should be
exploited. Potentially, huge Stirling engines running off the these 2
thermal sources could be installed and the resulting power used for ocean
based large-scale CCS/cooling or on shore power grid feed.

Are you free to give details on your patent claims? I think your concept has
a lot of inherent flexibility and I do hope to see your proposed trial get
approved.

Thanks,

Michael

-- 
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] Climate dialogue's new dimension: Terrorism

2011-06-14 Thread Michael Hayes

 few days. I want to
take my time to fully express my views and I will CC the response to Dr.
Pachauri. ETC is not an expert on GE just as I am not expert. They have a
financial motive to be heard on this issue, I do not! These folks are
pulling in around 100k per month on this scam of a gravy train!*
*
*
*This type of irrational ranting **by groups like ETC is what fuels the
irrational threats against those seriously working on true solutions. As
long as folks like ETC can make a living by ranting non-sense, there needs
to be those willing to stand toe to toe against them and debate/expose them
for the fear mongers that they are.   *
*
*
*Thanks again for your patience,*
*
*
*Michael  *



On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley
andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:

 A friend I won't name worked in geoengineering related research  and
 reported visits from hippies with baseball bats to researchers who offended
 the deep greens.

 Seems you can't do anything noteworthy in this field without someone
 somewhere wanting to kill you.

 I think I'd rather be shot by a redneck than beaten to death by a hippy.
 Anyone else got a preference? I'm not sure I'm influential enough to offend
 anyone yet, though. I've never previously thought of that as a good thing...

 I've written a non fiction book on security and counter intelligence for
 campaigners. If anyone wants a copy, I'll email it.

 A
 On 13 Jun 2011 17:54, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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: RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

2011-06-17 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks, 

Andrew, I think your proposed letter to the IPCC countering the ETC et.alia 
Open Letter should be the main focus. However, I will start compiling a 
contact info list of the signers if a direct response letter is to be 
prepared. The points which Ken offers are a great rallying flag for anyone 
interested in GE and Mike's Engineering Geoengineering is a clear and 
practical road map for what is technically needed. Getting 
that combined vision into the media, in the wake of the ETC offensive, can 
be profoundly important at this time. 

I  just Goggled theOpen Letter and have found a small handful of other 
groups posting copies of the letter. It does appear that the vast majority 
of the signers have not bothered to reference the letter and so I have to 
again ask myself; Is the list of groups simply window dressing? As you know, 
the media has no recognized GE Group to seek out a balanced view from and 
so your efforts are very important and timely.

As to my bet offer, I would have lost as I can see about 5 organizations 
(out of how many?) did mimic ETC's posting. I should have used the qualifier 
of vast majority of the groups as opposed to the all inclusive phrasing 
that I used. Still, the ETC effort does remind me of a Peacock.all show, 
little meat and lots of fertilizer.

Thanks again for your patience,

Michael   


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/pCwJ4fDeT2QJ.
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: RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

2011-06-18 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Ken, on the issue of media support, what about a new website;

As this group knows, the issue of GE has a need for broad public education 
on the many important issues within the general topic. An established PR 
firm would be a good investment at this time. Yet, who and what will the PR 
organization represent? Also, who will pay for building public support for a 
concept which has no product and has no current industry. I believe that a 
volunteer core of interested individuals can be a good start. Boot strapping 
up this type of network will take time and maybe some support from the 
professional level researchers/institutions in the form of an educational 
syllabus(s). It would be important to have this peer accepted information 
prepared at different educational levels. A mirror site to this group, which 
would provide translations/clarifications and background information, may 
help counter some of the PR damage some of the fringe groups are causing. 

The amateur class scientist has a long history of important contributions 
throughout the history of science. On the issue of GE, that class of 
interested layperson can help translate the science into street level 
language. Simply finding ways and funds to actually translate the core 
science papers is an issue that should get some attention. I have had folks 
in Japan expressing frustration over the lack of translated documents on 
this issue. Finding means to translate for just the top 10 languages would 
be a large chore. However, this effort would provide an opportunity to 
distill down to the core documents which are needed to understand the 
current environmental/policy situation and the key papers addressing the 
actual science/technology of any plan of action.

Yes, anyone with a true interest can search out and find all of that type of 
info within a few web sessions. Yet, I do believe a website of Cliff Notes 
for internet GE literature search is justified at this point. I also believe 
it should be kept up to date each day. 

Finding access to graphics production for use in this effort is important 
for obvious reasons. The few websites which mimicked ETC's Open Letter used 
the same Contrail picture. No surprise there, however my point is that all 
tools will be used against GE and many of those same tools will need to be 
used in countering these attacks. Many of the main GE concepts provide 
graphics, yet being able to develop new graphic as issues progress will help 
to a large degree. Being able to offer to members of the public graphics 
developement to illustrate a new idea would be a big draw to such a site. If 
an interested person can describe a new and useful concept to the group at 
a satisfactory level, they could get help to illustrate it. That would show 
an openness and inclusion which many would like to see and a diamond in the 
rough just might show up.

As we know, GE has a much tougher battle than the left fringe as GE needs to 
be ruled by logic/science/technology and practical policy craft (not to 
mention complete openness in communications). ETC et alia simply has to draw 
scary pictures and whine about Elite Northerners (and time media releases 
with their buddies). Even so, they have already won an important battle 
through the Bio-Diversity scam. GE can, has been and will be subjected to 
these simple strategic and tactical submarine efforts. GE's only option is 
to simply out educate and out class the foe! 

Finding the funding for a dedicated website will not be a 
major challenge and we all know that the funding origin(s) will be subjected 
to scrutiny. At this time, however, any funding from any source can help the 
concept of GE weather the strategic attack we witnessed on Monday. 

It take 3 people to start a 501 c3. It would take less than $900 a month to 
maintain a well done website and the extra cost of translations/graphics can 
be subjects of yearly fund-raisers. Give the people of the world the basic 
information in their own language and give them a way to express their own 
ideas for helping, and they will want to help.

I hope this suggestion helps.

Michael 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/0l5JaCf2294J.
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

2011-06-21 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Holly, I read your media assessment paper and found it a pleasure to see 
such thought put into the subject. The concept of GE is in need of this type 
of insight now and for sometime to come. Your paper can be viewed as a good 
indicator as to how well the message is being reieved. I think GE is failing 
on the PR subject. Yet, that is understandable as it has need championed by 
fewer people than I had at my last BBQ..I believe the bildungsroman of GE 
can be as positive as you point out and I also believe the final chapter of 
the book will be a tribute to humanities ability to survive their own 
follies. 

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! 

I think that type of all-inclusive thought path is one of the major issues 
of contention in this first chapter of the GE story. Societal issues are a 
necessary part of the GE equation as any rational person interested in this 
field wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number. However, the 
original core of the GE concept is not so broad that uneven development 
even shows up on the radar. The original GE concept is an emergency 
procedure...a last ditch hope for humanity. That is a highly worthy cause on 
its own. How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching 
to the evaluation criteria?

I was glad to see you pointed out that ETC et al. can not represent civil 
society 
as there is little knowledge to make informed comments or evaluations. That 
assumption of leading status by ETC is what I found as 
being truly objectionable.

I do hope you find the time to re-evaluate the media trends over the years 
so history can have a clear view of the how this story plays out in the 
media.

Thanks for your work.

Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wUJzn7RMwZIJ.
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

2011-06-21 Thread Michael Hayes

Ken, I highly agree with your management philosophy on this issue. Any
organized effort along these lines should be as passive as possible and not
be a news maker but a respected news reporter. Also, any organization which
takes on this role will be a focal point for fringe attacks and thus will
need to be unflappable. Also, this type of effort would seem like a good
starting point for an eventual formal Society for Geoengineering Studies.
This initial website effort could end up eventually evolving into the On
Line Journal of the Society for Geoengineering Studies.

I will continue to look for a current group which could fill this need. No
luck so far.

Michael

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:

 Needless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

 It might be good if done well.

 I think key would be being as centrist and reasonable as possible. Make as
 few claims as possible as an organization. Make sure all such statements of
 the organization are well-founded and board approved. Avoid any statements
 that would make the organization seem outside the scientific or political
 mainstream.

 Balance this with rapid response to developments in the news cycle to
 maximize media exposure. Participate in NGO activities around meetings of
 the parties of various conventions.

 There are real political and strategic questions:  is it better to promote
 a broad brush approach to reducing climate risk (including emission
 reduction, adaptation etc) or narrowly focus on CDR and/or SRM?

 (My preference would be the former.)

 Another question: is there a suitable existing org that would take this up
 as a campaign?

 Ken Caldeira
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 +1 650 704 7212
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

 Sent from a limited-typing keyboard

 On Jun 19, 2011, at 1:47, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:

 It doesn't need a lot of money to do do this.

 Some time ago I suggested a formal membership organisation, which would be
 the obvious focus for media attention

 At the time ken argued against the idea, and it seemed to die at that
 point.

 Is there now any support for establishing a geoengineering studies society
 

 A
 On 19 Jun 2011 00:57, Michael Hayes  voglerl...@gmail.com
 voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms

2011-06-23 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Bhaskar, Thanks for the clarification(s). I was hoping to encourage you to
give us more information. The list of questions you posted is a challenge.
Can you venture a guess as to the answers. I know you would prefer proof
backing any ventured comment, yet your questions are far reaching and thus
would take years to establish the many facts sought out by your
questions.

This forum is not a Formal Peer Review Journal. You have the freedom to
speculate. Trust me, being wrong is not that painful with this group. I
have yet to be right. I personally would like to hear your.
opinions. concerning the possible answers to your questions.

Thanks,

Michael

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for this. I do hope the IPCC will take this on board as well,
 realizing that geoengineering also encompasses such ways to tackle
 methane.

 Cheers!
 Sam Carana



 On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:07 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Hi Micheal
 
  Thanks.
 
  Your proposal is quite interesting.
 
  A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are
  advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways,
  these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom.
 
  Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps
  be used along with our nano powder.
 
  The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in
  the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted.
 
  This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme.
 
   This might be done through laminating the dried
 preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white
 powdered
 sugar?).
 
  Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution.
  There are mountains of these all over the world.
 
  http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour
  Scroll down for some very good photos.
 
  regards
 
  Bhaskar
 
 
  On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi Folks,
 
  This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a
 very
  raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought.
 
  *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms *
 
  *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for*
 
  *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation*
 
   *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group*
 
   Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have
 self
  regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a
  regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2
  million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal
 does
  not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to
  others. In general, they play an important role on many different
 levels.
  Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with
 long
  term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is
 well
  known but that issue is outside of this proposal.
 
   Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that
 micro
  diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water
 to
  produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This
 conceptual
  sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric
  aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial
 and
  Ocean Acidification Mitigation.
 
   :A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of
  biological aerosol medium can be anticipated.
 
 1.
 
 *Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time?* The
 size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an
 aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable
 periods of
 time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous
 aerosol
 concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging
 from
 altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell
 characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The
 rate (if
 any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding.
 If it
 is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this
 could
 represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as,
 possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening.
 
 2.
 
 *Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR?* Typically, this diatom
 preparation
 is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can
 be
 engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating
 the dried
 preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white
 powdered
 sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not
 substantially
 degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated
 environmental
 adverse effects will need

[geo] Hiroshi Mizutani's educational efforts in Japan

2011-06-23 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Hiroshi contacted me awhile back about creating an educational GE website
for his language. This was in response to a suggestion that a broader effort
in education be made. I used the term Para Geoengineer to describe someone
who would be dedicated to the educational aspects of GE. His English page
represents the most extensive glossary of GE related terms I have yet to
find. In fact, it may be the first published GE glossary. I am personally
impressed with his efforts to get this issue translated. If anyone on this
list knows of an interrupter who could help him further his work, please let
him know directly.

Thank you for your work, Hiroshi. I have bookmarked your site and I will
visit it often to watch your progress.

