[geo] BBC E-mail: Trial to reverse global warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Veli Albert Kallio saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.



** Trial to reverse global warming **
A Sussex businessman has started international trials of a natural method of 
capturing carbon from the atmosphere and burying it in the ground.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/england/7993034.stm >


** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >


** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written 
in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please 
note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more 
about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked 
questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Where Growth is Being Forced by Law

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Some good news are starting to trikcle across the Atlantic ...
 


Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:30:16 +
From: eac-elet...@angelnexus.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Where Growth is Being Forced by Law





 

 





Subscribe to
our RSS Feed

What is an RSS Feed?




 
Where Growth is Being Forced by Law
 
By Nick Hodge | Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

 
 
 
The Case for Energy Storage
 
Do you remember when Obama was talking all that crazy stuff about doubling the 
use of renewable energy, laying new power lines, and improving energy 
efficiency?
 
Well, you should because he's been doing it for about a year now, half of which 
he's been the leader of the free world. And even if you haven't noticed (or 
don't care). . . others, including myself, profitably have.
 
This is because of the unique dynamic of the energy storage market. 
 
You see, Congress is about to mandate that we get a certain percentage — 
probably 15-20% — of our electricity from renewable resources in the next 
decade. The bill has already passed committee in the House.
 
Thing is, not many people realize the full implications of this move. This is 
guaranteed market share and crystal clear visibility. Imagine if a new law 
required Sprint to have a guaranteed increased market share. You'd buy that 
stock, right? Thousands of investors would.
 
This is exactly what's happening in the renewable energy market right now. 
 
Solar and wind stocks, on average, have tacked on ~30% or more in the past few 
weeks.
 
But we're not talking about them today because energy storage stocks have 
proven even more lucrative.
 
And that's because energy storage is needed no matter the energy source. It's 
the only technology that will allow renewable energy to meet its new growth 
targets. 
 
Going forward, nearly all new solar and wind projects could use an energy 
storage device to store excess power. This way, wind energy generated overnight 
could be used the next morning.
 
Industry insiders are forecasting inelastic demand for this market. If you know 
anything about economics, you know that means prices can be raised without 
affecting demand.
 
And it's been estimated that even if only 1% of projects that could use energy 
storage adopt some form of it, the market will be worth $600 billion in the 
next decade.
 
But profits are being made right now.
 

 
 






 
Four Energy Storage Stocks You Missed. . .
 
But I (and readers of Alternative Energy Speculator) didn't.
 
That's because when I see a looming opportunity, I take it. This market is 
being forced to grow, for crying out loud.
 
And the billions set aside for smart grid and battery development in the 
stimulus were a clear buy signal for this market.
 
Other investors obviously agreed. And look what happened:

 
Readers of Alternative Energy Speculator have cashed out of three of those 
stocks for double-digit gains. And they're sitting on the other one for even 
more profits.
 
Were you in these stocks? Have you even heard of them?
 
These are the companies providing the backbone of a new energy economy. There 
are plenty more of them, and AES members have been reading about them for 
months.
 
If you're serious about investing in energy, you need to be reading about them 
as well. 
 
China's got a $300 billion deal on the table to get 15% of its energy from 
renewables by 2020. India is shooting for 10% by 2012. And in addition to the 
coming U.S. targets I discussed above, the recent stimulus allocated $112 
billion for the sector.
 
Have you heard anything about increasing the use of oil by law? Any mention of 
a fossil fuel stimulus? 
 
Sure, there's money to be made there, but only because economic scarcity will 
drive up prices.
 
I'd want to get in on the ground floor of the new energy industry rather than 
jump off the top floor of a dying one.
 
Call it like you see it,
 
Nick 
 
P.S. I'm not pushing any ideology or political spectrum. I'm just calling it 
like is see it. And so far this year, I've called 27 winners in the cleantech 
space — 23 of them were closed for double-digit gains. Stop thinking about it 
and start profiting from it.


Advertisement

Profit from the Peak

 
The first-ever book dedicated to the...
 
The Greatest Investment Event of the 21st Century
 
A former advisor to the White House says it "will replace global warming as the 
topic everyone is talking about... and between $50 and $100 trillion needs to 
be invested to stave off a crisis"


Categories 

Fossil Fuels
Renewables & Alternative Energy
Global Energy
Energy Stocks
Solar Energy Investing
Peak Oil



Now that oil has finally bottomed out... what's your next move?
The precipitous fall for oil prices late last year has decimated nearly every 
oil and gas company in the industry. It also struck fear in most investors, 
causing their knee-jerk selling. Lost in the panic, however, is the fact that 
many of those oil and gas stocks were unfairly beaten down. 
Fortunately for investors, you

[geo] Submissions Wanted What to Do About Greenhouse Gases

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Forwarded: If you have any ideas, please feel welcome to submit here:
 


From: i...@campaigncc.org
Subject: CCC Climate e-newsletter June 3rd
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:51:12 +0100







Reminder – remember to vote in the elections on Thursday!
 
 The Climate Emergency Parliament goes online!
 

The Climate Emergency Parliament will be held in Parliament Square on Wednesday 
15 July at 6pm, and will come up with plans for “10 by 10” (a reduction of 10% 
in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010).
 
What will be the most effective means of doing this?  We have some ideas, but 
we want to hear what you think.  The most convincing will be part of a strategy 
submitted to Parliament itself, challenging MPs who are failing to respond to 
the Climate Emergency.
 
Join in the debate at www.campaigncc.org/onlineemergencyparliament and of 
course come along on the day!
 
We have a couple of specific requests for help:
1) To make a strong case on how emissions can be cut by 10% by 2010, we need 
the relevant facts and figures, so we need someone to do internet research to 
find out what information is already out there.
2) We have a good line-up of speakers already for the Emergency Parliament, but 
are looking to have some dramatic entertainment as well and would like to hear 
from anyone who could help.
If you think you might be able to help with either of these, contact 
i...@campaigncc.org 
 
Campaign against Climate Change meetings (London-based)
Unless otherwise specified, meetings start at 6.30pm, 5 Caledonian Road, 
basement meeting room. All welcome.
 
Wednesday 10 June - UK Outreach Working Group meeting
 
Tuesday 16 June, 7pm - London meeting
Copenhagen: What to expect 
Tom Picken, Friends of the Earth climate campaigner, will talk about how the 
negotiations are looking in the run up to the critical UN climate talks in 
Copenhagen.  This will include the results from the UNFCCC talks in progress at 
the moment, the EU elections this Thursday and the recent US climate bill.
This is also a chance to find out what’s happening with plans for mass travel 
to Copenhagen for the 12 December.   
Venue to be confirmed
 
Tuesday 23 June – Fundraising Working Group meeting
 
Tuesday 7 July – International Outreach Working Group meeting
 
Other events
 
Saturday 4 July – Join the ‘Mili-band’ at Kingsnorth 
The plan for the day is to form a giant human band (or 'mili-band') with 
thousands of people around Kingsnorth, where E.ON is planning to build the 
first new coal power station in the UK since the 1970s. Afterwards there'll be 
a summer fete, complete with stalls, music, and plenty for the children. There 
will be free coaches to Kent from Oxford, Cardiff, Bristol, Birmingham and 
Coventry.  Find out more about the arrangements here:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/climate_change/miliband/miliband.html
 
 
Campaign updates
 
There is strong parliamentary support for an Early Day Motion calling for a 
target of 42% emissions cuts by 2020, without off-setting (the current interim 
target is 34%, with offsetting).  Over 100 Labour MPs, including the Chair of 
the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and key 
Conservatives have signed the motion.  Find out whether your MP has signed 
here: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37945&SESSION=899 
 
In April, councillors from Leeds City Council took the brave step of refusing 
to approve a planning application for airport expansion.  They told Leeds 
Bradford Airport to go back to the drawing board and come up with solutions to 
the following major problems: increased carbon dioxide emissions from a 70% 
growth in passengers in three years, more noise for local residents as flight 
numbers increase, massive congestion and emissions from an extra million cars 
on local roads each year.
The airport has failed to come up with solutions, so it is now time for the 
councillors to finally refuse the planning application. 
Go to 
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/leeds_bradford_18346.html
 and ask the councillors to refuse the application.
 
Climate change in the news – UK
 
The Scottish Climate Change Bill is not good enough warns a green coalition
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2510063.0.Climate_change_bill_not_good_enough_warns_green_coalition.php
 
 
The London Array, the world's largest offshore wind farm, is to be built off 
the Essex and Kent coast. 
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6276219.ece
 
 
BAA asks for the postponement of a planning inquiry into a second runway at 
Stansted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/21/baa-seeks-stansted-inquiry-delay 
 
Film about the Kingsnorth Six
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/atimecomes-video?utm_source=ebulletin20090601&utm_medium=email&utm_term=kingsnorth&utm_campaign=coal
 
 
Climate change in the news - International
 
Crucial talks are taking place in Bonn 

[geo] Energy & Capital: Arctic Oil and Gas: A Foregone Conclusion?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Here are reference to Arctic and Greenland oil and gas with industry analysts' 
comments on its significance for the overally energy supply portfolio. Not 
much. 

 

Policy is correct for renewable and nuclear energies to replace oil asap in 
most countries.
 


Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:48:38 +
From: eac-elet...@angelnexus.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Arctic Oil and Gas: A Foregone Conclusion?






Having trouble viewing this issue? Click here or copy this link into your web 
browser: http://www.energyandcapital.net/newsletter.php?date=2009-06-05 

 





Subscribe to
our RSS Feed

What is an RSS Feed?





Home
Editors
Archives
Whitelist
Contact
Site Map


Arctic Oil and Gas: A Foregone Conclusion?
By Chris Nelder | Friday, June 5th, 2009
One way to know that the end of the Age of Oil will soon be upon us is the 
current excitement and chatter about going—literally—to the ends of the earth 
to find more oil. 
The Arctic Circle, which circumscribes about 6% of the earth's total surface, 
is one of the last regions of any significant size to be explored for oil, and 
for good reason: It's locked in ice for much of the year, far from support and 
distribution lines, and is one of the most extreme environments on earth. 
Whatever oil and gas is extracted from the top cap of our planet will be the 
most expensive and difficult oil ever produced. 
Yet the prospect of new oil production from the Arctic is attracting renewed 
attention as the world becomes increasingly cognizant of the end of cheap, easy 
oil, and the security and economic risks associated with the expensive, 
difficult oil that remains. Exploration opportunities are diminishing every 
year, as the world continues its 40+-year-long slide down the backside of the 
exploration bell curve. 
With global warming causing the polar ice pack to break up and retreat, it has 
become possible to sail ships through the Northwest Passage for the first time 
in recorded human history. (When it was last open is not known, but it could 
have as recently as the Medieval Warm Period from 1000-1300 AD, when Norse and 
Icelandic explorers settled Greenland, or distant as the last inter-glacial 
period, 120,000 years ago.) Thus it now seems at least physically possible to 
tap the fossil fuel resources of the Arctic. 
More specifically, the focus now is upon offshore resources in the Arctic 
Circle, in continental shelves under less than 500 meters of water. Onshore 
areas in the region have already been explored, with some 40 billion barrels of 
oil (BBO), 1136 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas, and 8 billion barrels 
of natural gas liquids having been developed, primarily in the West Siberian 
Basin of Russia and on the North Slope of Alaska. Deepwater basins in the 
Arctic Circle are considered weak prospects as they lack the appropriate source 
rock structures. 
The important question now is: How much remains to be discovered up there? 
In an effort to answer this question, the United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) in cooperation with an international group of geological experts from 
Canada, Demark, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and other governmental agencies has 
just completed an effort to round up the available data on the Arctic region 
and assess its potential, known as the Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA). 
Their summary report, "Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Arctic," 
was released last week. 
Much of the area is as yet unexplored, so an innovative approach to assessing 
the area and extrapolating from the limited data available was required. In 
order to have some way of evaluating the "very sparse geological data" on the 
area, the evaluators used "analogs" from the real world as comparison samples. 
The team divided the area into 69 Assessment Units (AUs) that contained at 
least 3 km of sedimentary rock, since such source rocks are where the vast 
majority of oil is found. It limited its assessment to resources thought to 
contain at least 50 million barrels of oil, or 300 billion cubic feet of gas 
(50 million barrels of oil equivalent, or MMBOE). According to the report, 
fields larger than 50 MMBO make up more than 95% of the world's known oil and 
gas resources by volume, so the limit gives us a good approximation without 
pretending to more detailed understanding than is warranted by the data. It 
also considered only conventional oil resources, excluding unconventional 
resources such as coal bed methane, gas hydrates, oil shales, heavy oil and so 
on. 
Most importantly, it presented its results "without reference to costs of 
exploration and development." 
Maps of the resources reveal their uneven distributions: Sixty percent of the 
oil is concentrated in just six AUs, predominately in Alaska, and two-thirds of 
the undiscovered gas is in just four AUs, predominately in Russia. 

