Looking strictly at the geoengineering section in Appendix B, I find
the analysis pretty thin and a little sloppy ("Solar Radiation
Management techniques ... seek to increase the amount of the solar
radiation reflected back into space thus increasing the Earth's albedo
by a small percentage to offset the effects of increased greenhouse
gases"). Extrapolating from cloud-seeding during the Beijing Olympics
to the threat of unilateral SRM deployment is a pretty big leap.
Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com
http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/
On Nov 21, 2:37 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
> William and list:
>
> I happened to have received as separate notification of the DoD report you
> have identified below and have skimmed the 175 pages. My link was
> tohttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf- and seemed to download a
> little faster than the one you give below.
>
> The title is "Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and
> International Security". There is no well defined author, but there are four
> staff persons from the DC-based firm Science Applications, Inc (This is NOT
> SAIC). The full study panel (mostly military from all the services) began
> work in the spring of 2010. As you noted, there is some material on China,
> but by far the greatest emphasis is on Africa. There are some "climate
> impact" maps for Africa that are the best I can recall seeing. (This emphasis
> because of the part of DoD that co-sponsored the report.)
>
> I found this to be as strong a statement on urgency as from any US government
> agency I can recall. Hence I think it can be important - perhaps especially
> in the US House - to convert the opinions of some in Congress who might
> believe DoD on a climate topic.. I hope a hearing can be arranged for this
> pretty definitive study.
>
> There is really very little in the main report on what to do, but Appendix A
> is entitled "Climate Information System Needs", with 29 pages - and is noting
> that not much money really is going into climate information. Then Appendix B
> (Special topics) has nine pages on tipping points and Geoengineering. Not
> much new detail, but all fairly supportive of geoengineering. I look through
> these sorts of reports of course looking for "Biochar", and found it only on
> the very last page (p138) in a diagram showing 7 CDR alternatives. The
> previous figure shows 6 SRM alternatives. There are probably/possibly some
> more errors in the text, but the only one I found was in reversing the titles
> of these two figures.
>
> The last few pages of the report describe the intent of the Defense Science
> Board committee and the membership. It seems possible that the most key
> person was Dr. William Howard, listed as a consultant and co-chair. The CIA
> was listed as a participant - and I'll bet the CIA does indeed have some good
> climate information they could be sharing.
>
> I searched around a bit for more DoD material on climate and found nothing as
> urgent or current (this report being labeled Oct. 2011). But, I found this
> additional report looked pretty good on monitoring CO2
> emissions:http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf
>
> There was emphasis at one site on the transmittal 2-pager from the two
> co-chairs - which sai d this:
>
> "The recommendations fall into five main areas:
> • The need for developing a robust climate information system
> • Instituting water security as a core element of DOD strategy
>
> • Roles of the national security community, including the intelligence
> community, the Department of State, and the White House
> • Guidance and DOD organization to address the full range of international
> climate change-related issues and their impact on the evolution of DOD’s
> missions
> • Combatant command roles, responsibilities, and capacities "
>
> I also found the report
> at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/72728850/Trend-and-Implications-of-Climate-...
>
> I also found that Joe Romm, a few days ago, also caught this report
> (seehttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/17/370727/defense-science-board...)
> - but there is not much there by Joe. He doesn't make it as big a
> breakthrough as I am (still) thinking it is.
>
> If anyone can identify more on whether this report is really important, I
> think that information could be helpful to this list
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Pentland" <wpentl...@gmail.com>
> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:24:35 PM
> Subject: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral
> Climate Engineering
>
> The U.S. Defense Science Board's new report on security implications
> of climate change concludes that "there is significant potential for
> unilateral geoengineering activity." The discussion focuses on
> China's "propensity to attempt modifying weather in Beijing and other
> areas." The full report is available
> athttp://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports2000s.htm
>
> --
> 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
> athttp://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.