Michael



-- Forwarded message --
From: hiroshi mizutani mizutani49...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/6/22
Subject: Re: [clim] Re: Time for Para Geoengineering Syllabus?
To: voglerl...@gmail.com


Hi Michael,

Thank you for your encouraging mail.

Though the site I mentioned before is, content-wise, not yet ready for
public access, its further development somehow demanded it to be on an
open site.

The URL is :
http://geoeng.brs.nihon-u.ac.jp

The language is Japanese, but you may find ENGLISH HOME at top right
corner of the home page.  It is the only page on the site, where you
can find more English than Japanese!

If you please take a look at it and give any comments to me, I would
greatly appreciate them.

Thank you in advance.

Hiroshi




2011/5/12  voglerl...@gmail.com:
 On May 5, 2011 12:42am, hiroshi mizutani mizutani49...@gmail.com wrote:
 Michael:


 Hi Hiroshi,

 I think what you're doing is Great! I have studied the general subject for
 about 18 months and I'm now able to piece things together to develop my
own
 opinions. The professionals are experts in their respective fields, yet
this
 subject is so new that even an interested and informed layperson can see
the
 bigger picture with as much clarity as the professional researcher. The
more
 that the informed layperson (Para Geoengineers) get involved, the less
 chance that this issue will be influenced by radicals. There are already
 small media based groups who are influencing UN level decisions. They have
 no real interest in the technology, just gaining financial donations.

 The eventual deployment of any global level Geoengineering (GE) effort,
will
 need the consent of the masses. With the internet, the masses can follow
 this type of sophisticated technical/political development and make their
 views known directly to the policy makers. Helping laypeople find the
 information is what I had in mind.

 Things are heating up in a number of areas on this topic and knowledgeable
 internet based groups can make an impact. Watching the Google GE Group is
my
 main means of staying abreast and making suggestions. Pulling together the
 many web links posted on that site would be a good knowledge resource for
 someone new to the issues. The Climate Intervention Google Group will be
 shut down soon and those links will be lost. Collecting those links would
be
 important now! Collecting them has never been done, as far as I know.
 With a little time, your group will be as informed as the policy makers.
How
 much do you think the policy makers actual know about the science and
 technology? Not that much.

 What they do know is that the opinions of the people matter. Let's just
try
 to get the interested laypersons informed. Let me know if you need any
input
 from me and please keep me informed.

 Thank you.


 I see your point.  Furthermore, I believe the professionals are to be

 educated as well.  Both professionals and lay people lack sufficient

 perspective on Geoengineering to make right choices.



 With this in mind, I am now trying to set up a web site at my office

 in Japan.  Its main language is Japanese because intensive exchanges

 among any interested parties must be done with their mother tongue.  I

 am a bit sorry for that, but I certainly see the need for the

 familiarization program in English.  It will benefit us as well as

 folks in the street.





 On 5月4日, 午後2:44, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:

  Thanks Ron,

 

  I think you have simply made my point with your response. How many
folks

  walking down the street can tell you what terra preta means?
  Atmospheric

  Carbon Capture is an important aspect of Geoengineering. Yet, unless a
  class

  of educators/technicians are trained to bring the concepts down to the

  understanding of the masses, the Phd funding will be difficult to find.

 

  Does your use of the term terra preta refer to Portuguese black

  earth, Amazonian dark earth or Indian black earth? In certain areas,
  the

  need to choose the best definition may help the local folks better

  understand the concept. Please spend time on Hollywood Blvd with a
  camera

  asking folks what terre preta means Jay Leno would probably buy
  the

  videos

Re: [geo] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet

2011-06-23 Thread Michael Hayes

 to
 IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri expressing concerns about the IPCC expert
 meeting. “The IPCC has assured us it will go forward carefully in this work,
 and will not overstep its mandate by making governance recommendations. We
 will be closely following the process,” said Ribeiro. “Geoengineering is too
 dangerous to too many people and to the planet to be left in the hands of
 small group of so-called experts. Geoengineering should be an issue at the
 Rio+20 conference in June 2012.”



 For more information:



 Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, sil...@etcgroup.org; +52 55 5563 
 2664%2B52%2055%205563%202664

 cell phone: +52 1 55 2653 3330



 Pat Mooney, ETC Group, e...@etcgroup.org; +1 613 241 
 2267%2B1%20613%20241%202267

 cell phone: +1 613 240 0045



 Diana Bronson, ETC group, di...@etcgroup.org;

 cell phone: +1 514 629 9236 %2B1%20514%20629%209236





 On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:

 
  Has ETC adopted a new strategy, and decided to say things that sound
 more balanced?
 
 
 
 
  On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
  RT @geoengpolicy For a few tweets on the #IPCC meeting on
 #geoengineering, see @ClarisseLKS  statement from @HandsOffMotherE
 http://t.co/gUv3UxI
 
 
  --
  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.

 Jim Thomas
 ETC Group (Montreal)
 j...@etcgroup.org
 +1 514 2739994 %2B1%20514%202739994






  --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet

2011-06-24 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Ron, Bronson seemed to be simply confused on a few of her points. The CO2
being best left in the atmosphere remark was one and is something I think
most of the ETC donors need to pay close attention to. Greenpeace can offer
a much more rational service for the donation dollar. Also, on one hand
she claims all GE proposed methods simply will not work (3:33), yet on the
other hand, they should all be baned. I believe this is a clear example of
her confusion or willingness to be simply dishonest with her audience. Why
take the trouble to ban something which does not work?

You asked about if there was any reference to not removing atmos. CO2 on
their site. I have been reading the available material on their site and
have not found any direct reference to that strategy. I can not, however
rule out that it is there somewhere. Also, the type of rhetoric that is
common in their writings is not precise in any way, shape or form and so
much of what is written can be widely interpreted. As you know, one tried
and true con-artist technique is that If you can't dazzle with
your brilliance, baffle them with your Bull Sh#t Bronson was clearly not
dazzling anyone in her interview and I am completely baffled by much of what
I read on their site.

The ETC staff constantly brings up The Precautionary Principle as a mantra
like chant.

Here is a stark look at that principle from Max More;
*What’s Wrong with the Precautionary Principle?*

The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us
badly by:

   1. assuming worst-case scenarios
   2. distracting attention from established threats to health, especially
   natural risks
   3. assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all
   positive or neutral, never negative
   4. ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring
   nature over humanity
   5. illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably
   positioning the proponent of the activity
   6. conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and
   harm.

Ironically, the precautionary principle does actually support GE.

Wiki; One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and
globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio
Conferencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Conference,
or Earth Summit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit in 1992.
Principle #15 of the Rio
Declarationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration
 notes:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be
widely applied by States according to their capabilities. *Where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental
degradation*.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_note-1
 My
underscoring.

It is clear that Global Warming does pose a threat of serious
or irreversible damage and the lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation (that seems like a call for GE to me!). I
would like to see ETC place this definition prominently on their front page.
What would their donors think?

You asked about their position on getting more CO2 into plants (Redd+). My
reading indicates to me that they believe it is now a green washing
situation. Again, I could be mistaken as understanding their
manymany...many positions on the many...many issues they rant against is
a major cat herding exercise and I may have missed a cat or two.

Ron, I hope this helps bring some clarity to the engineered opaqueness of
ETC's means and methods.

Thanks again for your patience,

Michael


On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:24 PM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:

 Michael etal - especially Jim Mason

 1.  Re the 5 minute video on Ms Bronson - I was glad to see that and
 hope you will keep alerting us to such.  The surprise to me was her
 statement just before the 4 minute mark that carbon dioxide was better in
 the atmosphere than in geologic formations, the land, or the sea.  Does
 anyone know if there is anything on the ETC website (or anywhere) to support
 this conclusion - which I have not seen before - and is likely not supported
 by any (?) on this list, and unlikely by anyone serious about getting back
 to 350 ppm.

 2.  She left out getting more CO2 into plant matter;  is that
 acceptable or not to ETC?(many groups like ETC  reject REDD+).   I think
 I have gotten into the ETC website once or twice, but have been foiled at
 least ten times before and couldn't get in tonight.  Is there a secret way
 or time to get there?

 Ron

 --
 *From: *Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
 *To: *agask...@nc.rr.com
 *Cc: *kcalde...@gmail.com, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.org, Andrew
 Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering 
 geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Re: [geo] Sea Level

2011-06-26 Thread Michael Hayes

.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site

-- 
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] Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GW Mitigation

2011-06-27 Thread Michael Hayes

 
supply can eventually be worked into the biologics. The growing beds for the 
bamboo will be smaller water tight versions of the non water tight larger 
salt water halophyte growing mats. The bamboo is mainly used to supply the 
main structural material of the floating mats and growth medium for the salt 
water crop(s). The quick growing biomass of the bamboo provides the main 
means for this floating forest/crop to function.
 
b. The need for starter soil and starter fabricated growing barges. 
Thick floating mats will eventually replace the need for starter equipment. 
Yet, an initial use of standard vessels would be needed. Buy old ones for 
scrap price and tow them out to the site. An older oil tanker would be an 
ideal starter kit.  

How can large growing mats be moored? Well, you don't! First, the mats will 
be in the hector size range and thus are within a manageable size for use of 
station keeping propulsion. Second, the preferred means of propulsion would 
be the use of vectored hypolemnetic aeration mixers tethered down into 
the thermolcline. This form of station keeping propulsion has 
the benefits of biologically supporting the underside of the organic grow 
mats, increasing mariculture output and cooling the surface water (great 
place to catch tuna). The ideal position for these mats would be in the 
central areas of gyres which have very little current and few storms.

Prototyping a few hectors would just need a reasonably large barge, a small 
tender and organics. Constructing the first mats would require purchased 
bamboo, soil and seed.   

Conclusion:

As you may have seen, this is not a completely new idea, in that, I have 
simply combined two emerging concepts to create a third. Ocean 
Afforestation, as envisioned by Mark Capon et al., has many worthy aspects 
which mate up well with this surface C4 effort. The farming of halophytes on 
barren lands also has good potential. With a little 3rd world engineering 
(ie. use of bamboo) these 3 concepts can be merged to create a more robust 
third option. IMHO.
  
I believe the main point to consider is the the need for labor. This is a 
labor intensive concept. This can actually be a good thing. As any large 
scale mid ocean operation will have many operational aspects, the potential 
to produce jobs is wide open. We may very well see large scale population 
displacements due to GW. Providing housing and jobs which do not conflict 
with or strain neighboring areas may turn out to be a blessing for all. If 
one country decides to use this method at large scale, it would 
significantly reduce it's unemployment rate. 

The numbers I used are soft and I expect I (and others) will find many 
errors in this concept. However, it may be a reasonable starting place. If 
anything, this short study gave me a much clearer picture of how bad the GW 
issue is. Transposing CO2 emissions onto the needed land mass for C4 CCS, is 
an eye opener. We will need to build a new continent. Maybe we can start 
this one out on the right foot.

Michael Hayes
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halophyte

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllostachys_edulis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllostachys_edulis   
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyporus_phyllostachydis

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambusa_oldhamii

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia_bigelovii

(7) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicornia

(9) 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NH1lCuyMNMEJ.
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: Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GW Mitigation

2011-06-29 Thread Michael Hayes

Thanks Mark,

I was hoping to see you chime in. The estimate of 6% was what I also came up
with, yet I took it out of the text at the last moment in favor of the
mental image of Antarctica (thanks for confirming my math!). I do believe
that a robust effort in OAA can reduce the total area somewhat, but it will
still be at continental proportions. The processing of the material is an
aspect which I glanced over as I can foresee multiple
material handling/processes systems eventually being used.

Your subsurface digester concept was in the back of my mind as one of
a handful of processing systems within a central hub(s). I am not clear on
the means you propose of constructing something that size. Can you provide a
clearer picture of the construction of the main reactor(s)? Have
you considered growing it using electrolysis? Also, being able to dry the
digested spoilage would be a useful ancillary consideration as that material
would have many uses. Your digester(s) would have an important use just for
their buoyancy. And thus, I can see small ones piped together and used as
retention buoys (booms) with a large main reactor supporting the main
processing hub. Please stop me if I am going too far.