Figure 1: CARA Assessment of "Mean Estimated Undiscovered Oil" in Arctic Circle
Source: "Assessment of Undiscovered 

[geo] Re: Arctic sea ice - no multi-year ice found

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I presume that John was referring to two-season ice, which is not usually 
considered as multi year ice. Two year ice can be rather weak.


What is important on Pen Hadlow's sea ice thickeness that 2,500 holes from 
Canada to the North Pole produced an average thickeness of 177.4 cm.  In my 
experience ice of thickeness 120 cm will melt away by second week of July.  So 
the margin is 57.4 cm.

 

There aren't lots of leeway as some of the ice fell below average and must be 
closer to the tipping point.  All those ice areas with only 120 cm will 
definitely melt, perhaps those 150 cm. It all depends how good start the 
melting gets.

 

The sea ice on its last legs will behave very differently than ice that was 
before. Wave penetration, reduced sea ice area all influence the vertical 
mixing of sea water and make ice more motionary, mopping up heat when ice 
encounters open (warmed) waters.  

 

The localised vertical mixing of sea water is also very dangerous for ice in 
stormier conditions if there are open water and ice travelling with it. Ice is 
propelled by wind providing a drag as well as higher windward water column 
against the trough side. 

 

The higher watercolumn on the windward will produced pumping which raises deep 
water up nearby. We'll see how things develop but the computer models are as 
good as that keeping as flying models when unanticipated processes kick in and 
are not put in the models.

 

Please note that I have been constantly saying since 2005 that we might get ice 
free ocean by end of decade due to a number of things, which I have 
occasionally mentioned. 

 

I am worried about the methane coming from the warming soils, more intensive 
decay, methane clathrates and the possibility (likelihood?) of strong and swift 
coupling with marine and terrestrial ice losses in the Arctic (i.e. Greenland 
ice sheet whole scale land containment failure developing shortly in post-sea 
ice Arctic as expressed by HE President Morales in Poznan and some other 
advocates). 

 

Regards,

 

Albert

  

 


Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:47:43 -0400
Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic sea ice - no multi-year ice found
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; vicky.p...@metoffice.gov.uk; 
john.do...@ec.europa.eu; bbur...@cleanair-coolplanet.org; 
robert.wat...@uea.ac.uk; will...@parliament.uk


John:
 
Of course there is multi-year Arctic sea ice.  You may want to take a look at a 
fascinating display of Arctic sea ice photo's arranged as a movie video on 
YouTube, available here, with explanation on what was done and how.  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/31/arctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data/
 
This video shows a 31 year progression of freezing and melting over the pole.  
When you get to last year and this year, you will see the summer conditions 
show plenty of ice still in the Arctic sea and upon which still more snow has 
fallen this year.  That is not to say it couldn't all just plain disappear, but 
at this point, it is incorrect to say that there is simply no multi-year ice.  
Anyone who looked and didn't find it is simply looking in the wrong place.
 
David.


On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:57 PM, John Nissen  wrote:



It is now accepted by most scientists that the Arctic sea ice retreat is caused 
by anthropogenic global warming, though the exact mechanism for the "polar 
amplification" of global warming is not well understood.  Critical for sea ice 
survival is the multi-year ice.

In his recent measurements of Arctic sea ice, Pen Hadow found absolutely no 
multi-year ice, and the one-year ice was about 4 foot thick.  This is extremely 
disturbing, because the one-year ice can melt away very suddenly, given warm 
weather.  So when Vick Pope says  that the sea ice could disappear "later this 
century", it is a gross understatement of the danger.  The Pen Hadow finding 
shows that the sea ice could disappear quite suddenly, if the natural variation 
in Arctic weather led to a much warmer than average summer, such as in 2007 
only more so.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1634449-british-team-finds-no-multi-year-ice

The implications are:
1. The risk of massive methane outgassing is increased.
2.  The risk of Greenland ice sheet destabilisation is increased.
3.  Emissions reductions by end century will certainly be too late, even if 
they were to have a cooling effect in the Arctic.
4.  Geoengineering in the Arctic must now be deployed for cooling the Arctic.
5.  The sooner it is deployed the better, providing it is done carefully to 
reduce risk of adverse side-effects.
6.  Black carbon levels must also be reduced, as they help to melt snow and ice 
in the Arctic.

Now I know that Vicky Pope considers that this is being apocalyptic.  But 
actually it's all about risk management.  The very argument she uses about 
variability actually increases the risk that the sea ice disappears much sooner 
than expected, as a violent swing on one 

[geo] About Conversion of Former Carbon Sinks to Methane Craters

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 further believe that, because of this great lie, the necessity for 
geoengineering is not appreciated or it is considered a "last resort" (even by 
eminent people in this group).  And, because emissions reductions obviously 
cannot cool the Arctic, geoengineering is particularly urgent to save the 
Arctic sea ice and reduce risk of massive methane discharge and Greenland ice 
sheet disintegration - a double wammy.

But I want to explore that first reason for the "great lie", because denial can 
a strong effect in all of us, and I've seen it in myself.

There is a point when one's realisation is so terrifying (John Doyle calls it 
the "Oh my God!" point), that the psychological reaction is to suppress that 
thought.  A person facing terminal cancer is liable to behave as if their life 
would carry on as normal.  I witnessed this very behaviour in a good friend, a 
highly intelligent and clear-thinking man, shortly before his death.  He had 
warned me to expect it (the denial behaviour) from himself, when he was first 
told that he was suffering from terminal cancer.  So it was particularly 
heart-rending when it happened, the evening before he died.  But it brought 
home to me the power of "Freudian denial" as it is sometimes known [2].

As another example of denial, Jared Diamond, in his excellent book "Collapse: 
How societies choose to fail or succeed", describes an experiment with people 
living below a dam.  The nearer to the dam they lived, the more concerned, 
until a point at which the concern vanished.  This is the point that some of us 
have reached, in perpetrating the great lie.   And as a result of the lie, the 
decision makers - the political elite - are failing to perceive the true extent 
of the problem to be tackled [3].

So what hope have we got?  One way that Homo sapiens has evolved to deal with 
mortal danger is through the fight reaction.  If we consider global warming as 
the number one enemy, then we can face up to the possibility that it could kill 
us all, if we don't attack it with all the weapons at our disposal.  And those 
weapons include geoengineering as well as drastic emissions cuts.

Could the truth be faced, and this fighting spirit be taken to Copenhagen?  I 
believe it can, if enough of you are prepared to expose the great lie for what 
it is.

Cheers from Chiswick,

John

[1] 
http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/challenges/engineering-our-climate-is-there-a-role
-for-geoengineering/media-gallery/video/professor-david-keith/ 
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial 
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IESYMFtLIis 



Veli Albert Kallio wrote: 


This article provides a good reference point to argue for inevitability of 
geoengineering, written by non-geoengineers:
 
 
 

How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming?
 
J A Lowe et al 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 014012 (9pp)   doi: 
10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012  
J A Lowe1, C Huntingford2, S C B Raper3, C D Jones4, S K Liddicoat4 and L K 
Gohar1
1 Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit), Department of Meteorology, 
University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
2 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
3 Centre for Air Transport and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan 
University, Manchester M1 5GD, UK
4 Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK 


 
Abstract. Climate models provide compelling evidence that if greenhouse gas 
emissions continue at present rates, then key global temperature thresholds 
(such as the European Union limit of two degrees of warming since 
pre-industrial times) are very likely to be crossed in the next few decades. 
However, there is relatively little attention paid to whether, should a 
dangerous temperature level be exceeded, it is feasible for the global 
temperature to then return to safer levels in a usefully short time. We focus 
on the timescales needed to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases and associated 
temperatures back below potentially dangerous thresholds, using a 
state-of-the-art general circulation model. This analysis is extended with a 
simple climate model to provide uncertainty bounds. We find that even for very 
large reductions in emissions, temperature reduction is likely to occur at a 
low rate. Policy-makers need to consider such very long recovery timescales 
implicit in the Earth system when formulating future emission pathways that 
have the potential to 'overshoot' particular atmospheric concentrations of 
greenhouse gases and, more importantly, related temperature levels that might 
be considered dangerous.   
For more information on this article, see environmentalresearchweb.org 

Received 9 February 2009, accepted for publication 25 February 2009

Published 11 March 2009




Beyond Hotmail - see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out more.




_
Get the best 

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Of the various views: 

 

One needs to keep in mind that the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55 
million years ago was effectively an "ALLDEAD" scenario where the release of 
carbon was not having any human help. A natural and an instrumented release of 
carbon totally different.

 

It certainly is the greatest risk is that we continue to exhaust all the 
combustible carbon resources with an efficiency that will far exceed any 
natural event in the past that could have simultaneously released the 
fossilised carbon out of highly different geological stratum.

 

The instrumented release of CO2 added to the natural positive CO2 feedbacks 
(i.e. such that occurred during the PETM), means the natural releases now 
taking place on top of the anthropogenic, instrumented CO2 release, constitutes 
a possibility of reduced rate of recovery unlike the PETM. There were no 
instrumented releases during PETM to empty CO2 from the rock strata of many 
geological ages at once.  What needs to be understood is what triggered the 
PETM releases and can the human activity to restart this behemoth?

 

David Keith's effective half-life of anthropogenic CO2 is many thousands of 
years as the geological system gets clogged beyond much larger anthropogenic 
concentration than at present, potentially opening a time for the massive 
releases of methane from the Arctic to be released. The climatic forcing, 
therefore, skyrocketing by several Watts/m-2.  

 

It is important to remember that the positive GHG feedbacks of PETM were 
effectively "ALLDEAD" scenarios with all carbon being released by the natural 
knock-on positive feedback effects alone. The man made exploitation of fossil 
fuel resources is a vital addition to the sum cumulative of the natural feed 
backs that could never have extracted carbon with same efficiency and 
geological stratum as fossil fuel exploitation has done.

 

Therefore, it is irresponsible to state that the situation would stop at PETM 
levels, though substantial enough to justify the drastic actions, but as 
hydrological structures might become substantially altered in very much higher 
temperatures total pandemonium is conceivable and only appropriate to consider 
as the outcome. It bears to be kept constantly in mind that at one point the 
Mediterranean Sea dried to the bottom, and were the temperatures raised high 
enough the imbalance of liquid water and vapour could change. 

 

On changed conditions of substantial evaporation, sea floor pressures reverse 
and these kind of changes probably also helped the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal 
Maximum positive CO2 feedback if the sea water warmed very substantially, water 
then evaporating far more and CO2 seeping out of seas and volcanoes.  This is 
an ALLDEAD-scenario with depressurised sea floor macro-fracturisation and 
volcanic seepages. But even PETM could not release fossilised carbon, only the 
carbon on sea water and exposed soils due to forestry die back and decay.  

 

More evaporation means also more flooding, and decay, these forces releasing 
carbon from land in far advanced global warming systems where forest died but 
soils continue to decay.

 

Therefore, the super-hot state could occur and the Earth move beyond PETM state 
to ALLDEAD state due to the additional infrared hue of anthropogenic, 
instrumented release. But as there is no one then around to see it, I do not 
see too much point imagining what such a world as envisioned by Steven Hawkins 
+280C or James Lovelock +58C would be.

 

But instrumented all-across-board geological stratum GHG releases did not occur 
during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 Myr ago that is for sure. (So, 
equally sure, we are not bound by any PETM ceiling of natural feedbacks 'dying 
out' to a level of dinosaur climate where we could still put sun screen on the 
South Pole.)

 

With kind regards,


Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 


From: euggor...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; agask...@nc.rr.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:12:47 -0400


I think you owe it to yourself to study (it takes only a few minutes) the 
website  www.scotese.com   Christopher Scotese is a well known, well respected 
geologist. Click on Climate and study the climate history for the past 540 
million years (most of that time without humans). You will quickly be disabused 
of ideas that the warming continues to a super hot state. It gets into dinosaur 
temperature range but not beyond.



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:37 PM
To: agask...@nc.rr.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature



No, it's all wrong - about the CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere and the 
planet cooling.  On the contrary, if we were all to drop dead tomorrow, global 
warming would conti

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Veli Albert Kallio]

s—who solved the multilayer equations algebraically by hand). PSAC’s 
report was in 1965—our understanding is so much further beyond your argument 
that assessments sometimes forget to keep offering the explanation, but it has 
proven very sound.

Mike MacCracken




On 6/12/09 10:43 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov" 
 wrote:


Amazingly you ignore the physics. When a black body such as the greenhouse 
layer gets black it achieves a maximum radiative output and feedback to the 
surface independent of how thick or concentrated it is. When the greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere reach that level, putting in more greenhouse does not 
increase the greenhouse effect. The natural positive feedback of increasing CO2 
levels saturates and the Earth's surface temperature no longer increases as a 
result of greenhouse effects. In the past the asymptotic average temperature 
has been about 25 C except about 250 million years ago when extensive lava 
flows in the area of Siberia (an asteroid impact near Antarctica triggered it) 
caused additional heating of several degrees and virtual extinction of surface 
life.



