Re: [geo] 10min of maybe

[Mike MacCracken]

Just a couple of notes on this:

1. The NRC 1992 report considered using orbiting satellites to offset CO2
induced warming. In that a CO2 doubling is equivalent to about a 1.8%
increase in solar radiation, counterbalancing about half of that would
require cutting incoming solar radiation by 1%. That means that one has to
cover 1% of the Earth at any given time with solar mirrors or blockers
(unfortunately, having satellites in orbit around the Earth, one cannot keep
satellites just on the sunny side of the Earth. To cover 1%, they pointed
out (and this is an easy calculation) that this would take roughly 50,000
satellites each of a size of 100 square kilometers (so 10 km by 10 km, or 6
miles by 6 miles) and the surface would experiencing flickering due to
eclipses. Logistics would be rather complex.
2. Alternatively, one could put a satellite at the first Lagrange point, so
about 1.6M km toward the Sun where gravitational pull in both directions is
the same and we¹d get an orbit of the object around the Sun. As Jim Early
calculated in 1989 or so, this would take a disk something like 1500 km in
diameter (and for his approach, least expensive way to implement would be to
manufacture and launch it from the Moon) or as Angel later calculated
trillions of smaller parasols launched by rail guns from the surface. Also
really expensive even using find films.

So, in theory, nice idea‹in practice, very expensive and a number of other
issues.

Mike MacCracken


On 11/29/12 2:04 AM, "home geoengineering inventor"
 wrote:

> http://youtu.be/zM_EVHnff34
> 
> In this video I talk about using Nickel coated graphite to geo engineer a sun
> screen in space, to control climate change. The biggest advantage of this idea
> is that it is totally controllable and reversible where other ideas are not.
> I know clean up our act here is the way to go. Use less, recycle more, look at
> other energy sources; solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and ocean wave energy.
> But I feel no matter how much a relative small % of people try to utilize
> these other sources of energy and try to minimize our carbon footprint. Others
> just don't give a shit. They will always think that the way we have been doing
> things for the last 100 years is working just fine, so why change something
> that isn't broken. These shall we say "hard heads" will always think of making
> money from oil and won't ever care about what happens out of the back end of
> industry or the possible negative effects on the environment. Who will slow
> emissions in Asia, Africa or wherever our products are outsourced too (cheaper
> manufacturing is defiantly related to harming our environment!) That is where
> my idea isn't exactly what people think it is... "solar radiation management."
> And the use of Aluminium is wrong. I am proposing nickel coated graphite
> (NCG). This idea has not been talked about. NCG is a better solution because
> nickel is not poisonous, you can safely drink from a cup made out of nickel.
> Really I would love to use steel. Simple rusty old steel , found in the
> thousands of junk yards around the world; ground up into a ultra fine powder.
> Why It would help to clean up our already polluted Earth, it has already
> been mined and the biggest reason I choose a magnetic material is because it
> makes my idea temporary (if need be) and totally reversible. However after
> being told by NASA that even sand can be abrasive in space. I choose NCG
> because it has all the same characteristics of steel but with one huge
> advantage. NCG would be less abrasive. If you were to look at a cross-section
> of this material it is essentially hollow, meaning it is lighter and wouldn't
> have as much mass causing it to be virtually a feather light cloud in space...
> Lastly, my idea is not to spread at low altitudes. I choose outer space way
> beyond the Karman line because there, it has no chance of falling back down to
> Earth and polluting our air water or land. Also being out in almost zero
> gravity gives us the option of possible recollection and the additional safety
> barrier of atmosphere still giving us a "last chance safety net," meaning if
> it were to fall back to Earth it would burn up completely upon re-entry. I
> know further, proper testing needs to be done in a vacuum, wind tunnel, to see
> how it reacts with our electro magnetic force field. One step at a time. My
> objective of posting in this group is to simply present my idea. I Just need a
> few people to see a possible maybe in my idea... and maybe just maybe we can
> actually make a difference, or at least buy mankind some time to clean up our
> act :) 

-- 
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/geoeng

Re: [geo] Hands off Mother Earth? - Opinion - The Boston Globe

[euggordon]

Thanks. This is an interesting  opinion article which   may be seen as an 
argument for geoengineering solutions. There is plenty of evidenc e that a 
generally warming planet going forward would be destructive for much of the 
planet --- but not all of it. 



However, n o one has demonstrated that Hurrican S andy was a result of global 
warming or that global warming will increase the number of Hurricanes and 
related weather events --- and the article falls off the planet. 