On a different foreseeable core process. I can see the Hou Process providing
a significant export product (fertilizer); Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate
:
Hou's process
Developed by Chinese chemist Hou
Debanghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hou_Debang in
1930s, the first few steps are the same as the Solvay process. However,
instead of treating the remaining solution with lime, carbon dioxide and
ammonia are pumped into the solution, then sodium chloride is added until
the solution saturates at 40 °C. Next, the solution is cooled to 10
°C. Ammonium
chloride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_chloride precipitates and
is removed by filtration, and the solution is recycled to produce more
sodium carbonate. Hou's process eliminates the production of calcium
chloride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride and the
byproduct ammonium
chloride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_chloride can be refined or
used as a fertilizer.

Your call for research on OAA should be bumped up to the first rank of GE
concepts being considered...and reported... for many reasons. Just
fourFirst, it is simple in concept and implementation. Second, it does
not trigger significant ecological debates. Third, the ocean based
biological approach is our best *longterm* means for dealing with the end of
the fossil fuel era. Lastly and most importantly, it begins to address the
energy aspect of GW. I do not believe there is any other general GE concept
which has a significant fuel production aspect. If a mitigation effort can
offset it's own development and operation cost through energy production and
sells, it should have top rank. GW is a major battle and GE will be a major
tool in fighting that battle. Non the less, we are fighting an energy war.

Thanks for your efforts,

Michael



On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote:

 Michael,

 You are right, we need to find the optimum forest plants for upto 6% of
 the world's ocean surface.  Ocean gyres would be good locations.

 Whatever forest we arrange needs some mechanism for separating the carbon
 from the nutrients, otherwise we will be nutrient limited at human space and
 time scales.

 PODenergy is just starting to recruit researchers for issues, such as those
 listed in the attached, OAA ecosystem researcher opportunities.  At the
 moment, the researchers would need to find their own funding.  In the US
 that might be National Science Foundation, Department of Energy (DOE),
 and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The back of this list
 has a current explanation of Ocean Algal Afforestation developed for a US
 DOE proposal.  Unfortunately, it was demeemed non-responsive because DOE's
 Plants Engineered to Replace Oil funding announcement was looking
 for genetic engineering of plants.

 Mark E. Capron, PE
 Oxnard, California
 www.PODenergy.org



  Original Message 
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GW
 Mitigation
 From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
 Date: Tue, June 28, 2011 7:17 am
 To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
 Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com


 Bhaskar,

 Yes that did come up in my study. I did try to indicate that the concept I
 offered was well suited for both micro and macro C4. The Nualgi
 nutrient supplement you champion would have ample room in the concept. When
 I go on these studies, I try to take the broadest and most inclusive view.

 I do have 2 somewhat related questions for you. First, what is your opinion
 of the concept of genetically modifying for Rubisco enhancement? Has Nualgi
 been field tested in open waters with significant currents?

 Thanks

 On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:58 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.comwrote:

 Michael

[geo] Re: Petition about education

2011-06-30 Thread Michael Hayes

Ok,

I again need the crayon and construction paper treatment. Will someone 
please explain to me this gibberish. 
http://www.google.com/ig#m_5_%7B%22th%22:%22130df29e00f5a3ff%22,%20%22fl%22:%220%22,%20%22tc%22:%2220%22%7D
 

Apparently, someone is buttering both sides of the toast. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/RctwJ0L2vXwJ.
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: Petition about education

2011-06-30 Thread Michael Hayes

OK Again,

The link was not for this issue. Here is the text I received concerning the 
education of GW.Sorry for the.well swimming recommendations.

*Unravelling current confusions around the national curriculum and the 
school curriculum*
 
*We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our 
children*. 
Native American Proverb
 
Thank you for your enquiry on this very important matter.
 
Very few people read past the headline of the Guardian article of 13th June 
(*Climate change should go from school syllabus*). Many people have missed 
the point. For example: websites are saying ‘Keep climate change in the 
school curriculum’. This is a confusion. It confuses the National Curriculum 
with the School Curriculum. If we desire our National Curriculum to be 
robust, enduring and not overbearing, then we need to have some strong 
principles about what is in and what is not.
 
The *National Curriculum* lays down, in law, the fundamentals which all 
children should be taught. It should be lean and precise, describing the 
essentials of human knowledge and understanding. The National Curriculum is 
part of, but not the totality, of the School Curriculum.
 
The *School Curriculum* should be broad and balanced, consisting of rich 
learning programmes devised by teachers who understand which topics and 
issues would most motivate and engage their pupils.
 
The national and international evidence scrutinised by the Expert Panel 
giving advice on the National Curriculum suggests that this is a vital 
distinction which we, in our education system, have lost.
 
The National Curriculum should provide a clear statement of the essential 
elements of learning which underpin – and form part of - a broad and 
balanced School Curriculum for children from 5 to 16.
 
A slimmed-down National Curriculum is intended to be a positive development, 
empowering teachers and schools. It increases the ‘professional space’ in 
schools, giving the opportunity for teachers carefully to select themes and 
issues which will maximise learners’ motivation and engagement.
 
It’s precisely BECAUSE the environment is so important that we need children 
to engage with these complex issues with comprehensive and incisive 
scientific understanding. The National Curriculum should focus with great 
intensity on what this understanding comprises. We want increasing 
attainment and understanding amongst those taking science and related 
subjects in Higher Education; we need all children to be prepared well for 
engagement in ALL of the vital issues which confront our society.
 
As the Chair of the Expert Panel, providing advice to the Secretary of State 
on the content of a new, more robust National Curriculum, I am seeking to 
assert the distinction between the National Curriculum and the School 
Curriculum, precisely because we want issues such as climate change to be 
discussed in such a way that the right actions will be taken by the next 
generation, and generations to come.
 
Once again, thank you for your comments on these vital matters.
 
 
Tim Oates
Cambridge, June 2011 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/LOur2co_7uIJ.
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] WaPo / PNAS: China's coal plants delaying warming?

2011-07-06 Thread Michael Hayes

, Kaufmann
 said.

 Now, Chinese leaders have recognized the effects of that pollution on
 their environment and their citizens’ health and are installing
 equipment to scrub out the sulfur particles, Kaufmann said.

 Sulfur quickly drops out of the air if it is not replenished, while
 carbon dioxide remains for a long time, so its warming effects are
 beginning to be visible again, he noted. The plateau in temperature
 growth disappeared in 2009 and 2010, when temperatures lurched upward.

 Indeed, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
 have listed 2010 as tied for the warmest year on record, while the
 Hadley Center of the British Meteorological Office lists it as second
 warmest, after 1998.

 Sulfur’s ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it
 in a geoengineering feat to cool the planet. The idea is that
 injecting sulfur compounds very high into the atmosphere might help
 ease global warming by increasing clouds and haze that would reflect
 sunlight. Some research has concluded that’s a bad idea.

 Using enough sulfur to reduce warming would wipe out the protective
 Arctic ozone layer and delay recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by
 as much as 70 years, according to an analysis by Simone Tilmes of the
 National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. This is the
 ozone layer that is high above Earth and protects against harmful UV
 rays, not the ground level ozone that is a harmful pollutant.

 “While climate change is a major threat, more research is required
 before society attempts global geoengineering solutions,” said Tilmes.

 Overall, global temperatures have been increasing for more than a
 century since the industrial revolution began adding gases like carbon
 dioxide to the air. But there have been similar plateaus, such as
 during the post-World War II era when industrial production boosted
 sulfur emissions in several parts of the world, Kaufmann explained.

 Atmospheric scientists and environmentalists are concerned that
 continued rising temperatures could have serious impacts worldwide,
 ranging from drought in some areas, changes in storm patterns, spread
 of tropical diseases and rising sea levels

 ___

 Online: http://www.pnas.org

 Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
 material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Stratospheric Seeding - Hyde, Teller, Wood

2011-07-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,


In my reading of the Hyde et al. paper, the concept of using conductive 
sheets as a form of SRM stood out in my view as being a highly creative 
concept waiting for advancements in material science. Space based deployment 
was suggested over stratospheric placement due to oxidation shielding needs 
within the stratosphere. Here is the relative quote:

The constituent materials of  every efficient photoelectric absorber for 
solar-spectrum radiation 
inherently a r e  readily oxidizable, particularly in the highly 
(photoheactive upper atmosphere, so 
that only LEO deployment of  such systems appears feasible - unless 
2two-fold mass penalties a r e  
paid for protective jacketing, e.g.,  Si02 .

A recent MIT development along these lines may be appropriate to consider as 
a potential stratospheric alternative. Here is the media report:

How to grow nanowires and tiny plates
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-nanowires-tiny-plates.html

The first key quote is:

“For nanostructures, there’s a coupling between the geometry and the 
electrical and optical properties,” explains Brian Chow, a postdoc at MIT 
and co-author of a paper describing the results that was published July 10 
in the journal *Nature Materials*. “Being able to tune the geometry is very 
powerful,” he says. The system Chow and his colleagues developed can 
precisely control the aspect ratio (the ratio of length to width) of the 
nanowires to produce anything from flat plates to long thin wires.

I believe this development (particularly the TiO2 variant) may have 
potential to provide the fine tunning of SRM that Hyde et al. describe just 
prior to their conclusion:

Indeed, scatterers of  sunlight could be deployed at some latitudes to 
decrement 
insolation, while  scatterers of  Earth-emitted long-wavelength infrared 
radiation 
(which effectively increment insolation) could be deployed at other 
latitudes.39 
Differential cooling and heating, respectively, of underlying 
land-and-ocean 
latitudinal bands could thereby be accomplished.  Furthermore, use of 
 scatterers 
of varying stratospheric residence times t o  simultaneously modulate 
insolation 
and LWlR radiative losses in a specified latitude band might be employed t o 
 fine- 
tune, e.g.,  diurnal or seasonal temperature variability.40.

The mass production potential indicated by Joo does seem to fall into line 
with the need for large yearly volumes needed for stratospheric SRM. 

Michael

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/HRHE1OUGvDwJ.
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: The great experiment is started

2011-07-25 Thread Michael Hayes

Hello Michele and Hiroshi,

Thanks for the work you shared. I have put some study effort into
atmospheric electrical processes in general and, in particular, the Global
Electrical Circuit (GEC) and the effect on cloud nucleation. You mentioned
no additional heat source around Nordham. Beyond the kinetic action of the
windmills, it may be the additional grounding effect of the windmills which
may be causing an increase in cloud nucleation.

Taking electrical readings of the surface GEC of the Norden site may be
interesting and wrth the effort. Here is the home page of Dr. Tensley who is
one of the leading researchers in the field of atmospheric electrical
processes as it relates to cloud nucleation.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley.html

If you would like specific papers on the subject, please let me know.

Hiroshi has pointed out a reverse situation of rain reduction. From the
basic physical description he provides (near the top of a mountain),
disruption in the Mountain Wave effect may be something worth looking at.
Here is a basic schematic of that phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vol_d%27onde.svg . Mountains are known to
have an effect on the GEC and what Hiroshi is describing is most likely not
GEC related but a simple kinetic effect on the Mountain Wave propagation.

Even if my suggestions are completely off the mark, the anomalies being
described would seem to be more along the lines of local weather
modification as opposed to large scale effect(s) of geoengineering. This is
not to say that these effects could not be used in designing future GE
systems. Each of these anomilies do point to an effect which could be built
upon to produce wide regional effects.

Thank you and Hiroshi for bringing this 2 situations forward.

Michael

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, hiroshi mizutani
mizutani49...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi Michele: I found your contribution extremely interesting.

 A similar, though small in scale and not well documented, incident ocurred
 in Japan.

 After wind turbines were set up near the top of a mountain in Wakayama
 Prefecture, rainfall at the foot of the mountain decreased; thus reducing
 the harvest of mandarin oranges from neighborhood farms.