From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:54 AM
To: euggor...@comcast.net; John Nissen; agask...@nc.rr.com
Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Back to Nature

Of the various views: 
 
One needs to keep in mind that the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55 
million years ago was effectively an "ALLDEAD" scenario where the release of 
carbon was not having any human help. A natural and an instrumented release of 
carbon totally different.
 
It certainly is the greatest risk is that we continue to exhaust all the 
combustible carbon resources with an efficiency that will far exceed any 
natural event in the past that could have simultaneously released the 
fossilised carbon out of highly different geological stratum.
 
The instrumented release of CO2 added to the natural positive CO2 feedbacks 
(i.e. such that occurred during the PETM), means the natural releases now 
taking place on top of the anthropogenic, instrumented CO2 release, constitutes 
a possibility of reduced rate of recovery unlike the PETM. There were no 
instrumented releases during PETM to empty CO2 from the rock strata of many 
geological ages at once.  What needs to be understood is what triggered the 
PETM releases and can the human activity to restart this behemoth?
 
David Keith's effective half-life of anthropogenic CO2 is many thousands of 
years as the geological system gets clogged beyond much larger anthropogenic 
concentration than at present, potentially opening a time for the massive 
releases of methane from the Arctic to be released. The climatic forcing, 
therefore, skyrocketing by several Watts/m-2.  
 
It is important to remember that the positive GHG feedbacks of PETM were 
effectively "ALLDEAD" scenarios with all carbon being released by the natural 
knock-on positive feedback effects alone. The man made exploitation of fossil 
fuel resources is a vital addition to the sum cumulative of the natural feed 
backs that could never have extracted carbon with same efficiency and 
geological stratum as fossil fuel exploitation has done.
 
Therefore, it is irresponsible to state that the situation would stop at PETM 
levels, though substantial enough to justify the drastic actions, but as 
hydrological structures might become substantially altered in very much higher 
temperatures total pandemonium is conceivable and only appropriate to consider 
as the outcome. It bears to be kept constantly in mind that at one point the 
Mediterranean Sea dried to the bottom, and were the temperatures raised high 
enough the imbalance of liquid water and vapour could change. 
 
On changed conditions of substantial evaporation, sea floor pressures reverse 
and these kind of changes probably also helped the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal 
Maximum positive CO2 feedback if the sea water warmed very substantially, water 
then evaporating far more and CO2 seeping out of seas and volcanoes.  This is 
an ALLDEAD-scenario with depressurised sea floor macro-fracturisation and 
volcanic seepages. But even PETM could not release fossilised carbon, only the 
carbon on sea water and exposed soils due to forestry die back and decay.  
 
More evaporation means also more flooding, and decay, these forces releasing 
carbon from land in far advanced global warming systems where forest died but 
soils continue to decay.
 
Therefore, the super-hot state could occur and the Earth move beyond PETM state 
to ALLDEAD state due to the additional infrared hue of anthropogenic, 
instrumented release. But as there is no one then around to see it, I do not 
see too much point imagining what such a world as envisioned by Steven Hawkins 
+280C or James Lovelock +58C would be.
 
But instrumented all-across-board geological stratum GHG releases did not occur 
during the Pale

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Gene, 

 

The historic argument is a quite good one.

 

The unmentionables that are not possible to look at are: the intensity of solar 
output, and accessibility of positive feedbacks into carbon reserves assuming 
that man-made warming triggered full naturally accessible carbon plus 
industrially removed geocarbon.


But in principle Earth and Venus to me seem to have lots of dynamically 
responding thermal inertia in the athmosphere and hydrosphere, while Mars 
doesn't. Given a sufficient stimulus, I cannot see any reason of all the heat 
being captured by spoiled athomsphere into water.

 

But historically we could not prove that unless someone oneday finds another 
civilisation of past that had dug up all the available carbon and put it into 
air...  There is no precedent.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 


From: euggor...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; wig...@ucar.edu
CC: agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; ke...@ucalgary.ca; 
pre...@attglobal.net
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:39 -0400


John: I keep saying this and someday someone will bother to look at 
www.scotese.com and click on climate to see the 540 million year climate 
history of the earth derived from proxy records. There is a strong positive 
greenhouse feedback effect that is operative until the positive feedback 
saturates which is when the greenhouse layer becomes a black body. The 
temperature saturates at around 25 C.
 
Your position is totally correct unless someone finds an alternative 
explanation to positive feedback and heating, which I doubt they will. AGW is 
just a minor perturbation speeding up the long, not monotonic, temperature 
rise. We need geoengineering to save the climate from disaster.



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:56 AM
To: Tom Wigley
Cc: agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering; ke...@ucalgary.ca; pre...@attglobal.net
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature



Dear Tom,

Let us first set aside considerations of tipping points in the Arctic, and 
focus of the CO2 effect on temperature.

This is a fundamental question: which of us is right about the effect of zero 
CO2 emissions!  The whole basis of the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting is that, 
if we reduce global CO2 emissions sufficiently, and sufficiently quickly, then 
it will reduce global warming such as to keep the temperature below a ceiling - 
suggested as 2 degrees below the 1900 temperature level by some, 1 degree below 
the 2000 level by professor Jim Hansen (equivalent to 1.7 degrees below the 
1900 level).  I query that whole basis.

You said your model is "consistent with the science of the AR4".  Now, when I 
looked at the models being used by IPCC and Hansen, it seemed that they assumed 
a relatively short effective CO2 lifetime, somewhere in the range 50-200 years. 
 However effective lifetime of a proportion of the excess CO2 (above 
pre-industrial 280 ppm level) is now thought to be many thousands of years [1]. 
 Indeed David Keith, in his talk to us at the RGS on May 14th [2], emphasised 
that the effective half-life of anthropogenic CO2 was many thousands of years - 
much longer than nuclear waste!  

There is certainly sufficient to continue a net forcing for global warming, 
currently at 1.6 W/m-2.

So I just don't believe that reducing emissions can halt global warming.  I 
said so to professor Hansen when I met him very briefly before a lecture, but 
he said he was sure that negative feedback would cut in quickly.  Where is this 
negative feedback coming from?  There is a small amount from increased 
infra-red heat radiation, as the average global temperature increases.  Against 
that, there is mounting positive feedback, e.g. from increased water vapour (a 
greenhouse gas) and from the "albedo effect" in polar regions.

So now if we bring in the Arctic, the melting of the Arctic sea ice will add a 
globally-averaged forcing of between 0.5 and 1.5 W/m-2.  If then the massive 
amounts of methane, currently trapped in frozen structures, start to get 
released, then we would have forcing quickly climbing to many Watts/m-2, and we 
could be in for a warming event on a par with the Paleocene/Eocene thermal 
maximum (PETM), 55.8 million years ago [3].  That would be my scary "Back to 
Nature" scenario!  So, even if you are right about the effectiveness of 
emissions reduction, it is academic if we do not cool the Arctic by 
geoengineering.  Can you at least support that message for Copenhagen?

Best wishes,

John

[1]  http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B3

According to Archer, some of the excess CO2 (fossil fuel component) will be 
gradually absorbed by deep ocean over a few hundred years, but the remaining 
25% will last for many thousands of years.   Here is his model simulation of 
atmospheric CO2 concentration for 40,000 years following after a large CO2 

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Gene, 

 

I was referring to time scales or 55 million or 540 million years ago when 
insolation must have been different due to less advanced fusion combustion 
within the sun as it moves gradually from main body of stars to the later stage 
red giants, emitting more sunlight. James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia" pictures 
the inability of old earth system to self-regulate the climate as effectively 
as in the past. 

 

Thus the argument according to Lovelock goes that if we tip the Earth towards 
superhot state, its ecosystems ability to self-regulate and constrain runaway 
temperature rises is less than it was 55 million years ago when the 
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) occurred, and even less if we compare 
to the historic ecosystems that were in place, 540 million years ago as the Sun 
was even younger and cooler than what it is today. The whole "Revenge of Gaia" 
argument goes with the fact of stellar evolution towards the red giant phase 
which does not justify any comparison even of similar so much to the past.

 

When comparing things to only a few thousands of years, we are OK, but when 
allowing a half a billion years to pass the Earth and the Sun are not the same 
planets they were back then with much better ability to cope with the positive 
feed backs of carbon dioxide that occurred back then. So, we should be 
extremely cautious about saying that there is a fade-out effect that will level 
the rise at around +25C.

 

I would suggest that you read James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia" how the 
anthropogenic GHGs stimulus is going to play itself out in the Earth's 
biosphere and hydrosphere at the current state of our planetary evolution and 
its bio-geophysical systems.

 

Rgs, Albert

 

"I keep saying this and someday someone will bother to look at www.scotese.com 
and click on climate to see the 540 million year climate history of the earth 
derived from proxy records. There is a strong positive greenhouse feedback 
effect that is operative until the positive feedback saturates which is when 
the greenhouse layer becomes a black body. The temperature saturates at around 
25 C." 


From: euggor...@comcast.net
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Back to Nature
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:10:59 -0400




There is a 500,000 record of insolation in the antarctic ice core data (Vostok 
research station) I do not see that it has changed excpet for Malenkovitch 
cycles which are short. There is no precedent.



From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:16 PM
To: euggor...@comcast.net; John Nissen; wig...@ucar.edu
Cc: agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering FIPC; ke...@ucalgary.ca; 
pre...@attglobal.net
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Back to Nature


Hi Gene, 
 
The historic argument is a quite good one.
 
The unmentionables that are not possible to look at are: the intensity of solar 
output, and accessibility of positive feedbacks into carbon reserves assuming 
that man-made warming triggered full naturally accessible carbon plus 
industrially removed geocarbon.

But in principle Earth and Venus to me seem to have lots of dynamically 
responding thermal inertia in the athmosphere and hydrosphere, while Mars 
doesn't. Given a sufficient stimulus, I cannot see any reason of all the heat 
being captured by spoiled athomsphere into water.
 
But historically we could not prove that unless someone oneday finds another 
civilisation of past that had dug up all the available carbon and put it into 
air...  There is no precedent.
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 


From: euggor...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; wig...@ucar.edu
CC: agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; ke...@ucalgary.ca; 
pre...@attglobal.net
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:39 -0400


John: I keep saying this and someday someone will bother to look at 
www.scotese.com and click on climate to see the 540 million year climate 
history of the earth derived from proxy records. There is a strong positive 
greenhouse feedback effect that is operative until the positive feedback 
saturates which is when the greenhouse layer becomes a black body. The 
temperature saturates at around 25 C.
 
Your position is totally correct unless someone finds an alternative 
explanation to positive feedback and heating, which I doubt they will. AGW is 
just a minor perturbation speeding up the long, not monotonic, temperature 
rise. We need geoengineering to save the climate from disaster.



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:56 AM
To: Tom Wigley
Cc: agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering; ke...@ucalgary.ca; pre...@attglobal.net
Subject: [geo] Re: Back to Nature



Dear Tom,

Let us first set aside considerations of tipping points in the Arctic, and 
focus of the CO2 effect on temperature.

Th

[geo] Met Office and WMO Must Provide Us Global Annual Wind Speed Average Staistics (and Seasonal Forecasts)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Professor Mitchell,
  

RE:  CONFUSION OVER GLOBAL WIND SPEED AVERAGES

 

There appear mutually exclusive references on the world's press about the 
direction of annual global wind speed average on way to Copenhagen Summit, 
December. Is it heading up or going down? Where are statistics? Please, could 
you provide the global wind speed averages by time of the Copenhagen summit (if 
not against whole century annually tabulated average, at least against a 
selection of years from the past).

 
World Geoengineering community has been told that the global average wind speed 
is statistically found to be decreasing.  On the other hand, I have read the 
exact opposite reports of the hurricanes being of the same frequency but having 
more intense winds, and the wind speeds across the Arctic Ocean increasing, and 
on Gulf of Bothnia (the Baltic Sea) increasing too. 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27071976/from/ET/ 
 
This recalled my earlier pleas to the Meteorological Office to provide: (1.) 
annual global wind speed averages as well as (2.) seasonal wind speed 
forecasts.  Currently only temperature and rain fall are forecasted seasonally, 
neither of these used by wind industry.

 

Circulation models of future atmosphere do not substitute for statistical 
tabulation of the wind speeds globally and regionally to make solid long-term 
investment without speculation.

 
It is both amazing and sad that the global annual wind speed average is not 
compiled (not even regionally).  How can you tell Copenhagen: how much has the 
global wind speed average changed since the 19th century? or mid-20th century? 
how much above or below (ms-1) are our winds this year to the historic average 
of the recent past 1960-1980-2000?
 