- Original Message -


From: "Andrew Lockley"  
To: "geoengineering"  
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:53:17 AM 
Subject: [geo] Hands off Mother Earth? - Opinion - The Boston Globe 



http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/26/hands-off-mother-earth/iZQKJkGcDg8CY3x3wVBfHN/story.html
 

By James Carroll 

 |  GLOBE CORRESPONDENT     NOVEMBER 26, 2012 

American denial of climate change hit bottom this month. Hurricane Sandy was 
the most powerful instance yet of mundane weather trumping abstract science to 
make people face the truth. “It’s Global Warming, Stupid!” screeched the cover 
of Bloomberg Businessweek, above a photo of a flooded street. Rising sea levels 
just moved from future threat to present danger. And as the Pentagon had 
earlier this year emphasized climate change as a national security issue, so 
the CIA has just released its own grim assessment of coming “climate surprises” 
with “global security implications serious enough to compel international 
response.” In his post-election acceptance speech, President Obama warned of 
“the destructive power of a warming planet.”So perhaps this unprecedented 
problem will finally be meaningfully addressed by the president and Congress, 
with new emphasis on green energy, carbon taxes, anti-fracking legislation, 
elimination of subsidies to oil and gas companies, rejection of new pipelines, 
and so on. Climate prophet Bill McKibben is in the midst of a 21-city “Do the 
math” tour, drawing thousands of supporters, all demanding that carbon dioxide 
be left in the ground. Fossil fuels are choking the planet, and a critical mass 
of Americans are waking up to it.But sometimes when a corner gets turned, 
another, sharper corner shows itself. Even if carbon emissions were 
dramatically reduced all over the planet (including in China, India, and 
Africa, where fossil fuel engines are just firing up), the biosphere is already 
facing catastrophe. The greenhouse effect is self-compounding, and scientists 
tell us that atmospheric temperatures will continue to rise even without more 
pollution. However difficult it has been to launch a real discussion of the 
causes of global warming, an even-larger controversy looms now, as problematic 
attempts to mitigate warming through “geoengineering” are forced onto the human 
agenda.Geoengineering refers to manipulations of the structures of the natural 
world aimed at protecting the livable environment. Interventions can go further 
than, say, massive storm surge barriers protecting Amsterdam and London, or 
levee systems keeping New Orleans dry. Greenhouse gases can actually be removed 
from the atmosphere, and solar radiation can be managed in ways that reduce the 
planet’s absorption of heat. Stratospheric dispersal of sulfur aerosols to 
mimic the light-dimming consequences of volcanic ash is one geoengineering 
scheme. Another involves iron fertilization of the oceans to produce massive 
plankton blooms, which can repair broken aquatic food-chain webs, while 
lowering carbon dioxide levels. 

Weather manipulation has been around since cloud-seeding for rain, but these 
more drastic strategies are hugely controversial. Last July, a freelance 
geoengineer — some called him rogue — dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into the 
Canadian Pacific, the largest deliberate ocean fertilization ever. A plankton 
bloom covering thousands of square miles of ocean resulted. The action was 
defended as a restoration of nutrients that would bring back the salmon stock 
in the region, and it was intended to create a carbon sink as well, but many 
scientists decried the iron-dump as a careless violation of international 
agreements. Now the actual consequences of the Pacific undertaking are being 
studied.Some argue that, given the already permanent and growing character of 
the greenhouse threat, such drastic manipulations of atmospheric systems are 
urgently needed — if carried out in scientifically responsible ways. But others 
warn that geoengineering techniques can make things far worse. Opposition 
movements rally with slogans like “Hands off Mother Earth.” Meanwhile, a 
subtler worry is that widespread talk about engineered solutions to climate 
change will lessen curbing pressures on Big Oil and other fossil fuel 
producers. And what about the possibility of a climate war between nations of 
the chilly north and the overheated south, with engineered planet temperatures 
wielded as a weapon?Once again, we humans find ourselves at a mora

[geo] Geoengineering & uncertainty

[Andrew Lockley]

The first link is a presentation on geoengineering & uncertainty, which may
be of interest

A
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Google Alerts" 
Date: Nov 29, 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Google Alert - geoengineering -chemtrails
To: 

***Web2* new results for *geoengineering -chemtrails*
*Geoengineering*and Uncertainty -
ceres-erti
Application: The Economics of *Geoengineering*. The New Yorker: The climate
*...* *Geoengineering* (GE) in the context of climate change: CDR (Carbon
dioxide *...*
www.environnement.ens.fr/.../JohannesEmmerling--Geoengin...
*Geoengineering* A "Research Priority" for Chinese Government
*...*
the Chinese Government included for the very first time
*geo-engineering*research
*...* *Geo-engineering* in many Chinese language translations into English
. Best, *...*
groups.google.com/group/.../browse.../c0a01ab34d6b7430
--
Tip: Use site restrict in your query to search within a site (site:
nytimes.com or site:.edu). Learn
more
.