 I heartily agree with your view that the wind energy generation changes
 climate and is certainly one form of geoengineering.


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 geoengineering group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/LLVEDjql_0YJ.

 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise

2011-07-25 Thread Michael Hayes

.

 As the UNEP paper suggests, some 2/3rds of increased arctic warming
 until 2040s can be avoided through methane/BC measures, much like
 those I’ve posted about here before.  It would reduce arctic warming
 by about 0.7˚C in 2040. That might well not be enough to keep the
 arctic alive until the mid-century, and almost certainly won’t be
 enough to solve the “arctic crisis” indefinitely, and thus I am quite
 passionate about all geoengineering research. And of course, as Hansen
 has aptly put it, if we’re not planning to get off of fossil fuels
 quickly and before using the more “exotic” ones, we’re going to need
 to look for another planet.

 But just as Pacala called it “barbaric” here recently to engage in
 direct air capture before point-source capture for stationary sources
 (i.e. CCS), it would be equally barbaric to engage in potentially
 dangerous and costly geoengineering before doing the 100% safe and
 free geoengineering that we already have (i.e. methane programs, if
 the right financial instruments were created, could pay for themselves
 almost entirely over three decades, through the profit streams
 generated from the energy-productive portions of the trapped
 emissions). Clearly, ‘climate business-as-usual’ will not get the job
 done. The literature of the EPA M2M, GMF and now the GMI strongly
 suggest that we will need creativity – political, scientific,
 technological, economic, communications – to get this job done right.
 If we want to reverse or at least suspend arctic destruction, we need
 to bring down methane emissions by ~1/3rd, as quickly as possible. It
 is doable, the practical sources have been identified, etc. But we
 need YOU to help think up creative ways of getting this done!


 Cheers, Nathan


 Nathan Currier
 108 Ellwood Street, #43
 New York, NY   10040
 401-954-3402

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] The importance of educational outreach

2011-07-26 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Here is a media report on study which may point to the importance of 
educational outreach concerning GE. 

Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-minority-scientists-ideas.html

Here is the opening paragraph:

When the number of committed opinion 
http://www.physorg.com/tags/opinion/holders is below 10 percent, there is no 
visible progress in the spread of 
ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of 
the universe for this size group to reach the majority, said SCNARC 
Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished 
Professor at Rensselaer. Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea 
spreads like flame.
I went back and reviewed Holly Buck's Media Content Analysis ( 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/lg4NDhKTiPs/discussion) and 
found that only 7.5 percent of print media content and only 18 percent of 
online media content framed their narrative around science education. 
Effective scientific educational outreach is clearly needed if the concept 
of GE is to have any chance of developing positive committed opinion 
holders within more than 10 percent of the population.

Holly has given us a thorough evaluation of the media content currently 
being consumed and now we have some idea of the minimum educational 
*effect*needed for significant acceptance of the idea. Neglecting the need for 
educational outreach would seem to be self defeating especially in view of 
how small a percentage it takes for a minority opinion to become a majority 
opinion. The opposition to GE does nothing but media based outreach (which 
seems to be largely void of scientific content). I have to ask myself the 
question of; Will the importance of GE be lost over the lack of attention to 
public education?   

The authors of the paper are looking for further research opportunities 
involving strongly opposed camps. I believe GE is a good study subject 
candidate. I also believe that the work Holly Buck has offered can be a 
valuable contribution to further research along these lines.

Michael  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/PNOjMWh1TVEJ.
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] Know thy enemy...

2011-07-28 Thread Michael Hayes

Fox News has a heavy hand in what is being reported. Here is a Guardian
report going back to 12/10:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email

In short, the report shows a planned action to enforces global warming
skepticism. Here is a distasteful taste of the the report;

Fox http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/fox News's Washington bureau chief,
Bill Sammon, imposed an order to make time for climate sceptics within 15
minutes of the airing of a story about a scientific report showing that
2000-2009 was on track to be the hottest decade on record.

Media Matters said the bureau chief's response to the report exhibited a
pattern of bias by Fox News in its coverage of climate change.

It also noted the timing of the directive. The email went out on 8 December
last year, when the leaders of nearly 200 countries met in Copenhagen to try
to reach a deal on climate change.

The email reads: We should refrain from asserting that the planet has
warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that
such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.

It goes on to say: It is not our place as journalists to assert such
notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.


Also, Fox news has just released a composite image of their typical white
conservative male viewer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tunturisopuli_Lemmus_Lemmus.jpg

All I can say is Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty.

Michael




On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

 What is most sobering, especially for the scientific community and climate
 change communicators, is that climate change denial has actually increased
 in the U.S. general public between 2001 and 2010, although primarily due to
 a significant increase in the past two years.
 Conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other
 Americans to endorse denialist views. . differences are even greater
 for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global
 warming very well.  (!!-GR)

 CLIMATE: Conservative white males are biggest skeptics -- study
 (07/27/2011)
 Conservative white males are more likely than any other adult demographic
 to
 deny the existence of global warming, according to a new study conducted by
 researchers at two universities.

 In polling conducted by Gallup, researchers from Michigan State University
 and Oklahoma State University found that nearly 30 percent of conservative
 white males believed that the effects of global warming will never
 happen,
 while 7.4 percent of other adults held the same view. Close to 60 percent
 of
 conservative white males do not believe that global warming is caused by
 human behavior, a view shared by 31.5 percent of other adults.

 Conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other
 Americans to endorse denialist views, the researchers wrote in their
 study.
 These differences are even greater for those conservative white males who
 self-report understanding global warming very well.

 Conservative white males were more than twice as likely as other adults to
 assert that the media had overstated the effects of global warming, and
 nearly 60 percent denied that a scientific consensus existed on the reality
 of global warming. The study was quick to point out that the lack of belief
 in global warming extended beyond one demographic.

 Denialism is sufficiently diffuse within the American public that it
 obviously cannot be attributed solely to conservative white males, the
 study says. What is most sobering, especially for the scientific community
 and climate change communicators, is that climate change denial has
 actually
 increased in the U.S. general public between 2001 and 2010, although
 primarily due to a significant increase in the past two years which may
 prove abnormal in the long run (David Malakoff, London Guardian, July 27).

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering

2011-08-24 Thread Michael Hayes

 actually
 do and what we ought to do are distinct--we can fail to live up to standards
 we should meet. Moreover, it seems that a policy could be more or less
 procedurally unjust, with the latter being ethically preferable to the
 former. For example, one could treat the Rawlsian principle as an
 ideal--even if it is rarely complied with perfectly, some decision
 procedures will come closer than others.

 Dan mentions a number of concerns, but I wouldn't characterize our paper as
 containing objections to SAG, because we don't advocate that it ought not
 to be deployed. In the sections on distributive and intergenerational
 justice, we point to risks of harm associated with SAG. We think these risks
 are ethically significant and should be taken into account. All things
 considered, it might turn out that these are risks that should be tolerated,
 but that remains to be shown in my view.

 Dan writes, But on the whole, the suggested program of incremental
 research, followed possibly by limited testing, seem a sensible approach
 when we compare the risks of implementation against a world which is clearly
 warming in a dangerous way? We don't deny this in the paper, as we focus on
 deployment rather than research. Dan also writes, The idea that the
 question of intergenerational justice might be one where we're
 *disadvantaging* future generations seems likewise odd. After all, the whole
 reason this is being proposed is in large part because of concerns about the
 well being of future generations. But even if our intentions are good
 (e.g., the well-being of future persons), we can still cause substantial
 harm to persons. Again, perhaps we ought to deploy SAG, e.g. because the
 harm to future generations would be less if we do than if we do not. But if
 so, it is my view that an argument for that would need to be made in detail.

 Many Thanks,
 Toby

  --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Diatomaceous Earth patent

2011-09-06 Thread Michael Hayes

 bits of evidence.

 john gorman








 - Original Message -

   *From:* Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 *To:* geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, September 03, 2011 7:17 PM
 *Subject:* [geo] Diatomaceous Earth patent

 James Cascio has kindly pointed out that a patent has been issued for the
 use of silica particles for stratospheric sunshade geoengineering. (see
 attached).

 The patent was filed on 30 Sep 2009, with a provisional patent filed on
 30 Sep 2008. I note that this idea of using silica particles was discussed
 on this group at least as early as 1 May 2007:
 https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/googlegroups+silica/11243cfe473291d8

 and I have email from Greg Benford from that period specifically
 referring to diatomaceous earth.

 One would assume that any rational court would find that this patent
 describes things that are obvious to those skilled in the relevant arts. (I
 suppose the question then is whether an expectation of encountering a
 rational court is itself rational.)


 
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 %2B1%20650%20704%207212
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

 See our YouTube:
   Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in international 
 tradehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOj_YScv7WY
   Past land use decisions and the mitigation potential of 
 reforestationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmyek4gYEUk
   Near Zero videoshttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Near_Zero.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.



 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering

2011-09-07 Thread Michael Hayes

 that broader ethical considerations can be helpful in
 their own right. For one thing, they might guide the crafting of specific
 proposals that are sensitive to various ethical issues. For example, one
 might argue that PSAI-S is ethically preferable to other available options
 in a situation in which some tipping point in the climate is imminent,
 perhaps because the outcome of PSAI-S would be less unjust than the outcomes
 of other options. I view our paper as sketching some potential ethical
 problems faced by aerosol geoengineering but also leaving the door open for
 concrete proposals that either avoid or substantially diminish these
 potential problems. But before one can avoid or diminish those problems
 within some specific proposal, one needs to be aware of what the potential
 problems are. Finally, I would stress again that, despite the risks of
 injustice, aerosol geoengineering might turn out to be the ethically
 preferable option in certain cases, depending on what the alternatives are.

 Josh, as for the acronym SAG, no negative connotations were intended, but
 a different acronym would be fine with me as long as it refers to the same
 technique.

 Thanks,
 Toby



 On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Toby et al.,

 D-5-W is a common intravenous (I.V.) fluid given to a trauma patient. It
 is a 5% Dextrose (sugar) solution in water. This solution helps prevent the
 body from converting stored body fat into needed energy (and thus preventing
 a strong acid influx-and thus preventing a cascade of physiological
 problems). Polar Stratospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfide (PSAI-S) has
 somewhat of an analogy to the use of D-5-W. In that, the use of such a
 (simple) technique can prevent a cascade of global environmental problems.
 Keeping the polar regions cold can prevent the need for
 more...invasive...procedures.

 I point this out as a means to help clarify this debate. Geoengineering
 has so quickly evolved, in both scientific and engineering understanding,
 that the broad use of a term such as SAG is counterproductive for use in
 detailed discussions. I go to this length of explanation, not as a means of
 correction, but as a means to help sharpen the focus of this debate.

 Mike points out the reasonable logic of starting slow (and early) and
 building up climate intervention means as conditions warrant. Others have
 pointed out the potential use of different aerosols in relation to different
 atmospheric circulation patterns to produce even seasonal effects.

 Your paper does not take a close look at the physical reality of just how
 close we are to seeing a methane tipping point. You have, however recognized
 that such a situation would rearrange the debate...thank you. I feel that we
 must focus the debate on dealing with the worst case scenario before we have
 the freedom to set out long term and somewhat Idealized standards.
 Crawling into a wrecked and smoldering car to simply start an I.V. of D-5-W
 on the bleeding driver is not good quality basic health care. But, it can
 lead to just that.given time and lots of early, intelligent and
 cooperative work. The core concept of Geoengineering is not  good quality
 basic health care for the planet, but simply a means and way to better care
 for the planet until we can move beyond fossil fuels.

 Unfortunately, the concept of Geoengineering is so new that few people
 truly understand the means, motives and even objectives of the science and
 engineering. I personally see it as Geo Trauma Care (GTC). Yes, the fossil
 fuel economy has traumatized this planet and I see the potential of PSAI-S
 as potentially being the equivalent of an emergency I.V. procedure. However,
 the long-term prognosis of our existence on this planet is predicated upon
 the universal use of renewable energy, not on the use of climate
 engineering.