World Meteorological Organisation issues currently no annual reports on the 
climate change deviation from the average global wind speed (what we ought to 
expect in a typical year).
 
Why do we need to know globally as well as regionally the statistics of the 
past and present state of the wind speeds?  Why the seasonal wind speed 
forecasts developed by the UK Meteorological Office would be so essential tool 
for us?
 
First of all, we all know global temperature is rising and the climatic 
variability is widening.  The more extreme weather is more frequent. One 
variability factor is how far out (fast) the air masses move from their normal 
cooling or precipitation areas.
 
There are many benefits from knowing the trend line (+ seasonal forecast) of 
wind speed:
 
Trends of wind speed can tell us how coastal protection needs are changing, 
planning of long-term forecasts for the wind farms (with a life-span of up to 
50 years), electricity wind power generation seasonal forecast (3-6 months), 
operation of airfields and ports also may benefit, the carry-over of humid air 
to high grounds to form either rainfall or new glacier (pertinent for 
forecasting long-term snow trend and how far inland precipitation falls). The 
geoengineering community needs to know wind dispersal for cloud-forming 
aerosols and atmospheric modifiers such as carbon tetrasilicates and sulphur 
oxides to avoid localised acid rains or toxic concentrations being built up 
over long term (mis-calculated) dispersal.


Please acknowledge how this white spot on the climate map can be erased asap.

 

With kind regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
 
Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign
of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans
 

 
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:12:00 -0700
Subject: [geo] Is the wind slowing down?
From: dan.wha...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
http://www.physorg.com/print163835515.html

Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down
June 10th, 2009 in Space & Earth / Environment
Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down (AP)
 
In a Dec. 30, 2008 file photo two wind turbines stand near a traditional 
windmill on a farm near Mount Carmel, Iowa. A first-of-its-kind study suggests 
that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, 
especially in the Midwest and the East.
(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall/file)
 
(AP) -- The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems 
to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be 
global warming - the very problem wind power seeks to address.

The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists 
disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that 
average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, 
especially in the Midwest and the East.

"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of 
atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, 
the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the 
average wind

[geo] Re: World Bank posting

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Large mountains like Mauna Kea or other tall volcanic islands could be made to 
put out SO2, perhaps some of the tall mountainous islands in Southern Seas, as 
this would not interfere with monsoon, or in Jan Mayen. Greenland's Mt. 
Gunnbjorn is 4,000 metres high with easternly winds prevailing towards the 
Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic.

 

Spraying sea water from high mountains might be easiest to implement or ground 
salt from salt deserts. There are many islands where there are terrain at right 
altitude to inject. The cost of the pipe, I check what our pipe cost to put to 
the top of Mt. Meru in Tanzania. 


There are two very tall mountainous ranges in the East Greenland, but as 
nothing grows in the ice dome, any fall out there would be neglicient also from 
the Western side. Throughput of a (plastic) gas pipe could be calculated and 
then made to run along the mountain. 

 

Besides geoengineering, I have been University of Arusha's and Heri Hospital's 
patron and we had a project to lay down a pipe to Mt. Meru (5,000 metres) to 
bring clean water from the rainy top to the town on the down slope. The pipes 
can leak, especially gas ones do. Our pipe started at 4,000 metres coming down 
to 900 metres, somewhere it leaked and the elefants went and crazily raided the 
drinking water pipe and have had a good party.  

 

The process is very easy to lay down the pipe. In our case, we had a lack of 
topographic maps and more pipe was required than we planned to get from the top 
to village. Many volcanic mountains produce supply of fluoride, any use for 
spraying this to the clouds?

 

As a result of funding shortages, the elefants have had a longer than planned 
party with the clean water hosed readily for them.  This may well apply to 
other poorly-mapped areas of the globe like in Greenland, but it is not at all 
a problem to lay down a hose and put a gas compressor and throw the kit onto a 
mountain very quickly. I think issues on this are only getting it through 
planning process in a more bureaucratic Western nations, in developing 
countries it probably could be put out much easier using manual labour as much 
as possible to create jobs in a local community to get their support for the 
projects.

 

Mountains could be our way to take things easily started and off the ground. It 
can well work as as a proxy for systems that will be needed later for locations 
where there are no mountains. Kamchatka Peninsula might be one ideal place to 
throw kits up as Alaska is always going to be full of nay-sayers and things 
never get done without immersing oneself with million consultats and years 
spent in running consultations from one meeting to other.

 

I see little need to use a hose by balloons for 1 kilometre only. Suspension is 
only issue once you want to take the hose very high above ground. 

 

The smell of sulphur would probably deter polar bears from digging pipes up 
(they might dig up a pipe used for drinking water either from thirst or sheer 
curiosity). 

 

Regards,

 

Albert

 
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:04:37 -0400
> Subject: [geo] Re: World Bank posting
> From: mmacc...@comcast.net
> To: agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> Hi Alvia--Thanks for comment and making report more accessible.
> 
> I would just note that there is no reason one has to think one would keep
> putting out SO2 emissions from power plants--why mix it with dark aerosols?
> Emissions could be of pure SO2 (given all the sulfur that has been
> scavenged) and does not have to be done where people are--or in conditions
> that lead to rainout of large amounts in sensitive areas, etc. And SO2 does
> not have to be put out continuously or during times of low or no sunlight.
> Balloons holding hoses aloft to a kilometer or so would likely be all that
> would be needed in a few places--and like a kite, pull the balloon down when
> a storm comes as it does no good to put out SO2 into a rain storm (of
> course, choose sites where there are few storms). And I would add we know a
> good deal about the effects of SO2 in the atmosphere, though surely not
> enough (like what have been the radiative and meteorological effects of the
> center of S emissions moving from North Atlantic basin to southeastern
> Asia--so at lower latitude with more solar effect, but we don't know
> emissions inventory real well--both amount and altitude of emissions).
> 
> I like the Salter and Latham approach, but it works only on some types of
> clouds and relatively limited area--SO2 works in more types of clouds over
> broader area and also has effect in clear air. Of course, SO2 does have more
> side effects (health, ecosystems, etc.) so I would have to design the system
> to minimize those (e.g., encouraging sulfate build-up over dark and remote
> ocean areas for global effect where there are no solar direct technologies
> being used)--stratospheric aerosols have much lower effects on health and
> ecosystems, but woul

[geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi, David's observations are right over Ken.

 

If people were entirely rational, Universities of Paris Sorbonne, and 
Pontificial Gregorian University would have responded positively by sending 
their experts to stay few nights with Galileo Galilei in 1610 to see that 
Jupiter's moons did go round Jupiter. They were too 'busy'.

 

Similarly, the complaint UNGA 101292 made to the United Nations' General 
Assembly: we asked for a short-life cosmogenic radioisotope carbon-14 run in a 
spectormeter to be made from the willow-tree branch found under 3 km Greenland 
ice dome. The "answer" was there before experiment. UNGA 101292 states that 
some nations have 'recollections' as if ice age resulted from a rapid 
volcanically-induced snow percipitation when Iceland was building up. If 
Greenland's ice (and other ice of the ice age) piled up rapidly, carbon-14 
shows up before all the climatic problems induced event had started. Another 
example of refusal to look into 'scope'. World is full of this kind of 
pre-conceived stuff, that blinds us from simple test to see who is right and 
who is wrong. With no real additional cost to other isotopes.


The main thing of course of the complainant nations is that the terrestrial 
Greenland ice slides immediately after Arctic sea ice is gone if their First 
Nations' recollection of Hudson Ice Dome recollections are real. Carbon-14 
would just add credibility that these nations also have some contributions to 
make for history writing and get first Indigenous Physics Prize by undoing 
great deal of the stuff put up by the Western Nations.

 

[You are not alone. Thanks David.]

 

Regards,

 

Albert

 


Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:17:36 -0400
Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Dear Ken:
 
I'd be happy to be wrong, if you can show you are right.  But you are 
completely wrong - at least in Washington, D.C.
 
This is not about science.  This is about policy and polity.  It is about 
assumptions, not facts.  It is about the competition for resources, not their 
preservation.
 
Further, you make the following statement:
 
 "I find it odd that people who are working hard to establish a funded 
research program that can lead to environmental risk reduction are pilloried 
for expressing some sense of doubt about the true faith.

 "Science is about skepticism. If we stop doubting our own beliefs, we 
become true believers. 

 "I have no desire to be a true believer."
 
If these statements were true, then you would be perpared to be skeptical about 
GCMs, skeptical about GHG's role in warming, and skeptical about those who 
disallow debate on the underlying assumptions and presumptions from which 
federal regulation and legislation build.  You would question the IPCC summary 
report and the policy implications that stem therefrom.
 
Finally, as to this group's attention to your perspectives.  You are the 
moderator.  If you don't like where the discussion is going, then go ahead and 
censor it.  You are free to be the center of attention.   This is America, and 
google groups are private.  You can do whatever you want.  This is not a 
democracy.  That is reserved for government.  That is for open discussion about 
issues.  That is why there are town cryers who do not whisper about important 
public meetings, but who yell it loudly.  This group is not the NRC/NAS, where 
all should be invited to participate with broad public dissemination and loud 
public attention.  This is a private group, your private group, where one can 
demand attention.
 
I'll now be very silent and listen to you about "true faith," or I may not.  
It's up to me whether I listen to you, right up until you, as moderator, banish 
me, and others, from the group.  That too is up to you.
 
Cheers,
 
David S.



On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

Alvia, [and David S.,]

I think you are completely wrong.

I think this National Academy meeting was a historic meeting in that it was the 
first time that I know of that a National Academy ran an open public meeting on 
intentional alteration of climate. I think it may be a key step towards a 
national research program.

Some people in this email group see the world in black and white.I am not one 
of them.

I suggest that those who are prepared to intentionally alter Earth's climate 
without some sense of fear and trepidation fail to appreciate the complex set 
of issues we are facing. I believe ambivalence is an appropriate attitude when 
faced with an unpleasant set of choices.

The comment that David Schnare made in criticism of my remarks ('Here's your 
choice - we all die, or we don't all die.  Pick one and enough of this 
"conflicted" sillyness.') illustrates the kind of hyperbolic, simplistic, and 
binary thinking we should be working to avoid.

Regarding my earlier remarks about DARPA: I continue to believe that if DARPA 

[geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The Arctic SO2 reduction is result of direct action of the industries to reduce 
emission of SO2 in the Arctic.

 

The Finnish Government began by installing SO2 catalysators and filtering 
systems in the industries to reduce acidification. It was then continued to 
cars and Finland began paying installation of SO2 removal from Russian 
facilities as economic aid to reduce the harmful effects of acid rain to the 
sensitive Arctic nature. SO2 reacts through sulphuric acid formation with soil 
mercury dissolving that into water which then ends up in ground water and 
lakes. The current efforts to reduce the Arctic SO2 levels are concentrated on 
Norilsk heavy industries by removing the emissions. The first projects we 
funded were the projects in Kola Peninsula (i.e. Nickel and Murmansk), State of 
Karelia (Kostamus) east of Finland, and around St. Petersburg. These have been 
addressed satisfactorily and the work is underway to equip Norilsk industrial 
facilities with filtration systems.  

 

I believe about 10 billion dollars have been used since early 1980's as due to 
the acid rains from Germany and Britain falling in Sweden and Finland, we could 
not have waited much longer as our food supplies like fist and drinking started 
to get sulphur and mercury in it. Finland and Sweden started to address their 
own SO2 emissions a decade before England and Germany removed their wind 
carried acid rain problems to the Nordic countries.

 

Rgs, Albert


 


CC: xbenf...@aol.com; mlei...@climateresponsefund.org; agask...@nc.rr.com; 
kcalde...@stanford.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
From: wf...@utk.edu
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
Subject: [geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:42:58 -0400

Dear John:
On the second day of the NAS Geoengineering Meeting I asked the following 
question.  It was heard.


"Isn't there a risk that is immediate?  It is the loss of summer sea ice in the 
Arctic. How important is this risk?  I don't know, but the possible positive 
feedbacks are worrisome.  The only way to reduce this risk is geoengineering.  
It is the only strategy with the right time constant.  SRM can be limited to 
higher latitudes, and it may work as Ken Caldeira's modeling shows (although 
Alan Robock said he disagreed with Ken's methods if I heard the argument 
correctly).  The deployment decision would only involve a handfull of nations 
and indigenous populations.  It is a perfect limited application.  It puts a 
time clock on getting the needed research done.  This risk and its implications 
for the clock on geo has not been discussed.  How should this risk be treated 
by this workshop and by the ACC Committee as a whole." 


This question I raised was preceded by Mike MacCracken's observations about the 
impact of declining SO2 over the Arctic.  One doesn't have to go global on Geo 
to test things and to have a net positive impact was his message.  