Deletethis
alert.
Createanother
alert.
Manageyour
alerts.

-- 
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] Hands off Mother Earth? - Opinion - The Boston Globe

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Eugene‹Regarding the effect of global warming on Hurricane Sandy, a very
good (in my view) note has been put together by the Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions. Basically, it talks about a number of influences that need
to be considered. To access their note, go to
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Hurricane-Sandy-Fact-Sheet-Oct-2012.pdf

Best, Mike

**


On 11/29/12 11:20 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> Thanks. This is an interesting opinion article which may be seen as an
> argument for geoengineering solutions. There is plenty of evidence that a
> generally warming planet going forward would be destructive for much of the
> planet --- but not all of it.
> 
>  
> 
> However, no one has demonstrated that Hurrican Sandy was a result of global
> warming or that global warming will increase the number of Hurricanes and
> related weather events --- and the article falls off the planet.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: "Andrew Lockley" 
> To: "geoengineering" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:53:17 AM
> Subject: [geo] Hands off Mother Earth? - Opinion - The Boston Globe
> 
> 
> http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/26/hands-off-mother-earth/iZQKJkGcDg8CY
> 3x3wVBfHN/story.html
> 
> By James Carroll
> 
>  |  GLOBE CORRESPONDENT NOVEMBER 26, 2012
> 
> American denial of climate change hit bottom this month. Hurricane Sandy was
> the most powerful instance yet of mundane weather trumping abstract science to
> make people face the truth. ³It¹s Global Warming, Stupid!² screeched the cover
> of Bloomberg Businessweek, above a photo of a flooded street. Rising sea
> levels just moved from future threat to present danger. And as the Pentagon
> had earlier this year emphasized climate change as a national security issue,
> so the CIA has just released its own grim assessment of coming ³climate
> surprises² with ³global security implications serious enough to compel
> international response.² In his post-election acceptance speech, President
> Obama warned of ³the destructive power of a warming planet.²So perhaps this
> unprecedented problem will finally be meaningfully addressed by the president
> and Congress, with new emphasis on green energy, carbon taxes, anti-fracking
> legislation, elimination of subsidies to oil and gas companies, rejection of
> new pipelines, and so on. Climate prophet Bill McKibben is in the midst of a
> 21-city ³Do the math² tour, drawing thousands of supporters, all demanding
> that carbon dioxide be left in the ground. Fossil fuels are choking the
> planet, and a critical mass of Americans are waking up to it.But sometimes
> when a corner gets turned, another, sharper corner shows itself. Even if
> carbon emissions were dramatically reduced all over the planet (including in
> China, India, and Africa, where fossil fuel engines are just firing up), the
> biosphere is already facing catastrophe. The greenhouse effect is
> self-compounding, and scientists tell us that atmospheric temperatures will
> continue to rise even without more pollution. However difficult it has been to
> launch a real discussion of the causes of global warming, an even-larger
> controversy looms now, as problematic attempts to mitigate warming through
> ³geoengineering² are forced onto the human agenda.Geoengineering refers to
> manipulations of the structures of the natural world aimed at protecting the
> livable environment. Interventions can go further than, say, massive storm
> surge barriers protecting Amsterdam and London, or levee systems keeping New
> Orleans dry. Greenhouse gases can actually be removed from the atmosphere, and
> solar radiation can be managed in ways that reduce the planet¹s absorption of
> heat. Stratospheric dispersal of sulfur aerosols to mimic the light-dimming
> consequences of volcanic ash is one geoengineering scheme. Another involves
> iron fertilization of the oceans to produce massive plankton blooms, which can
> repair broken aquatic food-chain webs, while lowering carbon dioxide levels.
> 
> Weather manipulation has been around since cloud-seeding for rain, but these
> more drastic strategies are hugely controversial. Last July, a freelance
> geoengineer ‹ some called him rogue ‹ dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into
> the Canadian Pacific, the largest deliberate ocean fertilization ever. A
> plankton bloom covering thousands of square miles of ocean resulted. The
> action was defended as a restoration of nutrients that would bring back the
> salmon stock in the region, and it was intended to create a carbon sink as
> well, but many scientists decried the iron-dump as a careless violation of
> international agreements. Now the actual consequences of the Pacific
> undertaking are being studied.Some argue that, given the already permanent and
> growing character of the greenhouse threat, such drastic manipulations of
> atmospheric systems are urgently needed ‹ if carried out in scientifically
> responsible ways. But others warn that geoengineering techni

[geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics

[David Lewis]

Can We Stop Modern-Day Yellow Journalism?

"Media coverage such as yours distorted what went on until a casual 
observer wouldn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Is that your job? 
Do you lie awake at night worried that you will fail the next day in your 
effort to distort and confuse?"

I sent that and some other thoughts to the editor of Popular Mechanics, 
publisher of the "Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists" article.  

"Yellow journalism" describes what journalism in New York degenerated into 
as a result of the circulation war Hearst and Pulitzer controlled 
newspapers conducted in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  Editors would 
sensationalize or make up events to fit story ideas they thought would sell 
more papers.  Wikipedia has a Yellow Journalism entry. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism   A short article is 
here.   http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring04/vance/yellowjournalism.html

Most media coverage of the ocean fertilization experiment the Haida 
recently conducted off the coast of British Columbia, by reporting it in 
terms that appear to have nothing to do with the facts of the event and 
with sensationalized details, brought the topic of yellow journalism to 
mind.  

Take this "Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists" article.  

The Haida say that whatever happened it was their experiment which they 
paid for and controlled.  The Haida believe that the reason they caught a 
record number of fish recently is because iron rich dust from a volcanic 
eruption fertilized the ocean where the fish they are interested in grow 
up.  As far as they know, that volcano isn't going to erupt again any time 
soon.  But they have boats, and they can buy fertilizer.  So they took 120 
tonnes of fertilizer out onto the high seas and dumped it where they think 
the fish live.  If they succeed in increasing their fish catch as a result, 
they hope to repeat the event.  

The Haida say it was their idea to approach Russ George, not the other way 
around.  They see selling carbon credits as supplementary funding which, if 
it can be shown that fish stocks can be increased in this way, could help 
them do it more often.

Popular Mechanics author Kathryn Doyle tells us what happened was "rogue 
science on the high seas", as "Russ George... launched his latest" in a 
long line of "big, controversial ideas", where "200,000 pounds of iron 
sulphate" was supposed "to spur a huge plankton bloom" which was supposedly 
intended to have a planetary effect.  Russ George's "unilateral 
geoengineering" has "outraged scientists".  

I'll leave aside the obvious question:  why didn't Kathryn report the 
amount of material in picograms?  There is no "mad scientist" involved in 
"unilateral geoengineering".  There is a group of Natives who consulted 
Russ George as they attempt to test an idea they have to increase their 
fish catch.  

Kathryn's article, in comparison to many articles about this event, 
discusses geoengineering in ways that seem appropriate.  But this is later 
on, after the wild headline and the distortions of the first three 
paragraphs.  Why ignore what happened and write it up this way?  

 

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:53:30 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:
>
>
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?src=rss
>
> Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists?
>
> An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking 
> permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to 
> launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of 
> Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from 
> doing it himself?
>
> BY KATHRYN DOYLE
>
> NASAIt's hard to stop a bad idea with enough money behind it—even rogue 
> science on the high seas. Russ George, a wealthy American businessman with 
> a history of big, controversial ideas, launched his latest one this 
> October: dumping 200,000 pounds of iron sulfate into the North Pacific. His 
> aim was to spur a huge plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide in 
> photosynthesis and then sink to the ocean floor. George was attempting to 
> engage in ocean fertilization, the idea that seeding the sea in this way 
> creates those organic blooms that sequester carbon when they sink. Plenty 
> of scientists have bandied about the idea of ocean fertilization—it's one 
> of the most common proposals for geoengineering, or engineering the earth 
> to protect civilization from climate change. But George didn't write a 
> scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean 
> with iron. He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida 
> Salmon Restoration Corporation, a First Nations group in Canada that was 
> hoping an improvement in the ocean would also improve the salmon numbers 
> they depend on. This wasn't George's first attempt at unilateral 
> geoen