 Your work (as well as Wil Burns) on raising the different ethical aspects
 of the debate is helping us get there. Ideally, I would like to see the
 debate continued with focus upon *specific* emerging science and
 engineering developments. Polar aerosol injection is different than global
 SAG.

 We must build the practical knowledge and techniques of climate
 engineering as the effects of the fossil fuel economy will be with us for
 generations. Inventing an I.V., developing D-5-W and testing the two only
 when the car crashes is neither reasonable nor logical. Creating social
 fences against climate engineering can be a close analogy.

 Thanks,

 Michael









-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: New Paper on Ethics and Geoengineering

2011-09-09 Thread Michael Hayes

stresses. Yet, human history has no close analogy to a methane tipping
point. I have noticed that those interested in using ethical grounds to
block Climate Engineering seem to not realize the extent to which we, as a
specieslife as we know it, are threatened. I do hope that by getting an
in depth yet focused debate upon the survival issue, we will see progress on
that issue. We, as a species, truly do need to accept that the boat is in
fact sinking and that it is to everyone's benefit to get past the initial
ethical issues and start bailing water. Once we have some chance at long
term survival, we can decide upon the best.ethical.means to plug the
hole in the boat. If that basic level of cooperation can not be
achievedsoon, Herbert Spencer just may end up being the lead
philosophical icon.

As a related note on plugging the hole (ie. long term energy issue), the
National Ignition Lab seems to be involved with some interesting fusion
experiments. Here is their home page.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/
It seems that within the next 18 months, their work may produce a measure of
sustainable fusion. Even if this is accomplished and the era of fusion has
finally dawned, we will need close to 10 yrs to make any dent in the use of
fossil fuels. I just wonder if we have 10 yrs.

Thanks,
Michael


On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote:

 Michael:

 Using Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection using  Sulfates (PTAI-S; we need a
 better term!) implies far higher expense, as the aerosols fall out within
 days vs weeks or months for strato deposition.

 That too is an ethical issue: cost and labor. But when we discuss ethical
 issues: what system of ethics? Most seem to assume everybody knows what the
 governing ethical principle is. My experience is this varies wildly. What
 ethical philosopher to follow? Kant? Rawls? Dewey? Even the historians
 (Fleming) seem oblivious that there are many different ethical standards.
 Trying to accomodate them while doing engineering at this early phase seems
 pointless.

 Gregory Benford

 On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi Toby,

 An ESAS Protocal may be a good *experimental debate* as the Eastern
 Siberian Arctic Sea (ESAS) seems to be one of the best known weak-links in
 the planet's ecosystem and it will most likely be the area which will
 produce the first major methane eruption (tipping point). If you need
 citations on the issue of the ESAS situation, please let me know (there is a
 rapidly growing library of studies on the issue). An impending climate
 emergency is scientifically undeniable at this time. However, no tipping
 point starting date can be offered. Some on this forum may believe I am
 over stepping an important line in making that statement. And, to what
 extent we are looking at a climate emergency may be the first logical place
 to start a meaningful debate on ethics. I offer a 2008 US DoE study titled

 Preliminary Geospatial Analysis
 of Arctic Ocean Hydrocarbon
 Resources


 http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17922.pdf

 In this report, conventional oil and gas resources are explicitly linked
 with potential gas hydrate
 resources. This has not been attempted previously and is particularly
 powerful as the likelihood of gas
 production from marine gas hydrates increases. Available or planned
 infrastructure, such as pipelines,
 combined with the geospatial distribution of hydrocarbons is a very strong
 determinant of the temporalspatial
 development of Arctic hydrocarbon resources.

 If you scroll down to Figure 3.4, you can easily see the extent of the
 thickness of arctic hydrate stability zones. The white areas are the areas
 of concern for methane release. Figure 3.6 shows submarine permafrost from 0
 to 200 m in depth which is of even greater concern. This report does not
 show the changes in ocean temperature nor areas of ocean
 anoxia/acidification. This report just gives the reader a good idea of the
 massive volume of hydrates potentially available for release.

 The best thinking on directly addressing the needs of that arctic area
 seems to point to the initial use of Tropospheric Atmospheric Injection
 using  Sulfates (PTAI-S). As you know, other aerosols are under discussion
 such as diatomaceous earth, aluminum as well as engineered nano particles
 etc.. However, let's just focus upon sulfates. Stratospheric Injection is
 possible yet Polar Tropospheric Aerosol Injection-Sulfate (PTAI-S) does seem
 like the most probable first effort to be taken due to a number of issues.
 Sulfate use has both positive and negative implications as any aerosol will.
 However, it is the best understood means at this time and thus is currently
 what we would have to work with.

 I am not ruling out any proposed means of climate engineering. I am just
 offering the most likely means to be used and thus the most

Re: [geo] Can We Test Geoengineering? paper and YouTube videos

2011-10-21 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

I am studying Dr. Jaffe's work on China's pollution transport. This is the
article which caught my attention.

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution

It was the first time anyone had decisively identified Asian mercury in
American air, and the quantities were stunning. The levels Jaffe measured
suggested that Asia was churning out 1,400 tons a year. The results were a
shock to many scientists, Jaffe says, because “they still couldn’t wrap
their heads around the magnitude of the pollution and how dirty China’s
industry was.” They were only starting to understand the global nature of
the mercury problem

The work in this area does not offer full analogies to the issue of testing
climate engineering (atmospheric injection) yet, it would seem to offer a
good case for use in modeling. The on line article does not include the
model showing the trans oceanic mercury transport (1400 tons per year)
found in the hard copy. If anyone is interested in this issue, I will dig it
up and send it PM.

In short and unfortunately, the massive amount of pollution coming from
China seems to be producing an early form of climate engineering test, all
be it negitive. I have viewed models of ocean pH/O2 in the path of this
ongoing plum and it is the most damaged ocean areas on the earth. Jaffe's
work may not provide help in modeling useful climate engineering tools but,
he does seem to provide a good look at how not to geoengineer like
China.


Thanks,



On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ken Caldeira 
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:

 Folks,

 Please find attached:

 MacMynowski, D. G., Keith, D., Caldeira, K., and Shin, H.-J., 2011. “Can we
 test geoengineering?” *Energy and Environmental Science*, DOI:
 10.1039/c1ee01256h.

 We also made a couple of YouTube videos about this paper:

 Doug MacMynowski discussing Can We Test Geoengineering?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0spy0Yn_nko

 Doug MacMynowski and Ken Caldeira in discussion:  Can We Test
 Geoengineering?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o8wBo4R7ME

 Enjoy,

 Ken

 PS.  Be aware that these videos are extemporaneous talking I believe
 without any internal edits, so not everything is said as carefully as one
 might have liked.

 ___
 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

 See our *YouTube:*
 Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate
 forcing: Ken Caldeira http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDRYM_5S0AE
 Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near
 Zero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJJn6eP8J0

   --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] How Concerned Should We Be About Methane Plumes?

2011-12-14 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

Here is a short clip of Dr. Chu on the subject of permafrost (methane)
feedback.

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

Is it not time for someone to blow the tipping point whistle? Is there any
reason why a massive methane release does not point to a cataclysmic
climate situation?

Michael

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi all,

 There has been a lot of talk about ESAS methane plumes over the past
 few months.  I know John Nissen believes this is a significant
 development, and Russian researchers are shocked at what they've
 observed, but what do others in the group (particularly scientists)
 think about these plumes, accelerating sea-ice retreat, etc.?  Is this
 just something for us to monitor closely going forward, or should we
 be seriously concerned about what this portends for the near future?

 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 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: UK Independent: Russian team shocked at scale of methane plumes

2011-12-17 Thread Michael Hayes

 through
   the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the
   seabed, Dr Semiletov said. We carried out checks at about 115
   stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale –
   I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or
   more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the
   concentration was a hundred times higher than normal.
 
   Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the
   American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Electromagnetic Forced Precipitation.

2012-01-03 Thread Michael Hayes

by several independent groups, and be
multiply published in top-rank journals, with the papers subjected to
rigorous and comprehensive peer review.

Happy New Year!, John. {lat...@ucar.edu}

John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham

From: Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 3:04 PM
To: John Latham
Cc: John Nissen; Sam Carana; Malcolm Light; Graham Innes; Jon Hughes
Subject: Cloud clearing beams

John and John

I mentioned the possibility of winter cloud clearance over the Arctic
by means of electromagnetic radiation along the lines suggested by
Russian rain makers. When I was last in Abu Dhabi I was asked about
Russian work there. I saw some bits of kit out in the desert but could
not get any details. I can see that a transmission with a half wave
length which was equal to the separation of a pair of ice crystals might
make them attract one another and that, in a random soup of crystals,
many would by chance hit the sweet separation distance. But I have no
idea about the power level needed to make them collide. The surface
tension forces on small water drops are immensely strong and the Weber
number for collision has be over one but less than 12 to make then
coalesce. Ice crystals might lock together more easily.

The most respectable reference I have been able to trace is at

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/electric-rainmaking-technology-gets-mexicos-blessing

IEEE will not have published many articles about snake oil. However
this was back in 2004 and it they had the funding indicated and it had
worked we should have heard more about it since then.

However there are a fragments dated 2011 at

http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/rainmakerits-electrical/

and

http://www.livescience.com/10398-rainmaking-middle-eastern-desert-success-scam.html

some of which is a rehash of IEEE. Hartmut Grassl is a real person ex
Max Planck. Perhaps someone could get an opinion from him.

Stephen

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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

--
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

Re: [geo] GHG's: Cost- Effective Temperature Potentials

2012-01-26 Thread Michael Hayes

My two cents,

I think opening up the full spectrum of GHGs to consideration is highly
important. Stratospheric moisture is *the* principle GHG, yet little
conceptual work has been put forward on this site (or any other) concerning
the direct removal of this primary GHG. Just to be able to
reduce stratospheric polar moisture content would bring about large global
cooling effects.

In the case of polar N2O and its part in Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs),
any effort to directly reduce the mass of PSCs would be 310 times (per IPCC
2.10.2 Direct GWP) as effective as the removal of one part of CO2 (this
does not mention the possitive effect it would have on O3). If the effort
to reduce other more powerful compounds can be put into an overall effort
to directly reduce PSCs, that effort could see up to a 23,900 fold effect
(Sulfur hexafluoride-SF6)!

I suspect that the polar stratospheric/mesospheric regions are the
pollution concentration centers of the atmosphere much like the ocean gyres
concentrate flotsam. Here is a Sept. 2011 media report on some HIPPO
findings which illustrates the point.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334245/title/HIPPO_reveals_climate_surprises

Then there’s soot. Parts of the supposedly pristine Arctic skies host
dense clouds of these black
carbonhttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/blackcarbon-factsheetparticles.
During some flights, “We were immersed in essentially clouds of
black carbon that were dense enough that you could barely see the ground,”
recalls Stephen Wofsy of Harvard University, a principal
investigatorhttp://hippo.ucar.edu/HIPPO/videos/steve-wofsy-hippo-piin
the program. “It was like landing in Los Angeles — except that you
were
8 kilometers above the surface of the Arctic Ocean.”

The Johansson paper is interesting in that it begains to look at
Cost-Effective Temperature Potential (CETP) as opposed to being myoptic on
CO2. However, iIt will take me a few days to understand the full
paper. Thanks for passing it along.

Michael
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

 See attached. Comments? - Greg


 Economics- and physical-based metrics

 for comparing greenhouse gases

 Daniel J. A. Johansson



 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

 Abstract A range of alternatives to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) have

 been suggested in the scientific literature. One of the alternative
 metrics that

 has received attention is the cost-effective relative valuation of
 greenhouse gases,

 recently denoted Global Cost Potential (GCP). However, this metric is
 based on

 complex optimising integrated assessment models that are far from
 transparent to

 the general scientist or policymaker.Here we present a new analytic
 metric, the Cost-

 Effective Temperature Potential (CETP) which is based on an approximation
 of the

 GCP. This new metric is constructed in order to enhance general
 understanding

 of the GCP and elucidate the links between physical metrics and metrics
 that take

 economics into account.We show that this metric has got similarities with
 the purely

 physical metric, Global Temperature change Potential (GTP). However, in
 contrast

 with the GTP, the CETP takes the long-term temperature response into
 account.