What I didn't say because I didn't have the wit is that the Arctic could be the 
target of an intense R&D effort ranging from Governance isssues, ethics, as 
well as physical science and engineering.  It could anchor a much broader R&D 
effort that extends globally. 


Personally, I thought the NAS workshop was quite wonderful and very important.  
 I am convinced the full ACC Committee will reap great rewards from it.  We owe 
a debt to the people who organized and spoke at this meeting.
The best,
Bill





On Jun 17, 2009, at 6:43 AM, John Nissen wrote:



Hi Gregory,

Thanks for that.  But I share Alvia's frustration that opportunities are 
lost at such meetings.  In particular I'm always disappointed that the 
issue of Arctic warming and sea ice retreat seems never to be mentioned 
- at least never reported.  I think we are all agreed that 
geoengineering to cool the Arctic and halt sea ice retreat is needed, 
for risk reduction (see the "Pros and Cons of geoengineering" thread).  
I don't think even Alan Robock would dispute that the risk of inaction 
is greater than the risk from possible side-effects (in particular 
monsoon weakening, which could actually be beneficial).

And I also share David Schnare's frustration, that we pussy-foot over 
the seriousness and urgency of the problem - the risk of not 
geoengineering in time.  Especially there is the risk that the Arctic 
warms sufficiently for massive methane release.  And it is a life and 
death issue, if ever there was one.  There is no way civilisation could 
survive the global warming that the methane could produce.

Re DARPA, I agree with you that they could be useful.  In particular, 
I'd like to see somebody treat global warming as an enemy (or at least 
as an extreme security threat), against which we need to use all the 
weapons at our disposal - together with some (such as Salter/Latham 
cloud brightening) that need to be developed.  Only when we see global 
warming as a lethal threat will our instinc

[geo] Re: AEI conference on international politics of climate engineering (geoengineering)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

International Politics and Climate

 

BBC has just produced a report that second country is now committing itself for 
pull-out from oil exploration and production due to environmental concerns. The 
benefits from on-shore oil extraction in Nigeria have been very limited in that 
country I think it follow shortly.

 

All these developments are conducive to create positive environment and point 
why we need geoengineering among the many other ways in order to resolve the 
emission crisis.

 

 

PERU FOLLOWS ECUADOR TO TERMINATE OIL PRODUCTION

The monstrous reality of ‘peak oil’ is revealed once again when the laws to 
extract oil from the Amazon came to be repelled almost as soon as they were 
enacted. A stern public opposition across Peru in hundreds of town ends its 
planned oil exports. The big oil made few friends in Peru that follows now the 
earlier, similar, decision by Ecuador to close its territories from further oil 
exploration activities that only leaves toxic waste lands behind.

"This is a historic day for indigenous people because it shows that our demands 
and our battles were just," said Daysi Zapata, vice president of the Amazon 
Indian confederation that led the protests. 

 

30 civilians died, according to Indian groups and 23 police. Bolivian President 
Evo Morales described the deaths of the indigenous protesters as a genocide 
caused by free trade.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/world/8109021.stm
 

 

 


Subject: [geo] AEI conference on international politics of climate engineering 
(geoengineering)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:20:27 -0400
From: leol...@crai.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Members of this group may be interested in this up-coming June 25 event at the 
American Enterprise Institute. At it, Professor Scott Barrett of Johns Hopkins 
University’s School of Advanced International Studies will present a paper on 
the international politics of climate engineering. Bryan D. Caplan of George 
Mason University and Thomas C. Schelling of the University of Maryland will 
comment. Lee Lane of AEI will moderate the discussion. A preview of the event 
can be viewed at: http://www.aei.org/event/100074.
 
Lee Lane


_

MSN straight to your mobile - news, entertainment, videos and more.

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: noctilucent clouds

[Veli Albert Kallio]

As a President Emeritus of local Astronomy Association branch of Ursa ry, 
Mikkeli, I have observed noctilucent clouds (~55-95 km) very much in Finland. 

 

There are many subtypes of noctilucent clouds  but they basically form in a 
boundary where the space dust impacts with the earth's athomosphere in high 
speed impacts. These dust particles that burn in the air provide small nuclei 
for water vapour to condense on their surfaces and so accrue size to the size a 
fiftieth of the width of a strand of human hair.  Sweden sent in 1970's rockets 
to this altitude to collect samples of these ice chrystals.  They are very 
difficult to reach as they are way above balloon's reach and only rockets can 
go making their sampling very expensive and rare.

 

There is nothing to link them with sulphur or dust with ground, it is 
combination of terrestrial water vapour and dust particles streaming from the 
sky into our athomosphere, basically interplanetary dust cloud nucleating 
atmospheric water vapour.

 

I think noctilucent clouds are beautiful and lit the skies with sunlight even 
far into subarctic which cannot see the midnight sun directly. They do reflect 
sunlight away but is little, one cannot see them in the day time due to blue 
scattering occurring on the athmosphere below that masks them completely. In 
the darker night time skies they become visible. Therefore, noctilucent clouds 
impact on global warming is negligible, propbably less than effect of full moon.

 

There are much brighter, rare, clouds lower down (~25-35 km) that occasionally 
form in stratosphere. These reflect more light, but due to their rarity impact 
also is very low.
 

Kind regards, Albert

 
> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:30:24 +0100
> From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> To: gorm...@waitrose.com
> CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: noctilucent clouds
> 
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for the picture.
> 
> According to The Telegraph:
> 
> Meteorologists refer to them as NLCs or "polar mesospheric clouds". This 
> is because they form right on the boundary of the mesosphere (between 
> the stratosphere and space). The mesosphere is dry and cold (about 
> -123°C), unlike the warm, moist troposphere below, where all the other 
> clouds form. These noctilucent clouds are composed of tiny ice crystals 
> – a fiftieth of the width of a strand of human hair. Noctilucent clouds 
> are on the increase – there are twice as many as there were 35 years ago 
> and they're moving south: a visible result of global warming. [End quote]
> 
> I'd like to think that somebody is taking our concerns for global 
> warming and Arctic sea ice seriously, and quietly experimenting with 
> stratospheric sulphate aerosols. But the more likely explanation is ice, 
> as described above by The Telegraph.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> John Gorman wrote:
> > interesting bit in UK Telegraph about strange cloud phenomenon last week
> > noctilucent clouds at about 50miles
> > anyone know whether they are likely to be sulphuric acid aerosol?
> > John Gorman
> >
> >
> 
> > 

_
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Geoengineering seminar, House of Commons, London, 15th July

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All,
 
I would also like to emphasise the importance that each year now is sort of 
record in the Arctic Ocean:
 
2007: remaining sea ice area 4.13 million km2 was 40% less than normal North 
Pole Sea Ice Cap. North West passage open 1st year.
 
2008: remaining sea ice volume and multi-year sea ice decreased to its all-time 
minimum. North West and North East Passages open simultaneously 1st year. 
Possible methane clatrate explosion heard on North West Passage several 
hundreds of kilometres away. Methane from sea beds and permaforst were both 
seen rising also on Russian coast and Spitzbergen where these had been studied. 
(See listed below with relevant links.)

2009: periphery melting of sea ice on record levels on Siberian and Alascan 
coast and around Greenland, probably second year possible to circumnavigate 
North Pole this summer.
 
With kind regads,
 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
 
Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign
of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans

 

 

There is urgency to do geoengineering because of these methane clathrate 
explosions and leakages now occurring.  Please note that sulphur emissions have 
been reduced from Kola Peninsula and currently SO2 emissions are being reduced 
in Taimyr peninsula where 500,000 inhabitant Norilsk heavy metal industries are 
based in Northernmost Siberia. 

 

Important is to avoid high localised concentrations of sulphur oxide that 
produces localised acidification, thus the hight and location out are very 
important and I would like to have our partner Atmosmare from Finland 
participating in major Arctic geoengineering projects.


 
Current Methane Leaking Events per Region:

 
 
1. Nunavut Archipelago, Canada (the NW Passage) - Sea Bed Explosions:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=689eefec-7d76-427e-b594-9504ee9ffe74&k=4938
 
 
 
2. East Siberian and Laptev Seas (Russia):
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html


http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008702.html
 
 
  

3. The Swalbard, Norway (the Fram Straight):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html


 

 
Here is the link passed my colleague Larry Donovan from our FIPC Edmonton 
office:
 
"Military probes mystery of whale deaths"

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=689eefec-7d76-427e-b594-9504ee9ffe74&k=4938

It is obviously too early to draw conclusions, because the North West passage 
melted second year in a row 06/08/2008, and as it has never been regularly open 
(actually it had melted only once before some years ago), I think it is far 
more likely that it is methane clathrate or meteorite fall, than the Russian 
navy doing some secret explosion expriments in a Canadian territory as 
suggested by some. 
 
When Kursk blew up, it was a quite event, but Russia has so much coast, I don't 
think they blow things in Canada.  It just does not make any sense, Canadian's 
say it was not their submarine.
 








Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:43 +0100
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: john.dav...@foe.co.uk; a...@env.leeds.ac.uk; john_g_sheph...@mac.com; 
robert.wat...@uea.ac.uk; d.j.l...@bristol.ac.uk; 
brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk; ke...@ucalgary.ca; idd...@parliament.uk; 
steve.ray...@sbs.ox.ac.uk
Subject: [geo] Geoengineering seminar, House of Commons, London, 15th July


Event details here:
http://www.iom3.org/events/geo-engineering-challenges-and-global-impacts 

I fear that the potential side-effects of geoengineering (especially use of 
stratospheric aerosols) will be overstated, as they generally are by the media. 
 So I sincerely hope Dr Gadian and Dr Watson will not understate the 
potentially short-term global impact from not geoengineering: 



impact of Arctic warming (esp. methane release and Greenland ice sheet 
disintegration) if solar radiation management (SRM) is not used to cool the 
Arctic;

impact of increased CO2 (esp. global warming and ocean acidification) if CO2 
air capture is not used to reduce its level below 350 ppm.

BTW, I've just heard from Professor Shepherd that the Royal Society study on 
geoengineering is due out on Sept 1st, but will not include anything about 
using SRM specifically to cool the Arctic.

Cheers from Chiswick,

John

---

The Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and The Royal Academy 
of
Engineering invite you to attend a seminar entitled:

Geo-engineering: Challenges and global impacts

To be held at Portcullis House, the House of Commons
15 July 2009
Tea and coffee at 6:00pm.
The seminar will commence at 6.30pm and will be followed by refreshments at 
8.15pm.

The speakers at the seminar will be:
Dr Alan Gadian, University of Leeds
Talk: Cloud albedo modification
Dr Dan Lunt, University of Bristol
Talk: Sunshade engineering
Prof. Andrew Watson, University of East Anglia
Talk: Ocean fertilisation
Prof. S

[geo] Terrestrial Ice In West Greenland Under Attack from Weather

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Alan,

 

It is not only melting of sea ice and permafrost that needs to be highlighted. 

 

Today's Temperature Legend Map from Foreca shows that Ilulissat Ice Fjord that 
drains 7% of Greenland ice sheet bathin on top temperatures today between 
+20-25C. This is substantial heat on the glacier, the morning temperatures 
shown are littel more moderate.

 

Last time I saw these kind of temperatures +24C in Ellesmere Island, the Aylers 
Ice Shelf collapsed on that particular week. The heat and warm water does 
damage ice considerably and I expect that Greenland's temperatures are much 
like the Baffin Island's once Arctic Ocean's sea ice is gone. I think today's 
weather is a good indicator what shall become.

 

I am increasingly concerned that tempeartures at around +24C, can't be tamed by 
sulphur dioxide or other means, it just could be a magnitude or several times 
more than the negative feedback induced by the geoengineering methods. I fear 
the not enough scenario.


I don't want to be devil's advocate, but weather's could rise too high and out 
of control. Let's hope this peak heat stays short, but I would not be surprised 
if glaciers speed up once again.




Kind regards,

 

Albert
 




 


http://weather.uk.msn.com/region.aspx?wealocations=North+America
http://weather.uk.msn.com/region.aspx?wealocations=Greenland
 




Current conditions for selected World cities

°F | °C


City

Current

City

Current


Ammassalik, GRL



9°

 

Narsarsuaq, GRL



8°

 


Claushavn, GRL



6°

 

Nuuk, GRL



8°

 


Egedesminde, GRL



6°

 

Prins Christian Sund, GRL



4°

 


Fiskenęsset, GRL



3°

 

Qaanaaq, GRL



7°

 


Frederikshåb, GRL



3°

 

Qassimiut, GRL



1°

 


Gamle Qutdligssat, GRL



6°

 

Qassisalik, GRL



8°

 


Holsteinsborg, GRL



8°

 

Sųndre Strųmfjord, GRL



8°

 


Julianehåb, GRL



1°

 

Savissivik, GRL



8°

 


Kiatak, GRL



8°

 

Sukkertoppen, GRL



10°

 


Kraulshavn, GRL



3°

 

Timmiarmiut, GRL



5°

 


Kullorsuaq, GRL



3°

 



 

 

 
 
 


Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. Download Now 
_
With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] FIPC Meeting with His Excellency Bill Clinton (the former President of the United States)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

unwarranted 'experiences' and worries, but until we test 
them, we simply do not know.
 