[geo] Re: 10min of maybe

[home geoengineering inventor]

Here are some of the specs of the Nickel coated graphite (NCG) I propose to 
use. Through a microscope this 100 micron powder appears to be hollow, 
hence the graphite core. Meaning it has a relatively large size vs. mass 
ratio. If you wanted to completely cover 1 square meter you would only need 
half a gram (TOTAL BLACK OUT!) Now when I say this material is invisible to 
the naked eye, I mean it is almost impossible to see a spec of anything 
this size. Take a human hair (60 micron) if you pull out one strand you can 
see its length but the end or cross section is pretty hard to see (unless 
you are trying real hard.) If I wanted to make a solid band of this product 
around the equator 10 km wide (COMPLETE BLACK OUT) I would need 5000 tons 
of this powder. Costing roughly 300 million CAN$ shipping and handling not 
included. That is equivalent to 1 day of war! (what US is spending to fight 
in Iraq as stated in the Washington post is 280 million a day) One may say 
that 10 km around the equator won't amount to shit, but with the proper 
delivery system this 10 km disperses into a not so solid band of 100 km 
around the Earth. Depending on altitude this coverage can be magnified many 
times. That means each and every particle is in direct contact with the 
suns rays for 12 hours a day and each and every day and 
every particle absorbs, reflects, deflects a small fraction of the suns 
solar rays. It would be like throwing a handful of flour in the air, or 
looking out of your screen window or door. You can still see out, light 
still penetrates through, plants can still grow, but things aren't quite so 
HOT!!!  To achieve the desired results of blocking 1% of the incoming solar 
radiation in actuality I think this may be over kill. Meaning the cost is 
less than 300 million! 1 day of war to potentially slow and stop climate 
change. In the space industry really 300 million in my mind is a piss in 
the wind... I have read that payloads  of up to 25 tons can go up at a 
time. That means I would need only 200 deliveries to accomplish the task.
This product is readily available and surprising enough you most likely 
have almost direct contact to it every day. It is found in cell phones, 
tablets, monitors of sorts, computers, laptops, basically anything that has 
"touch screen" abilities.
Further testing needs to be done. Testing to see how it reacts in vacuum, 
how it reacts with the worlds magnetic force field, abrasive tests done in 
wind tunnel are a few. 
I think putting anything solid up in space to achieve the same results is 
foolish due to potential collisions (a shuttle or satellite can safely fly 
or pass through an ultra fine powder.) And if further testing proves this 
to be too abrasive, the material is also available in half the size.. a bit 
more costly, but less abrasive. 

I think trying to shoot a meteor in hopes that it will give off a cloud of 
dust/powder is potentially catastrophic. Without knowing the composition of 
the meteor  and how it will explode could result in a cloud too big with no 
way to control or reverse the process. Or on the other hand send a large 
chunk to hurdle towards Earth with the potential of destroying an existing 
satellite, the ISS, (producing more potential for space junk) or at its 
worse case scenario to actually hit Earth causing a total wipe out of 
everything. (With my idea we control how much goes up and if need be how 
much comes back.) 

I believe anything we do within our atmosphere is potentially causing 
weather patterns to fluctuate bringing on the perfect storm scenarios that 
we have been witnessing. If we try to cool one area it means another 
becomes heated and with the circulation of air, wind and water all a mess, 
we see things happening that may have not happened in the past. 
That's why I say "anything we do within the oven door is useless." even if 
we can reflect the suns solar rays within atmosphere; its too late. They 
have already done their damage by heating the Earth as a whole (even in the 
upper atmosphere.) Remember with my idea cooling at the equator (far far 
away from our atmosphere) where the sun heats Earth the most will still 
cool Earth as a whole.. Hence the chicken analogy. If that 1% of the suns 
rays never get the chance to penetrate into the atmosphere we would never 
know the difference, and it wouldn't have the negative effects on 
convection because it isn't technically in our "oven". Also if we wanted, 
my idea doesn't have to be over just the equator, we always have the option 
of making a cloud over any area in need of cooling, ex. polar ice caps!!! 
One of the strongest advantages to my idea is it doesn't have to happen 
over night. We can control and monitor the effects over time as we witness 
the positive effects. 
 
If someone, anyone can see a small maybe in my idea. I would love to get 
some guidance as far as testing is concerned.  
And how would one get funded for testing???
 
Trying to make a differ