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Japanese Government starts funding geoengineering research this spring with US 19 million dollars

2012-02-16 Thread Michael Hayes

Hello Hiroshi, Masa and All,

Thank you for this important information. The Heisei Environment Research
Fund's 24 year RD Challenge seems to be the first non-IPCC co-ordinated
Meta Study effort which, as mentioned; 1) recognizes the possibility of an
Arctic tipping point and; 2) provides the concept of Geoengineering a place
at the table.

The translation provided here
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=jatl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.env.go.jp%2Fpolicy%2Fkenkyu%2Fsuishin%2Fkoubo%2Fpdf%2F2012s-10_needs.pdf
is
workable and deserves a patient reading.

I would like to draw specific attention to the following section as it has
the most relivance on a possible Arctic tipping point.

Page 7;
*Research on climate change risk analysis of critical (3): Theme 3*
* *
*Theme Leader: Taikan Oki (Professor, Institute of Industrial Science,
University of Tokyo) *
*** *
*Critical phenomena and geophysical characterization of the risk of
climate change with a focus on the cryosphere (4): [public]  sub-themes *

If the ESAS erupts into an obvious tipping point this coming spring, Dr.
Oki should be CCed on any information coming from this Group on that issue.

As a side note of relevant interest:

I spent some time reading background information on the Heisei Fund and
found this paper which was partially funded by that group. A fast moving
ESAS tipping point situation may demand this type of networked based
cooperation.

*Between the Theory and Policy:
Environmental Networking the East Asian Way*

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/ras/04_publications/ria_en/9_03.pdf

*In this article, the reason why network-based cooperation can
be a driving force in East Asia will be mainly discussed. Such
inquiry is of growing importance as it implies a critical standpoint
of the theory/policy dichotomy by analyzing the existing
approaches to environmental governance in East Asia.*

Hiroshi and Masa, thank you again for bringing the Heisei Challange effort
to the Group. It is a welcomed perspective.

Michael

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Masa Sugiyama
s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jpwrote:

Just to follow up, the funding has not been finalized yet. The
overaching project on climate
risk (including mitigation, tipping elements, impact analysis etc.) is
very likely
to launch this spring, but the sub-projects are subject to change, in
my understanding.
And it is not clear how much of the funding would go into the
geoengineering
aspect of the project.

The call for proposals can be read in machine-generated English here
(thanks to Google):
http://goo.gl/I8F7U

Best,
Masa

On Feb 15, 10:16 am, hiroshi mizutani mizutani49...@gmail.com wrote:
Japan’s Ministry of the Environment is at the final stage of
selection
process to grant a bounty to geoengineering researches.

The name of the umbrella project under which geoengineering
proposals
are now reviewed is something like “Multidisciplinary Research on
Constructing Risk Management Plan for Global Climate Change.” Titles of
research subjects that bear the word “geoengineering” are “Extension and
Application of Integrated Evaluation System in light of Adaptation and
Geoengineering Technologies” and “Meta-analysis and Assessment of
Advancements of Geoengineering Technologies.”

The research period is 5 years beginning this April and the annual
budget is about US $3,850,000 (300,000,000 in Japanese yen), totaling
more
than US 19 million dollars at present exchange rate.

It only recently came to my attention, and I am sorry for being late
to inform you on this important development on geoengineering in Japan.
For details, please visit to：
http://www.env.go.jp/policy/kenkyu/suishin/koubo/pdf/2012s-10_needs.pdf
(Regrettably, language of the site is Japanese; for other languages,
please
ask the Ministry through their English home page athttp://
www.env.go.jp/en/(atthe bottom of the page, phone number and masked
E-mail entrance are
given)).

--
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering

2012-03-02 Thread Michael Hayes

 Ulph and Robert Hahn) from Manchester's Sustainable Consumption
 Institute have published a new book, which basically argues that
 governments
 have done so little to reduce carbon emissions that it's now essential to
 invest in geo-engineering RD.

 The press release is here:
 http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=8003

 Basically, I'm interested in whether this book is indicative of the
 emergence of a wider consensus on geo-engineering. Is the economic/
 scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering is
 becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable?

 Of course, I'm fully aware of the huge divides in opinion that still exist
 on the subject, and I realise that there are many many risks and issues
 which must be dealt with first before geo-engineering solutions can be
 implemented. But is there a sense of gathering momentum? The issue has been
 discussed in Westminster and is gaining ever more public exposure in the
 media. Is geo-engineering reaching critical mass?

 Any thoughts much appreciated!

 Many thanks,

 Ben Martin
 b...@theecologist.org
 0207 422 8100

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Emerging consensus on geo-engineering

2012-03-03 Thread Michael Hayes

: david.mitch...@dri.edu

   - Original Message -
   From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
   Date: Friday, March 2, 2012 17:49
   Subject: Re: [geo] Emerging consensus on geo-engineering
To: voglerl...@gmail.com
   Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, theseglyphsaredu...@gmail.com,
 geoengineering 
   geoengineering@googlegroups.com

In going around and giving talks on this sunshade geoengineering, I
   find scientists with relevant skills much more interested in doing
 relevant
   research.

A few years ago, my sense is that scientists felt this was a pariah
   subject, and they did not want to engage in research relevant to the
 topic.
   There is of course a sample bias in the people who come to my talks,
 but I
   sense that many more scientists feel that they have something to
 contribute
   to improving scientific understanding of the issues surrounding
 sunshade
   geoengineering.

That said, I come across almost no scientists who are in favor of
   deployment at this time.

My sense is that there is an increase in support for at least limited
   research (and less of an opposition to research) but very little
 support
   for active development of a deployment capability.

This is how I feel so I might of course just be seeing a reflection
 of
   myself in the people that I speak with.

___
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
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
   @kencaldeira

   * YouTube:*
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo Climate change and the
   transition from coal to low-carbon electricity
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo
Crop yields in a geoengineered climate
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
 wrote:

Hello Ben et al.,

I'm simply an interested citizen scientist and so I do not speak
   for anyone. However, the interested citizen's view also needs to be
   understood. Within democratic states, it will be the public opinion
 which
   will most likely swing this issue

Ben's question of; *Is the economic/

scientific community reaching a tipping point where geo-engineering
 is
becoming seen as plausible, desirable, and even inevitable?* hinges
   upon the question of:

Is the Precautionary Principle the overriding guiding principle?
   Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration states: *In order to protect the
   environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
 States
   according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or
   irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
 used as
   a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
 environmental
   degradation.*

Will the standard of (the)...*lack of full scientific certainty
 shall
   not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures
 *become
   the rallying flag for the GE community or will a far more cautious
 standard
   be sought.

More to the point, Ben's question is looking at GE being ...seen as
   plausible, desirable, and even inevitable. At this time, I believe
 the
   answer is NO to all three.

1) *Plausible*...With the debatable exception of Cloud Brightening,
   there are no fully vetted methods which can, in a short period of
 time,
   reverse a climate/planetary emergency. There is no wide spread
 support for
   non-emergency deployment. Also, most, if not all, existing concepts
 have
   been largely championed by individual efforts with relatively minor
   financial backing.

I believe it is safe to state that, if given a $10-20-100B fully
   funded budget and and 24 months to vet and deploy a planet saving GE
   method, *which could turn back a tipping point*, it would not be
   plausible at this time.

2) *Desirable*...Any method which does gain widespread scientific
   acceptance will surely have a degree of adverse effects for some
 percentage
   of the global population. This obviously will effect geopolitical
 dynamics
   and thus the short and long term desirability.

I believe it is safe to state that, even with the most *benign* GE
   method, no universal level of desirability will be found.

3) *Inevitable*...At this time, we have little more than broad
 stroke
   concepts which have little possibility to be put into fully effective
   operation within the near (2-3yr) future. And, two to three years may
   possibly be too late.

I believe it is safe to state that, given the need for years worth
 of
   development and evaluation, we *may not be able* to inevitably fall
   back upon GE in the face of a near term emergency.

Most importantly, Ben* *points out that *(GE*)...is gaining ever
 more
   public exposure in the media.. Yes

Re: [geo] Ballistics

2012-03-14 Thread Michael Hayes

/recycling more
 important. Nevertheless, the frictionless design, and entirely
 electrical power system, makes this an attractive system.  Coilguns
 are well researched, and various military uses are envisaged with some
 space-launch projects specified.

 Ablative laser propulsion: A sulphur mass can be lifted and gasified
 by the action of a ground based laser.  This propulsion technology
 could be combined with alternative lifting technologies, such as
 gunnery.  It has the advantage of potentially being made to work with
 a solid sulfur projectile, thus eliminating the need to loft other
 chemical species, which can instead be sourced from atmospheric air.


 Other projects
 ---
 Various supergun projects have been tested, which indicate some useful
 design features and principles:
 *V3: German WWII V3 gun designs used a smooth-bore barrel and an
 aerodynamically-stabilised projectile. Propellant was multi-stage
 solid rocket boosters, inserted into the barrel and fired against the
 projectile as it passed.
 *Startram:  This proposed space launch project relies on MAGLEV
 propulsion to accelerate craft to orbital velocities.  Acceleration
 takes place in a vacuum, with a plasma window protecting the open end.
 *Superguns:  Conventional artillery pieces, such as Big Bertha, Dora
 and Project Babylon have all demonstrated heavy lift capability with
 extended range.


 Conclusions
 

 Previous evaluation of gunnery for geoengineering use is inadequate,
 as the military technology evaluated is wholly different in design
 objectives from custom-build geoengineering equipment.

 The design of geoengineering guns will likely be based on alternative
 design principles and may use alternative propellant technologies.

 Of the alternative gunnery technologies presented, ram accelerators
 appear to have particular promise because:
 *Low barrel wear
 *Very cheap propellant
 *Low acceleration allows a cheaper, less robust shell

 A secondary launch system would be required, and a conventional gun
 could be used.  A light gas gun or coilgun would be likely to reduce
 costs, once developed, due to low propellant costs.

 Laser-ablation systems are worthy of consideration, but are at an
 early research stage.

 A typical geoengineering gunnery system may therefore be a large
 'supergun' style design, based on a two-stage system with ram
 accelerator technology providing the terminal stage.  The angle of
 elevation would be non-vertical, to enable bleed-dispersal of payload.
  One design variant would rely on terrain support, being built against
 the slope of a mountain.  An alternative would be a rotating turntable
 on a high plateau, which would give broader dispersal but would be
 more costly per gun.

 Projectiles would likely be lightweight and substantially less robust
 than military designs.  An effervescent liquid, or high pressure gas,
 will likely be the cheapest dispersal technology, should a slow
 release be preferred.  It is likely that spent projectiles would be
 recovered and recycled.  Base bleed technology may reduce costs,
 although there is a tradeoff between energy and complexity costs.

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Ballistics - failure to distinguish

2012-03-20 Thread Michael Hayes

 be required, and a conventional gun
  could be used.  A light gas gun or coilgun would be likely to reduce
  costs, once developed, due to low propellant costs.
 
  Laser-ablation systems are worthy of consideration, but are at an
  early research stage.
 
  A typical geoengineering gunnery system may therefore be a large
  'supergun' style design, based on a two-stage system with ram
  accelerator technology providing the terminal stage.  The angle of
  elevation would be non-vertical, to enable bleed-dispersal of payload.
One design variant would rely on terrain support, being built against
  the slope of a mountain.  An alternative would be a rotating turntable
  on a high plateau, which would give broader dispersal but would be
  more costly per gun.
 