In the mean time, we at FIPC give all support for the great work various groups 
are doing in addressing the climate change from research, emissions, 
renewables, mitigation and geoengineering to make our life and climate as 
manageable as possible for global security.

With kind regards,
 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
FIPC Co-ordinator

*********

Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign
of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans

Veli Albert Kallio, Esq., FRGS, BBAM, BAR
Telephone (Int.): + 44 - 7794 - 981 238
E-mail: albert_kal...@hotmail.com

Address: 119 Mount Pleasant
Bracknell, Berkshire
RG12 9EA
ENGLAND

*
FIPC campaigns for both sea and land ice conservation across the entire 
Northern Cryosphere. I is not involved in the Antarctic or the Southern 
Cryospheric research or environmental campaigning. Its purpose is to advocate 
temperature, sea level and magnetic field stability by limiting CO2 emissions.

FIPC lobbies for good shipping practises and against the practise of sea ice 
demolition by FESCO to induce microclimatic reconditioning, an earlier spring 
on the Amurskaya Bay, the Okhotsk Sea. On land FIPC campaigns for the 
conservation of the Faraday's Cage beneath Greenland to keep the strength and 
traditional location of the Magnetic North Pole unchanged by the climatic 
control, lobbies for studies of glacial earthquake monitoring on Melville Bay 
coastal depression section, and prepares for submersible expeditions to study 
the ancient towns that became flooded when the last ice age ended, if the 
settlements were abandoned gradually or suddenly. FIPC plan research to resolve 
whether the last ice age ended gradually by ice sheets melting in situ, or by 
catastrophic ice sheet slide outs.

No person involved with FIPC receives money as a remuneration all the work is 
on voluntary basis to avoid accusations of our approach being in order to 
create 'climate-scare industry'.

*
The Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign was nominated to the International 
Nanak Peace Prize for 2008 due to importance of climate change as global 
security threat and efforts to mitigate or manage its impact on humanity and 
environment. The 2008 Peace Prize was awarded to His Holiness, Dalai Lama.

#

The information contained herein is confidential and is intended only for the 
addressee. Any alteration, distribution, copying or re-use of this information 
is not permitted without the express consent of the sender. If you received 
this communication in error, please contact Frozen Isthmuses' Protection 
Campaign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans (FIPC) 44 7794 981238 and 
destroy this message.

#

This message has been scanned by McAfee Anti-Virus for Microsoft
 


_
With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Copy of Invitation by Ronald Momogeeshick Peters to Meet former President Bill Clinton

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 
First Nations lore deserve full study.
 
I am open for suggestions who is the best person to sell the 16 year old 
skeletons from the United Nations' cup board to Clinton, but I am certain that 
the First Nations' people themselves are the best advocates of the matter when 
informed and familiarised. Thus, I do not see any way better than Ronald's 
invitation to get the First Nations' matter moving ahead in the UN's 
Secretariat.
 
Pano reminds, the Copenhagen process requires our proposal by mid-August.  
Please provide your feedback, asap.
 



Ronald Momogeeshick Peters

July 10 at 2:15am


We are meeting with former President Bill Clinton in Sept. to discuss all 
prospects and projects. We would like you to be there.
 



Veli Albert Kallio

July 11 at 11:45pm


Hi Ronald, 

Do you have and date and time being fixed for me to check my diary if I could 
make it there? I will also discuss with my advisors and colleagues, one of them 
saw just recently Al Gore, any possibility that Clinton and Gore would both be 
present as my associates know and met him recently.

For the Copenhagen, deadline of proposals is 26 August, I have agreed to assist 
the Environmental Parliament Group to put forwards a proposal that Paleofuture 
Climate Risk Class gets recognised. It refers to perceived reoccurrence of 
ancient events associated to ice age and the global warming that ended it, and 
the potential of them reappearing now.

Influential Geoengineering Group also makes suggestions how to prevent climate 
warming to become runaway event. I would also like to see more indigenous 
peoples recognition and in particular the tradition or faith keepers and bring 
their ancient recollections into Paleofuture research.

What strikes me is that aboriginal people's ancient recollections should be 
seen as a resourse, not as an inferior hindrance and distraction. 

I have seen so many beautiful things brought from the past by First Nations 
people, i.e. the hill where native American's run to safety when the immence 
post-ice age glacial lake "Lake Agazzis" bursted its banks and drained into St. 
Lawrence. Entire world was effected by the event, yet, this site has not been 
included on the UNESCO's World Heritage Site list.

As per UNGA 101292 and every other scheme instigated by the United Nations for 
the American Indians, is based on stipulated inferiority and subserviency, not 
that the native people are recognised or empowered themselves in any way. 

Recently UN labelled a conference on empowerment of Native Americans in Canada 
as its perennial frozen waterways melt open. The empowerment called natives to 
be trained for operating oil drills and in correct loading of oil tankers. What 
kind of empowerment is this? How many Inuit or First Nations run oil ships or 
oil rigs. These are extremely capital-intensive mature industries fully 
controlled by Texans and powerful business elites that own them based in 
Washington DC or New York, or Dallas, or Houston. How UN can empower American 
Indians if there are already fully matured Microsofts in oil industry that have 
operated the last 100 years? Why we can't tell UN it is a bunch of lies.

UNESCO's parameters for "important" First Nations sites are always 
pre-determined by the White men's own criteria: 

i.e. 1) has lots of gold been recovered from the site, then site "qualifies" 
for UNESCO's heritage list; 2) has Amerindian real estate and property been 
recovered or on site 3) has the site indications of permanent agricultural 
settlement, corn or potato growing. 

In each case it is the White men: 

1) gold went to Spain, how many North American tribes were after gold jewellery 
or gemstones, not many - thus atypical criteria 
 
2) most (if not virtually all) white men were never nomadic people or hunters, 
thus UNESCO's primary criteria for good Amerindian sites based on urbanisation 
and real estates are rather uncharacteristic to most tribes 3) potato and corn 
became adopted food of white men, many North American tribes did not involve 
themselves with such agricultural practise, what about the meat and products of 
American bison or other game that were important for the hunter societies for 
very long time, instead of potatoes (fish & chips) or corn (popcorn & corn 
flakes). 

Everything good the United Nations do or tries to do has a white flavour, a 
sort of milk chocholate rather than the original product.

If you can get your folks helping to challenge these things to President 
Clinton, then I am willing to come but if it is not based on level talks where 
the equality of both parties with their different experiences of equal value is 
recognised, I or none of my people are able to come. Othewise, I can just start 
to talk to the walls of the UN General Assembly like Thomas Bancanya and Oren 
Lyons did some 16 years ago, with World Indigenous Nations Summits clo

[geo] NEW REPORTS > KYOTO CLIMATE TARGETS FAILS: European Union Now More CO2 Intensive

[Veli Albert Kallio]

COPY:
 


Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:07:11 -0700
From: eac-elet...@angelnexus.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Rethinking Climate Policy: Here's a Better Way






 

 





Follow Energy and Capital on Twitter





Home
Editors
Archives
Whitelist
Contact
Site Map


Rethinking Climate Policy: Here's a Better Way
By Chris Nelder | Friday, July 10th, 2009
When it comes to setting policy, we certainly do seem to have a way of putting 
the cart before the horse. 
Instead of probing for the root cause of the global financial 
meltdown—deregulated, irresponsible and leveraged speculation on inflated 
assets—and doing something about it, we bail out the perpetrators and then let 
them dissemble and deny what really happened in order to keep the game going. 
Instead of formulating a long term plan for the energy crisis we are hurtling 
toward, we argue about whether we should invest in Green or Brown energy, 
without understanding that we're going to need both. 
Instead of realizing that the energy is the only real currency, the shortage of 
which is the source of our economic stall-out, we play wildly reckless games 
with fictitious fiat currencies, like printing $2 trillion out of thin air, 
without creating any new energy.
And instead of focusing on the fuels we hope to put into our power plants, we 
make policy around what comes out the smokestack. As much as I want to rejoice 
that we're finally tackling the climate change issue, having spent the last 15 
years of my life pushing for it in one way or another, I can't help but think 
we're going about it all backwards.
At the Rothbury Festival in Michigan over the holiday weekend, I had the 
privilege of sitting on several "think tank" panels discussing energy, climate 
change, and sustainability. Most of my fellow panelists were focused on climate 
change and sustainability, not energy, so I outlined the peak fossil fuel 
concept and suggested that given the infantile state of renewable energy, we 
are in a race for BTUs, not a race against CO2. 
I also noted that studies by professor Kjell Aleklett (Uppsala University) and 
professor David Rutledge (Caltech) have called into question whether we will 
even burn enough fossil fuel to reach the 450 ppm target on CO2, given their 
models of the peaking and depletion of oil, gas, and coal. 
I don't think my case went over very well. 
Failed Aspirations and Unintended Consequences
The nearly two-decade history of efforts to control climate change is rife with 
failures. The Kyoto Protocol, for all the bluster and ballyhoo that has gone 
into it, has had no actual effect on carbon emissions worldwide with its 
unenforceable "binding" targets. 
Climate policy has also resulted in number of untoward and unintended 
consequences.
The first serious carbon trading market in Europe led to exploitation by 
traders with complicated international exchange schemes that made easy money 
for the underwriting banks, but didn't reduce carbon emissions. 
Emissions reduction efforts in Europe and the US have in part caused production 
to move to Asia, where energy efficiency is lower and hence, emissions are 
greater. Without global cooperation, national emission reductions are nullified 
by capital's tendency to move wherever costs are lowest. But global cooperation 
remains elusive; witness the ineffectual squabbling at the current G8 meeting.
Over the last several years, we have seen mandates for first-generation 
biofuels result in skyrocketing food prices, further environmental degradation 
and even grain shortages (although the latter were mostly in the Third World, 
conveniently out of sight of climate change policymakers). 
Substituting "CO2-neutral" biomass fuels for fossil fuels—burning wood for heat 
instead of fuel oil or natural gas—in order to meet high CO2 reduction targets 
could paradoxically result in increased airborne black soot, which is believed 
to exacerbate global warming. 
Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are toothless without investment in new 
renewable energy production. California, which sports the highest RPS in the 
nation, is nowhere near being on track to actually meet its targets, while 
utility scale solar developers have been struggling to get even a single permit 
approved to move forward with their plants.
Focusing on emissions also goes against the capitalistic grain, and so it meets 
a great deal of resistance. The dialogue becomes about who will pay the price, 
not how to meet the challenge. Concerns about the future cost of carbon 
emissions have contributed to investors' reluctance to sink new billions into 
oil and gas projects, thus crucially depriving us of adequate fuel supply in 
the 5-10 year time frame, when we'll be needing it to build renewable energy 
machines that will make up for the depletion of fossil fuels. 

Advertisement

Cashing in on HR 1's Greatest Asset
Nobody hates pork more than I do, but buried within the hundreds of pages in 
the stimulus package, Th

[geo] Urgent - support the Vestas occupation NOW

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This shows that all the talk about government creating Green Jobs is just a big 
spin, if nothing is made to keep manufacturing these parts to make wind 
turbines how can one create green electricity if not making wind turbine blades.
 


From: i...@campaigncc.org
Subject: Urgent - support the Vestas occupation NOW
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:02:55 +0100





Campaign against Climate Change
 
 
HELP THE VESTAS FACTORY OCCUPATION NOW
 
TELL THE GOVERNMENT WE NEED THOSE GREEN JOBS
 
Workers at the Vestas Wind Turbine factory on the Isle of Wight have JUST NOW 
occupied their factory. They are fighting for 600 jobs and the future of the 
planet. They need help now.

You can help support them by :
 
TEXT ING AND CALLING EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

There is a large picket of support starting outside the factory. This will be 
crucial in giving people confidence inside. We want hundreds of people by 
morning.
If you are not working, can you come now, by car, bus or train ? 
If you are on the South Coast and working, you could come for the night (go to 
work exhausted and proud !).
If you can’t come, can you call up friends and offer to pay the fare or petrol 
money for someone else to come down ?  Or part of the fare ?
. 
WE WANT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE NOW.
SAVE THE PLANET – GREEN JOBS NOW


The workers want Gordon Brown to step in as if it was a troubled bank and save 
the jobs and keep making wind turbine blades. They gave the bankers trillions. 
They have talked about creating 40,000 "Green Jobs" - the first step should be 
protecting these 600.
 
The workers will need solidarity - donations of money, food and other 
assistance. In the first instance please send messages of solidarity to 
saveves...@gmail.com

This is much bigger than just Vestas and 600 jobs – this is about showing the 
government we are not going to let them get away with ‘green jobs’ rhetoric and 
no action.
 
But help is urgently needed right now or this opportunity could be lost. So 
please do what you can – to come or spread the word.
 


Without our supporters, there would be no campaign. Please make a donation 
today and help us reach Target Ten Thousand. 



You can also find us on Facebook, Myspace and Twitter.
You can see videos of our demonstrations, public meetings and other events on 
our Youtube Channel. 



This email was sent to: albert_kal...@hotmail.com.

This email was sent by: Campaign against Climate Change 5 Caledonian Road Top 
floor London N1 9DX +44 (0)20 7833 9311 

Unsubscribe from this list. Subscribe to other lists. 

Opt out from all Campaign against Climate Change lists. 

_
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and 
emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] NSIDC GIVES UP '2-STANDARD DEVIATION RULE' AS - "MEANINGLESS"

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

I think that we all should call the Arctic Ocean melting by its rightful name: 
"melt-away of the North Pole Floating Sea Ice Cap" to make people understand 
the gravity of situation.

 

 

Two events that stuck me:

 

1) 

 

Yesterday 22.07.2009 National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), University of 
Colorado, Boulder, removed the two standard deviation markers as meaningless 
and of no useful further reference leaving the mean annual 1979-2000 average 
against 2007 melting as references. One standard deviation indicates 
variability of a stable system to 68% of occurrences, two standard deviations 
incorporates occurrences to 95% of events. Usually, two standard deviations 
that cover 19/20 cases are the cut-off point considered a stable system. As 
there are, furthermore now three consequtive occurrences of the sea ice melting 
falling outside this limit (2007, 2008 and now 2009) there are even less 
reasons to believe that 1979-2000 average can be used as a reference. In other 
words, NSIDC admits a passage of tipping point, a move away from system 
prevailing 1979-2000.

 

2) The sea ice has had all this season very strong peripherial melting as well 
as some of the strongest ice has been drained out through the Fram Straight, 
losses have been high as sunlight and insolation on the long exposed periphery 
is much more efficient to mop up suns heat than holes appearing in the centre. 
A split has occurred from the vicinity of Peary Land to Komsomoletski Island 
today, it needs to be seen wheter the currents keep pulling these apart further 
and further. This channel was readily weakened by melting north-west of Laptev 
Sea, today's images suggest the front part is 'falling' to Atlantic. However, 
last year the re-freezing on the North Pole began on 25.07.2009 - that may 
re-seal, unless the melting has advanced far enough and ice thinned by previous 
stretchings too much. The tiny split on the last remaining section, off Peary 
Land, occurring today.

 

Thank God, we have such a good satellites and data to see these things in 
real-time!!

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 

 

 

_
Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and 
more.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: exploit earths magnetic field

[Veli Albert Kallio]

As a developer of wind farms, I am well aware of power transmission losses 
being greater on underground cables then overhead cables. If that was solved by 
some cable, then it would not be a problem, but I imagine that the cable is 
self-destructive.

 

In any case, I would like to draw attention to fact that magnetic field is in 
rapid decline and migration. The cable would be difficult to realign and it 
does not generate electricity when the processes at the core switch it off. 
When winding down, it becomes erratic and weak, almost multipolar magnetic 
field, so as investment I would not put my bets on this.

 

Please note, the Magnetic Field Polarity Reversion Even last time occurred 
870,000 years ago and since year 2000 we have fallen into this lucky 
geophysical lottery to withness the onset of one which could happen almost 
anytime now.

 

Group B Nations will meet President Clinton on 22. September 2009 and we will 
give our version of the ongoing events: We iterate once again that the recent 
migrations of the Magnetic North Pole are probably nothing to do with any 
Magnetic Field Polarity Reversion event, but the constant melting and shifting 
of snow and ice pack in Greenland is changing the isostatic load on the ground, 
the bottom of the litosphere drumming electrically non-conductive minerals into 
the electrically-active belts near the core, the Faraday's Cage of the Earth's 
Core (the maxiumum outward electrically-conductive surface where the build up 
of the core's static electricity rises due to internal repulsion of electrons 
with same charge in the electric field generated by the core). The more ice 
melts and soft ice shifts around, the more the settled equilibrium states of 
the past become unsettled, redirecting electricity to go around Greenland where 
there are still good electric condutivity remaining on F-Cage.

 

So, in a situation that the melting ice sheet shutting down the electricity 
trespass beneath Greenland's ice sheet and eventual flip-flopping and shut down 
of magnetic field, a coil is a bad idea. A very bad idea. Our nations will 
bring the reasonings to Clinton in hope he can raise interest that our 
data-validation request is attended and resolved in case sea jumps and we see 
the damage to the Faraday's Cage etc as precursors for ice sheet destabilising.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kalio, FRGS

International Nanak Peace Price Nominee for 2008 (including the matter referred 
above)

 



 
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:41:46 -0700
> Subject: [geo] exploit earths magnetic field
> From: mikeconsci...@gmail.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> If you ran one large cable from the north pole to the south pole and
> grounded them properly, would you essentially turn the entire world
> into a dynamo? You would have a large conducter spinning around a huge
> iron core through the earths magnetic field. I know it would be the
> largest construction project ever and some would think its nuts but
> unlimited power would solve most of the problems on this planet. Even
> if the planet heated up as much as it could the power created would
> provide everything from clean drinking water to heat and cooling.
> 
> I’m not an electrical engineer but don't want to discount an idea. Any
> ideas?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> > 

_
Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and 
more.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Cap and trade considered harmful

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Steven,

 

"After about four man-years it is now hard to go much further with no money."


I just want to express my gratitude and commendations that what you have tried.

 

Let's just hope the scheme gets now funded. 

 

I am sure our Geoengineering Group all rejoices in your accomplishment and is 
thankful.

 



 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:42:08 +0100
> From: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: Cap and trade considered harmful
> 
> 
> John
> 
> Count me in. The guys trying to defraud the carbon trading schemes are 
> so much brighter than the ones setting the rules that there is no chance 
> of ever saving carbon, just making billions for the traders.
> 
> Slightly counter to one of your recent emails, the design of the most 
> critical part of the cloud albedo hardware, the spray generation and 
> filtration system system is now almost complete and drawings will be 
> taken to subcontractors very soon. After about four man-years it is now 
> hard to go much further with no money.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> School of Engineering and Electronics
> University of Edinburgh
> Mayfield Road
> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> Scotland
> tel +44 131 650 5704
> fax +44 131 650 5702
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 
> 
> 
> 
> John Nissen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There seems to be growing concerns about cap and trade, for example, 
> > yesterday from the New York Times. [1]
> >
> > Here are some reasons against:
> > * There is an illusion of emissions reduction, which may hamper efforts 
> > to get significant real reductions from the main polluters.
> > * The cap and trade cannot work on a large enough scale to produce 
> > necessary world wide emissions reductions.
> > * The market it crates puts an unpredictable price on carbon, so it is 
> > difficult to make investment decisions, especially on renewable energy.
> > * The scheme includes offsetting through approved projects, which are 
> > difficult to set up and prone to failure.
> > * Because of above problems, many countries will refuse to sign up to 
> > the scheme, further diluting its effect.
> >
> > Jim Hansen describes Cap and Trade as the "Temple of Doom" [2].
> >
> > Therefore, it is proposed to have a levy on fuels, in order to increase 
> > their price, and let market forces reduce the consumption.
> >
> > Now I would argue that the money raised should be spent on 
> > geoengineering. If you agree, who could we contact to discuss this 
> > idea? Could we get the idea promoted prior to Copenhagen in December, 
> > so that an alternative to Cap and Trade gets discussed there?
> >
> > Cheers from Chiswick,
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22wed11.html?th&emc=th
> >
> > [2] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > 
> 
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
> 
> 
> > 

_
With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: exploit earths magnetic field

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I believe the proposer of this was suggesting creating electricity like a space 
tether. 

 

I think space tether be a solution and fully agree that concept.

 

I think he did not think his idea through carefully, if there were currents 
created by mere lay out of electric grids (effectively electric grids are 
miniature version of this that don't go pole-to-pole) we should have seen 
electricity generated by the grids on its own by loops.


I did not comment on the idea on its merits, but if magnetic field blows out, 
then even the  space tethers stop generating electricity even if people manage 
to uncoil them in space. (So far, all space tethers have ended up as a pool of 
spaghetti rather than staying in line).

 

As per the puncture of holes into Faraday's Cage at the Earth's Core, a good 
analogy is an aircraft with the windows. The hole of non-conductive materials 
from Greenland is analogous to aeroplane windows being added to the 
electrically conductive fuselage acting as the Faraday's Cage when lightening 
strikes the plane: sustained melting = sustained drift of electrical currents 
and their associated magnetic fields that can penetrate to surface.

 

Kr, Albert

 


From: euggor...@comcast.net
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; mikeconsci...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: exploit earths magnetic field
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:34:58 -0400




The cable would be parallel to the magnetic field and not rotate relative to 
the magnetic field. It has to cut perpendicularly across magnetic field lines. 
How does one generate current?



From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Veli Albert Kallio
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:52 AM
To: mikeconsci...@gmail.com; Geoengineering FIPC
Subject: [geo] Re: exploit earths magnetic field


As a developer of wind farms, I am well aware of power transmission losses 
being greater on underground cables then overhead cables. If that was solved by 
some cable, then it would not be a problem, but I imagine that the cable is 
self-destructive.
 
In any case, I would like to draw attention to fact that magnetic field is in 
rapid decline and migration. The cable would be difficult to realign and it 
does not generate electricity when the processes at the core switch it off. 
When winding down, it becomes erratic and weak, almost multipolar magnetic 
field, so as investment I would not put my bets on this.
 
Please note, the Magnetic Field Polarity Reversion Even last time occurred 
870,000 years ago and since year 2000 we have fallen into this lucky 
geophysical lottery to withness the onset of one which could happen almost 
anytime now.
 
Group B Nations will meet President Clinton on 22. September 2009 and we will 
give our version of the ongoing events: We iterate once again that the recent 
migrations of the Magnetic North Pole are probably nothing to do with any 
Magnetic Field Polarity Reversion event, but the constant melting and shifting 
of snow and ice pack in Greenland is changing the isostatic load on the ground, 
the bottom of the litosphere drumming electrically non-conductive minerals into 
the electrically-active belts near the core, the Faraday's Cage of the Earth's 
Core (the maxiumum outward electrically-conductive surface where the build up 
of the core's static electricity rises due to internal repulsion of electrons 
with same charge in the electric field generated by the core). The more ice 
melts and soft ice shifts around, the more the settled equilibrium states of 
the past become unsettled, redirecting electricity to go around Greenland where 
there are still good electric condutivity remaining on F-Cage.
 
So, in a situation that the melting ice sheet shutting down the electricity 
trespass beneath Greenland's ice sheet and eventual flip-flopping and shut down 
of magnetic field, a coil is a bad idea. A very bad idea. Our nations will 
bring the reasonings to Clinton in hope he can raise interest that our 
data-validation request is attended and resolved in case sea jumps and we see 
the damage to the Faraday's Cage etc as precursors for ice sheet destabilising.
 
With kind regards,
 
Veli Albert Kalio, FRGS
International Nanak Peace Price Nominee for 2008 (including the matter referred 
above)
 

 
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:41:46 -0700
> Subject: [geo] exploit earths magnetic field
> From: mikeconsci...@gmail.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> If you ran one large cable from the north pole to the south pole and
> grounded them properly, would you essentially turn the entire world
> into a dynamo? You would have a large conducter spinning around a huge
> iron core through the earths magnetic field. I know it would be the
> largest construction project ever and some would think its nuts but
> unlimited power would solve 

[geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback - ja

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hey,

 

Would n't it help to have aeroplanes to drop dimethyl sulphide from higher 
altitude if these could be scattered wide enough when the sea surface is not 
releasing enough aerosols?

 

How much stuff needs to be uplifted, taking it miles up and dropping it then 
down might distribute it to replace the temporary lack of the natural sources 
of marine aerosols. 

 

I think it is entirely possible to create massive contrails with dimethyl 
sulphide nanoparticles, why then try to uplift heavy water molecules if it is 
just lack of the nuclei (for the supersaturated water vapour start condensing 
up there).

 

Is the problem lack of water or lack of nuclei for the supersaturated vapour to 
condense?