  Projectiles would likely be lightweight and substantially less robust
  than military designs.  An effervescent liquid, or high pressure gas,
  will likely be the cheapest dispersal technology, should a slow
  release be preferred.  It is likely that spent projectiles would be
  recovered and recycled.  Base bleed technology may reduce costs,
  although there is a tradeoff between energy and complexity costs.
 
  --
  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.
 



 --
 twitter @andrewjlockley
 07813979322
 andrewlockley.com
 skype: andrewjlockley

 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Will A SRM Partical Layer Above the Winter Polar Regions Reflect IR Up Or Down?

2012-03-20 Thread Michael Hayes

Folks,

As the Arctic situation is the weakest of the weak links in our environment
and Stratospheric Particle Injection is a front runner of SRM methods, I
believe this is a profoundly important issue. Will a *cloud* of SRM
particles mimic a Winter Time Polar Stratospheric Cloud's ability to trap
IR energy?
Andrew has blocked my previous efforts to raise this question and I ask
that he simply *stop* *censoring* this group.

Michael
-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Will A SRM Partical Layer Above the Winter Polar Regions Reflect IR Up Or Down?

2012-03-20 Thread Michael Hayes

To what degree of likely are we talking about? Also, would there be
issues with clumping which could create condensed areas within the SRM
layer which could mimic PSC? Further, will the SRM particles
*augment*PSC's warming ability when the 2 mix?

The fact that the IR energy will be coming in under the SRM layer and the
particles would be reflecting IR down and PSCs are well known for trapping
heat due to that same issue, should we not have a detailed understanding of
the full dynamics.

Does anyone have data on the actual polar atmospheric temperatures during
the full Pinatubo event?

Michael

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote:

  If we are talking about Latham's proposal, there would be no reason to
 make clouds in winter.

 If stratospheric sulfate aerosols in the right size range they should be
 too small to have a big impact on outgoing long wave.

 So, seems likely to be a non-issue.

 Ken Caldeira
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 +1 650 704 7212
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

 Sent from a limited-typing keyboard

 On Mar 20, 2012, at 21:55, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:


 Folks,

 As the Arctic situation is the weakest of the weak links in our
 environment and Stratospheric Particle Injection is a front runner of SRM
 methods, I believe this is a profoundly important issue. Will a *cloud*of SRM 
 particles mimic a Winter Time Polar Stratospheric Cloud's ability to
 trap IR energy?
 Andrew has blocked my previous efforts to raise this question and I ask
 that he simply *stop* *censoring* this group.

 Michael
 --
 *Michael Hayes*
 *360-708-4976*
 http://www.voglerlake.com


 --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Ballistics - failure to distinguish

2012-03-21 Thread Michael Hayes

The statement of I disagree that the pilotless conversion is simple.
makes my point that you seem to lack working knowledge of modern aviation.

M

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:

 I disagree that the pilotless conversion is simple.
 The trajectory comment was comparing shells with shells, not shells with
 aircraft

 A
  On Mar 20, 2012 8:36 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:


 The statement of *there are no unmanned transport
 aircraft at present* is misleading. Virtually all modern aircraft can
 be quickly modified for automation.

 The statement of *The closer to vertical it's sent, and
 the less vehicle which is sent up to transport it, the lower the
 energy.* is also misleading in that a slow climb rate is the most
 efficient rate of climb.
 A shallow climb rate, weather on a straight or circular coarse is the
 most efficient for a mass effort if fixed wing craft are used.

 If Andrew wishes to devalue all other forms of aviation in support of
 ballistics, I would advise reading up..on..aviation.

 Michael



 On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com
  wrote:

 Thanks for that, Roger.  I'm aware of the issue with frictional losses
 - but the only way to send the payload up with little 'dead metal' is
 to propel it from the ground.  The closer to vertical it's sent, and
 the less vehicle which is sent up to transport it, the lower the
 energy.

 Labour costs are also a big deal - there are no unmanned transport
 aircraft at present, other than research planes. (AFAIK).

 This seems to make sense to me.  Am I missing something?

 A

 On 15 March 2012 01:09, John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
 wrote:
  Hello All,
  Please see below message from Roger Angel
  All Best   John (Latham)
 
  
 
  Hello Roger,
  I've sent on yr message (below), as requested, to:
[geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
  Good to hear from you,   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: Roger Angel [ang...@email.arizona.edu]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:59 PM
  To: John Latham
  Subject: Re: [geo] Ballistics - failure to distinguish
 
  Hi John,
 
  I sent the following reply to the geo group, but I don't think it went
  through.  I have not sent anything for a long while, though I get it
  all.  You may want to circulate it.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Roger Angel
 
 
  Re: Ballistics - failure to distinguish
 
  Another reason to distinguish carefully - the lowest energy solution to
  get sulphur to the stratosphere will get there with zero velocity.
  Technology for orbiting will in general be mismatched because of the
  premium on very high velocities.
 
  - Roger Angel
 
  On 3/14/2012 12:46 PM, John Latham wrote:
  Hello Andrew.,
 
  You say Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar
 Radiation Management,
  but unless I'm misunderstanding you, you mean Stratospheric Sulphur
 Seeding, not SRM.
 
  Stratospheric Sulphur Seeding is certainly the SRM scheme that has
 attracted most
  attention, and I wish it well, but it is only one of several. Others
 include sunshades in
  space, Russell Seitz's micro-bubbles, painting roofs white  cloud
 brightening.
 
  It is good to distinguish clearly between the all-embracing term SRM,
 and individual
  techniques in that category. I wouldnt have written at this point,
 but this lack of distinction
  has been made recently by others, too.
 
  Good luck with yr poster.
 
  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 Andrew Lockley [
 andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 11:55 PM
  To: geoengineering
  Subject: [geo] Ballistics
 
  The below will form the basis of my poster at PUP, and the subsequent
  paper.  It's at a relatively early stage, and references haven't yet
  been added.  Comments on or off list would be appreciated.
 
  Thanks
 
  A
 
  --
 
  Ballistics for delivery of SRM materials - an engineering principles
 approach
 
  Introduction
  
 
  Ballistic delivery of materials for the purpose of Solar Radiation
  Management has been proposed and appraised by various

Re: [geo] Re: Will A SRM Partical Layer Above the Winter Polar Regions Reflect IR Up Or Down?

2012-03-21 Thread Michael Hayes

Folks,

One of the big selling points of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection was that
it had a real world example, Pinatubo. Let's use that advantage and look
closely at the *Winter* time data 5 yrs before and 5 years after. I
personally am not comfortable with accepting a casual discounting of the
main question. Too much is at stake.

The specific data needs to be correlated and grafts produced. The Arctic
will probably be the area of the emergence of a Tipping Point. Using
idealized generalizations concerning average particle size is useful for
non-Arctic regions yet the Arctic specific dynamics have not been closely
studied (as far as I know).

Take Andrews comment concerning Particle/CCN. This is a possible means
which PSC will be created at the worst possible time. How many more 2nd and
3rd effects are there to expect?

Michael
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.comwrote:

 Actually the reverse is likely true, but in a good way. As particles rain
 out, they act as CCN for Cirrus, which forms in cool, clear, saturated
 air.  This causes nucleation, but the particles are rare due to the sparse
 fluxes (Nc).  As the air is saturated, the droplets grow large and rain
 out. In dirty air, this doesn't work.

 This is either a useful side effect, or the basis of Cirrus stripping
 technology, depending on how you look at it.

 Off thread, and in response to the post this AM, It's worth considering
 the injection height for trop sulfur.  The lower the injection, the swifter
 the deposition.  This can be dry particulate deposition, or rained out by
 dissolution in precip.  Any trop intervention would likely be at height, eg
 from tall stacks or aircraft.

 A
  On Mar 21, 2012 11:59 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote:

 Ken

 But if sulphate aerosols spread to lower levels would they not act as
 cloud condensation nuclei and so form a blanket of drop large enought to
 reflect the long waves?

 Stephen

 Ken Caldeira wrote:

 If we are talking about Latham's proposal, there would be no reason to
 make clouds in winter.
 If stratospheric sulfate aerosols in the right size range they should be
 too small to have a big impact on outgoing long wave.
 So, seems likely to be a non-issue.
 Ken Caldeira
 kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.**edu kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 +1 650 704 7212
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

 Sent from a limited-typing keyboard

 On Mar 20, 2012, at 21:55, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:



 Folks,
  As the Arctic situation is the weakest of the weak links in our
 environment and Stratospheric Particle Injection is a front runner of SRM
 methods, I believe this is a profoundly important issue. Will a cloud of
 SRM particles mimic a Winter Time Polar Stratospheric Cloud's ability to
 trap IR energy?
 Andrew has blocked my previous efforts to raise this question and I ask
 that he simply stop censoring this group.
  Michael
 --
 Michael Hayes
 360-708-4976
 http://www.voglerlake.com






 --
 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
 Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 geoengineering group.
 To post to this group, send email to 
 geoengineering@googlegroups.**comgeoengineering@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/geoengineering?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
 .




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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: Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)

2012-04-07 Thread Michael Hayes

   in what way geoengineering poses fundamentally new philosophic
 problems not
   previously addressed.
 
   ___
   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
 
   *Currently visiting * Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
 (IASS)http://www.iass-potsdam.de/
 
   *and *Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK)
 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/
*in Potsdam, Germany.*
 
   On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Andrea Gammon a.r.gam...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   The Mansfield Center for Ethics and Public Affairs at the University
 of
   Montana (with support from the National Science Foundation) is
 pleased to
   announce the launch of the Ethics of Geoengineering Online Resource
 Center.
 
   We have attempted to make this an exhaustive resource for materials,
   organizations, and events related to geoengineering and ethics. We
 will
   continue to work to make the site increasingly comprehensive,
 accessible,
   and engaging. We welcome feedback and suggestions about significant
   resources that are not yet included. Please bring to our attention any
   papers, events, and other media you think may be missing.
 
   Visit the site at: 
 https://ch1prd0102.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=OWAMf8GxrUmH3DmLPhvEm...
  http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php
 
   Please email feedback or suggestions to 
 geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com
   geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com
 
   Thanks!
 
   Andrea Gammon
   Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Philosophy
   University of Montana, '13
 
   Christopher Preston
   Associate Professor of Philosophy and Fellow at the Program on Ethics
 and
   Public Affairs
   University of Montana
   *
   *
 
   --
   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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] arctic change scenario creation

2012-04-17 Thread Michael Hayes

  those expected from the observed atmospheric anomolies, so
  considerable methanotrophic activity could already be activated,
  making irregularities of microbial consumption capable of such a
  release. An estimated 3-5% of ESAS submarine permafrost is currently
  covered with taliks and degraded [Shakhova, 2010], and extrapolation
  from current hotspot releases would actually equal ~3.5Gt/yr
  [Shakhova, 2010].
 
  A pulse of 3 Gt CH4 doubles the methane increase since
  industrialization: we have increased methane by about +157% (700ppb +
  1100ppb= ~1800ppb), with abundances being ~1.9Gt (pre-industrial) +
  3Gt = 4.9Gt CH4 (current). With best understanding of  all indirect
  effects, this 3 Gt has added ~1W/m2. Thus, this modest methane pulse
  would add quite quickly about +62% to all the increased radiative
  forcing since industrialization.
 
  Further, spreading it over a couple of years wouldn’t make all that
  much difference: the feedback effect for methane is a ~ -.2 loss rate
  for each +1% of methane emission rate, which holds for up to about 33%
  increase in emission rate. (After that, I believe the negative loss
  rate increases further – does anyone know what happens after this?).
  Roughly, the release would constitute a ~+500% change, so the pulse
  should, I believe, last for something like double the lifetime, or
  more, something like two decades or more. In any case, it would last
  long enough that I suspect it might cause Much Ado.
 
  --
  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.
 



 --
 twitter @andrewjlockley
 07813979322
 andrewlockley.com
 skype: andrewjlockley


  --
 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.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Keith weighs in...

2012-04-20 Thread Michael Hayes

.




-- 
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

-- 
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] Keith weighs in...

2012-04-20 Thread Michael Hayes

Need for correction. The patent I mentioned in the note is (from what I can
tell through the US PTO) still only at the application stage. Here is the
application.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=forumssrcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MTMxMzQ4MjEBMTA4OTQwNjMwMDE3Njk4OTIzMjYBQ0FLTlVYQzJtYW56TzB1Y0dSUy1xRGo5WFh1d01WZF9mcjZxdU1TcU1EcVZkVFF4WGNnQG1haWwuZ21haWwuY29tATQBpli=1

Michael

'origionator/inventor' has already happened (Benford/diatomaceous earth).

What patent was this? I know of one filed, since I was on it.

Gregory

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comwrote:

From an inventors point of view,

1) What is the intellectual property ie. *legal * distinction between
regional weather modification and geoengineering?

2) The declaration of one form of environmental modification being
intentional and another being non-intentional has no ethical/legal
relevance if there is 'reasonable knowability' of the effects of the
action. Thus, should non-intentional SRM methods, such as FF use be subject
to patent laws and/or other social restrictions?

3) The US standard for patentability is reduced to 3 basic concepts. *(A)
New:* What about SRM is new? At this point of understandingnot
much. *(B) Nonobvious:* What about SRM is not obvious to someone
normally schooled in the prior art? At this point in our understanding of
the 'prior art'.not much. *(C) Useful:* In the case of GE, is
that not largely an issue of policy as opposed to patentable technology?

One last thought on patent restrictions for SRM and GE in general. *There
is no global/universal patent and/or means of enforcement. *
**
The need for global cooperation on the GE issue in general and the
different technical forms of such will most likely be in the area of
international policy and not that of patent rights. Consider that, under
current US patent laws, a fringe group or individual can (at least) apply
for a GE related patent for the sole purpose of keeping that technology
from being used as a form of GE. *They do not need to be the inventor*,
just the first to file an application. A few thousand dollars in
application fees could materially influence the overall GE issueone way
or the other.

(Side Note) The patenting of a SRM related concept by someone other
than the recognized 'origionator/inventor' has already happened
(Benford/diatomaceous earth).

Best,

Michael
* *
*

*
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Ken Caldeira
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:

In more practical terms, in most cases of interest it will be
extremely difficult to define what constitutes a solar radiation
technology.

Is a mirror on the ground or a white roof a solar radiation
technology? To some people *yes*, to others *no*.

Most tools have multiple uses. What if I come up with a way of
producing fine aerosols and that technology also has industrial uses?

I would like to see somebody try to come up with a clear scope of what
would be unpatentable in this domain. My feeling is that there is no clear
scope around which a consensus can form, unless that scope is extremely
limited.

The same definitional problem plagues efforts to ban geoengineering
experiments.

Trying to ban things depending on whether they do or do not comprise
examples of solar radiation technology or geoengineering is likely to
produce a hopelessly twisted morass that will benefit no-one but the
lawyers.

These are vague terms that different people use to refer to different
things. Let's define what we want to proscribe or have in the public
domain
without resorting to the use of words for which there is no consensus
definition.

I challenge members of this group to come up with definitions of SRM
experiment or SRM technology that could be used to make determinations
in a court of law.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Ken Caldeira
kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:

A key difference is the ability of a small number of actors to make a
big difference.

Many think that a primary risk with SRM is a small number of rogue
actors acting without a broad consensus.

With emissions reduction and most forms of CO2 removal from the
atmosphere, the main concern is that nobody is acting sufficiently.

Direct Air Capture does not present a significant rogue actor risk.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote:

Should/could this logic extend to CDR? Why (not)? - Greg

Researchers warn that technology that could stop global warming must
stay out of private hands
Anne C. Mulkern, EE reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2012
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. -- Researchers working on a technology they
say could stop global warming want the government to keep it out of
private
hands, a lead investigator said this week.

David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy
to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are
researching

[geo] Space Based SRM

2012-04-24 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,

If we could get this group to deposit their left over material between the
sun and earth, we could have a space based sun shield. Once the need for
such a shield is over (if ever) the material could be scooped up and used
as reaction mass for some future craft.

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

As of April 20, 2012, only a list of major investors and
advisors[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-The_Guardian-2was
known; a number of the project's backers are notable for their
entrepreneurship and interest in space, exploration, and research. Some
also have previous involvement in space research. It was speculated that
Planetary Resources is looking for ways to extract raw materials from
non-Earth sources, as the means by which it would (as stated in its press
release) add trillions of dollars to the global
GDP.[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-The_Guardian-2There
was speculation they are looking into mining
asteroids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-The_Verge-3
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-technology_review-0
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-The_Guardian-2
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-Forbes-4with
one source reporting anonymous verification of that claim.
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources#cite_note-HuffPo-5

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57420110-76/planetary-resources-seeks-to-mine-asteroids-riches/

A space startup says near Earth asteroids can be mined for water,
platinum, and other natural resources to enable space exploration and bring
those valuable materials to Earth.

The princelpal backers of this company would probably listen to Drs.
Calderia, McCraken, Salter, Latham etc. if such a marrage of concepts is
supported by this group.

Best,

Michael

--
*Michael Hayes*
*360-708-4976*
http://www.voglerlake.com

[geo] NCAR/UCAR DC3 Study

2012-05-09 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,
 
This type of study may help in possably developing a GE method which could 
use cloud volume reduction/modification. P. syringae is one possable tool 
for such a method and a new type of aircraft is needed to deliver 
such. Here is the link to the NCAR/UCAR study: 
 
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/7027/scientists-across-us-launch-study-thunderstorm-impacts-upper-atmosphere
 
*The Deep Convective Clouds and Chemistry (DC3) experiment, which begins 
the middle of this month, will explore the influence of thunderstorms on 
air just beneath the stratosphere, a little-explored region that influences 
Earth’s climate and weather patterns.*
 
GW is expected to increase cloud creation and related storms. This would 
seem to lead to further GW by increasing upper atmospheric moisture. *Is a* 
*cloud (atmospheric moisture)type of tipping point* *possable?*
** 
Best,
** 
Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/pFz7LCw5jZQJ.
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: Review paper on Arctic methane mitigation

2012-07-04 Thread Michael Hayes

Hi Folks,
 
I'm currently designing an agroponics system for my 18 ac. lake which will 
harvest lake bed methane to help heat/power the system.
 
The relevent aspect of this work, to the Stolaroff paper, is the means of 
harvesting the lake bed methane. The anchoring system will be a simple 
arrangement of plastic/rubber film using a light weight frame and a vaccum 
hose/pump.
 
I have no estimates of the amount which will be harvested and the work will 
take a few months to produce any data. Stolaroff paper points out the need 
for using up this type of methane and the production of food is a good way 
to do so.
 
If any one on  this list is interested in following this project, please 
let me know and I will keep you up to date.
 
Best,
 
Michael  
 
  
On Friday, June 22, 2012 1:35:12 PM UTC-7, Joshuah Stolaroff wrote:

 Hi Folks,

 Some of you may be interested in this paper just published in EST: Review 
 of methane mitigation technologies with application to rapid release of 
 methane from the Arctic http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es204686w. 

 Our goal, among others, was to identify technologies that might be used to 
 control Arctic methane emissions. The paper is not about geoengineering *per 
 se*, but we touch on a number of geoengineering techniques. We hope that 
 the technical background provided will stimulate technologists to find more 
 solutions to various methane problems. 

 -Josh 

   --
 Joshuah K. Stolaroff, PhD
 Environmental Scientist
 E Program, Global Security
 *Climate technology and policy*
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 P.O. Box 808 L-103
 Livermore, CA 94551
 stolaro...@llnl.gov
 925-422-0957



On Friday, June 22, 2012 1:35:12 PM UTC-7, Joshuah Stolaroff wrote: 

 Hi Folks,

 Some of you may be interested in this paper just published in EST: Review 
 of methane mitigation technologies with application to rapid release of 
 methane from the Arctic http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es204686w. 

 Our goal, among others, was to identify technologies that might be used to 
 control Arctic methane emissions. The paper is not about geoengineering *per 
 se*, but we touch on a number of geoengineering techniques. We hope that 
 the technical background provided will stimulate technologists to find more 
 solutions to various methane problems. 

 -Josh 

   --
 Joshuah K. Stolaroff, PhD
 Environmental Scientist
 E Program, Global Security
 *Climate technology and policy*
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 P.O. Box 808 L-103
 Livermore, CA 94551
 stolaro...@llnl.gov
 925-422-0957




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/ICCkhga1sjQJ.
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: The possibility of unilateral covert SRM geoengineering.

2012-08-07 Thread Michael Hayes

Hello Mike et al.,
 
This is a question which begs the fundimental question of; What exactly *is*GE?
 
It is clear from an overwhelming number of studies that current energy 
policies and FF usage is changing our climate. The legal concept of 
'Reasonable Knowability' is well established and should be applied to this 
issue. Thus, the climate is currently being changed with a high level of 
reasonable knowability that we are responsable.
 
That seems to me to be what GE is! If we has reasonable knowability of the 
outcome of our actions, intentional/un-intentional is not relevent to the 
aurgument.
 
Your question ends with and we would not even know it?. I believe we 
simply wish not to know it.
 
Michael
 

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:27:43 PM UTC-7, Mick West wrote:

 Is it possible that someone might be doing geoengineering, and we would 
 not even know it?

 In Alan Robock's paper *Will Geoengineering [with SRM] Ever Be Used*, 
 posted to the list yesterday, he says rather dramatically:

 *Even suggestions of temporary geoengineering to relieve the most 
 dangerous aspects of global warming will be met with so many of the above 
 issues that there will never be world agreement to implement. I can imagine 
 worse scenarios, including global nuclear war started in response to 
 unilateral geoengineering implementation.*

 But is it possible that a nation could avoid both the insurmountable 
 obstacle of obtaining world agreement, and the possibility of severe 
 sanctions over unilateral action, by doing it in a manner that could not be 
 detected?

 Given that the actual *results* of geoengineering would most likely be 
 lost in the noise, is it actually technically possible to perform SRM 
 geoengineering on a large scale in a manner that could not be detected? Or 
 will all the possible schemes be impossible to hide, being either too 
 visible in deployment, or leaving some tell-tale physical or chemical 
 signature?

 One could approach the question from two directions, firstly from the 
 point of view of the rogue nation; if you were to devise a clandestine yet 
 effective SRM scheme, then what would it consist of? Modifications to the 
 nation's domestic jet fuel? A secret fleet of spray tankers operating from 
 a remote base? Ballistic big guns in the wilderness? Atomic bombs in 
 volcanoes?

 Secondly, from the point of view of the world community, if you suspect 
 such a thing might happen (or even already be happening) then how do you go 
 about detecting it? Unaccounted radiative forcing changes? Changes in 
 atmospheric sulphur loading? If we get a moratorium on SRM, then how do we 
 trust, but verify.

 I think the question is important from a governance and global politics 
 point of view, but it's also interesting as a surprisingly large and vocal 
 number of people actually *believe* that covert geoengineering is 
 currently being carried out by governments.  See: Public understanding of 
 solar radiation management, A M Mercer, D W Keith, and J D 
 Sharphttp://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044006/
 :

 *3.4. Conspiracy theories*

 *One of the voices emerging in the SRM debate is that of ‘chemtrails’ 
 believers. This small group believes that organizations, such as 
 governments, are already distributing chemicals in the atmosphere for a 
 variety of purposes, ranging from culling the population to mind control. 
 We found that 2.6% of the subjects believe that it is completely true that 
 the government has a secret program that uses airplanes to put harmful 
 chemicals into the air, and 14% of the sample believes that this is partly 
 true.*

 The most common purpose ascribed to the supposed spraying is actually 
 covert geoengineering. A better understanding of what covert geoengineering 
 would entail, and how it might be detected, would allow a 
 more rigorous debunking of the various conspiracy theories. 

 Mick West

 contrailscience.com


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jVu4l7qvuh4J.
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.

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 257 matches

Mail list logo