 

Rgs,

 

Albert
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:47:43 +0100
> From: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> To: john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
> CC: agask...@nc.rr.com; wig...@ucar.edu; 
> climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback - ja
> 
> 
> Alvia
> 
> Let me emphasize John's point about keeping her steady as she goes.
> 
> I think that any dimethyl sulphide in sea water will get through the 
> spray system and go up along with the salt residues to do its stuff with 
> clouds. The size range should be ideal for transport by turbulence so 
> that a higher fraction will be lofted than the water from breaking 
> waves, much of which falls back rapidly. But given that figure 5 of the 
> wave sink paper shows that such a large fraction of the oceans is empty 
> of phytoplankton, will there by any dimethyl sulphide to spray?
> 
> This engineer needs help from marine biologists.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> School of Engineering and Electronics
> University of Edinburgh
> Mayfield Road
> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> Scotland
> tel +44 131 650 5704
> fax +44 131 650 5702
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 
> 
> 
> 
> John Latham wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I think this is an interesting and seemingly authoritative 
> > observational study, with some so far limited modelling support.It 
> > will be valuable to ascertain whether the findings - at the moment 
> > limited to low clouds over the NE Pacific - are reproduced globally, 
> > and confirmed in other models..
> >
> > If we assume that they are, it is pertinent to ask what the 
> > implications are vis-a-vis solar radiation management geoengineering 
> > schemes. If, as with our cloud albedo enhancement scheme, the idea is 
> > - as far as possible - to stabilise the Earth's average surface 
> > temperature, probably at current values, by varying the cooling in 
> > concert with the warming, the cloud cover / temperature positive 
> > feedback relationship would not come in to play. If, for any reason, 
> > we wished to produce an overall smallish cooling - for example to 
> > cool ocean waters in order to try to reduce the energy of hurricanes 
> > that subsequently form in those regions - the positive feedback should 
> > reinforce the geo-engineered cooling.
> >
> > So Steve should not sigh too deeply.
> >
> > All Best, John.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Alvia Gaskill :
> >
> > >
> > > From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds 
> > with higher
> > > SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., 
> > less
> > > wind and less waves. The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and
> > > salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of 
> > waves.
> > > If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get 
> > more water
> > > vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN. Better put
> > > some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your 
> > mission may
> > > have just been expanded.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Tom Wigley" 
> > > To: 
> > > Cc: "Climate Intervention" ;
> > > "geoengineering" 
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM
> > > Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as
> > >> characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming
> > >> for 2xCO2 (DT2x).
> > >>
> > >> The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to
> > >> this -- although it is of interest in model validation.
> > >>
> > >> This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty.
> > >> My comment -- so what.
> > >>
> > >> Tom.
> > >>
> > >> +
> > >>
> > >> Stephen Salter wrote:
> > >>> Hi All
> > >>>
> > >>> Science July 24 from
> > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a
> > >>> something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud
> > >>> cover. I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation 
> > and so
> > >>> cloud cover but drying them out seems to win.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sigh.
> > >>>
> > >>> Stephen
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>

[geo] HALLIBURTON - MODEL FOR GEOENGINEERING

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 oil were to drop all the way to $45 a barrel from its current $65 level. 
With a $5 discount to the NYMEX price, each well would be pumping oil at $40 a 
barrel. 
Roughly 20% of that $40 is sent directly to the North Dakota landowner. Another 
20% goes to operating expenses. 
That leaves approximately 60% of the original $40, giving the driller $24 a 
barrel. 
Assuming drillers can pump out 800,000 barrels of oil per well, that allows the 
company $19 million in revenue, per well. 
If each well costs about $5.5 million, the driller is still making a 3.5 to 1 
ratio return on their money! 
Remember, that's in a scenario in which oil collapses to $45. Today oil's at 
$60.
 
 

From: pre...@attglobal.net
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
indian...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] NEW 9 BILLION BARREL OIL FIELD DISCOVERED IN THE USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:55:04 +1200




This reads like a hard sell, maybe a scam.  Visit 
http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/bakken-oil.html for a more thoughtful 
analysis which puts about  one per cent of the reserve as recoverable by 
conventional means.  Horizontal directed drilling can likely increase that.  
Maybe someone knows an oil industry expert who could say by how much and what 
cost.
Peter

- Original Message - 
From: Veli Albert Kallio 
To: Geoengineering FIPC ; Indianice FIPC 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:08 PM
Subject: [geo] NEW 9 BILLION BARREL OIL FIELD DISCOVERED IN THE USA

Hi,
 
RE: More Geogenineering Urgently Required!
 
This is a now "once-in-a-lifetime party" for the oil people to make billions of 
quick profits. It isn't every day you find 10 billion barrel new oil field like 
Three Forks / Sanish Formation.  
 
Because of its immense size, this helps to wean the USA off from the Middle 
East oil dependency and defer back the peak oil world-wide (somewhat).
 
Truly amazing discovery of new oil for the thirty drivers!
People are already dancing on tables on Houston today.
 
Sad day for environment.
 
Rgs,
 
Albert

FW: Big News from the Bakken 


Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:04:41 -0700
From: eac-elet...@angelnexus.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Big News from the Bakken


 






 







. 


Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and 
emoticons. Get Them Now







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.35/2269 - Release Date: 07/28/09 
17:58:00

_
With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: [clim] Yet another positive feedback - geoengineering impacts

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Andrew,

 

My suggestion is that we pick up one delivery and crash it into the rocks as 
see the after effects. There are plenty of oil tanker crashes that produce 
immense oil slicks, so there is a ready area of study. But who really wants an 
oil slick on the sea? 


I suppose every oil slick is harmful to birds and acquatic life and the big 
slicks should show up the benefits, but there is none, quite the reverse. I 
also think ocean protection treaties ban boats dumping their old motor etc oil 
into the seas. 

 

Chances of any positive effect materialising from the oil trails of the ships 
or any spillage of oil do not exist that could nearly outweigh the damage done 
by the oil in water. If there were major effects, these would have been noticed 
in context of the big oil tanker crashes.

 

In the Mexican gulf there were damaged oil well that leaked 500,000 barrels per 
day for two years. It did produce huge slick just like Saddam when he literally 
filled up the Persian Gulf basin by opening oil taps to create a huge oil slick 
in the Persian Gulf. 

 

But Saddam Hussein did geoengineer Kuwaiti weather as the dark smoke from the 
oil wells cooled surface to near freezing temperatures and someone recalled 
snow falling from the sky when he tried to camourflage ground troops under 
smoke from buring Kuwaiti Oil Wells.

 

This just recalls me how difficult is climate change and fossil fuel emissions. 
People were horrified in 1992 during the First Gulf War the amount of pollution 
we were producing when they saw the amount of fuel Kuwaiti Oil Fields were 
constantly billowing out to tankers. Normally that would end up as an 
inconvenient truth of carbon dioxide, but on that time, as the oil wells burnt 
uncontrollably, burining of oil produced much more black carbon as usual. 

 

You should also recall the fire in Hemel Hampstead in north of London few years 
ago which quickly created an entire South England covering cloud of black 
smoke, and that oil was just 5% what we consume normally during one year in the 
UK.

 

I am, therefore, very sceptical that stunts of Greenpeace or others will work 
as even these big warning signs have been ignored all but completely in the 
long run.  This is also a fearful argument against geoengineering, people just 
don't care if it is the umpteenth generation who will reap consequences of our 
contemporary oil profligacy.  

 

I just hope the First Nations' presentation with President Clinton goes ahead 
and we get funds to investigate their concerns and fears based on old native 
recollections that warmed and wet Hudson Bay ice dome slid into sea suddenly, 
therefore, Greenland doing the same. May be this is the wake-up call to get 
people to all action to address climatic dangers now.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 


Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:39:26 +0100
Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: agask...@nc.rr.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

When a boat goes through the water, it often leaves a very fine oil slick 
behind.  Has anyone ever tried to calculate whether these slicks have a 
positive or negative effect on global warming, but altering evaporation, DMS 
exchange, waves, SST, CO2 exchange, etc?


This should be quite an easy effect to modify if the changes prove to be 
significant.  It may even have geoengineering potential, as in my idea with 
hurricanes.


A



2009/7/26 Alvia Gaskill 


>From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds with higher
SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., less
wind and less waves.  The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and
salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of waves.
If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get more water
vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN.  Better put
some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your mission may
have just been expanded.





- Original Message -
From: "Tom Wigley" 
To: 
Cc: "Climate Intervention" ;
"geoengineering" 
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback


>
> The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as
> characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming
> for 2xCO2 (DT2x).
>
> The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to
> this -- although it is of interest in model validation.
>
> This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty.
> My comment -- so what.
>
> Tom.
>
> +
>
> Stephen Salter wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> Science July 24 from
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a
>> something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud
>> cover.  I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation and so
>> cloud cover but drying them out seems to win.
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
>
>
> >







__

[geo] Re: more on Arpa-E rejection letters

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Coming from energy financing background, Gene's opinion is not well informed to 
the perspectives of fund managers, lenders and investors who strike for 
cautious investments and lending. As the recession drags on, all the technology 
based things and novelty products are off the radar and the investments and 
lending are now redirected towards conservative industries and technologies.

 

 

 

One of the ways suggested is the quantitative easing to raise funds in 
technology projects and renewables. 

At the moment UK government is analysed as follows:
 

 

GOVERNMENT FINDS ITSELF ALL AT SEA ON WIND POWER

 

"Minister's strategy - Vision of a vibrant industry looks plausible but may be 
little more than an aspiration, says Ed Crooks."

 

"As ministers have sounded the fanfare for hundreds of thousands of "green 
jobs" the demise of the Vestas wind turbine plant on the Isle of Wight has 
provided a mocking counterpoint. The closure of one factory with the loss of 
600 jobs does not in itself say much about the success or failure of the 
government strategy. However, the decision by Vestas is an uncomfortable 
reminder that the vision of a vibrant industry growing up to meet the challenge 
of curring carbon dioxide emissions for Britain and the world is little more 
than an aspiration." ... "The government's definition of "green jobs" is drawn 
very wide to catch as many occupations as possible, from dustmen to clean-tech 
venture capitalists. Manufacturing jobs such as the ones at Vestas are among 
the ones that are likely to strengthen the economy."  ... "Britain's emphasis 
on off-shore wind power - forced on the nation by the difficulty of securing 
planning permission for wind farms on land - may also be a handicap." The 
Financial Times, Thursday, 30. July 2009, p. 3.

 

>From the investor's point of view the most important point for a successful 
>wind farm is the location, location, location...

 

A good wind farm must have the following positive characteristics: 

 

(1.) sufficient strong winds, (2.) proximity of electric grid, (3.) relatively 
close to consumers (4.) easy servicing and maintenance access - rapid to access 
turbines and in all weather conditions, especially in winter and storms when 
electricity demand surges up (5.) low supportive infrastructure required, (6.) 
high voltage aerial cables, not underground or subsea cables.

 

These are vital for the wind farms to produce the cheap green electricity that 
public expects and requires at affordable cost.  They are not built for 
specification of engineers' complex toys.

 

Thus, electricity is produced close to the point of consumption, not off-shore 
as to provide cheap and internationally competitive and affordable electricity 
for industry and consumers which does not require large infrastructure beside 
turbine, transmission losses, or other capital and maintenance requirement 
beside wind turbines. 

 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NONE OF THIS CRITERIA IS MET BY OFF-SHORE TURBINES 
LOCATED FAR AWAY FROM COASTS. SUCH ELECTRICITY CAN NEVER BECOME THE CHOICE OF 
CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENT EITHER SUBSIDISES UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY 
FROM OFF-SHORE INSTALLATIONS OR PROVIDES THE REQUIRED FUNDING AND BUSINESS 
ENVIRONMENT FOR THE WIND FARMS TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY NEAR COMMUNITIES WHERE 
ELECTRICITY IS USED. FOR THIS REASON, PRIVATE SECTOR IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE 
SOLUTION WITHOUT DEPLOYMENT MONIES HERE IN THE UK, AS WELL AS IN THE US AS 
CITED.

 

I AM NOT SAYING ALL IS DONE BY GOVERNMENTS, BUT LIKE IN CASE OF VESTAS, IF 
PRIVATE SECTOR LACKS FUNDS, THE GOVERNMENT MUST STEP IN IF WE EVER WISH TO KEEP 
UP WITH THE TARGETS TO PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY HERE AND ALSO SET UP A PROVEN 
AND VALID EXAMPLE FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD WHICH HAS TO DECIDE BETWEEN EITHER 
COAL (i.e. INDIA, CHINA, INDONESIA) OR NUCLEAR (i.e. BRAZIL, IRAN, PAKISTAN).

 

"The sales pitch for the "low carbon industrial strategy" is plausible, The 
transition to an economy with much lower carbon dioxide emissions - the 
official commitment is a 34 percent reduction by 2020 and an 80 per cent cut by 
2050 - will demand structural change. Many old jobs will disappear, and new 
ones will be created." Ibid. The Financial Times, Thursday, 30. July 2009, p. 3.

 

As per above the Vesta's climate campaign is probably one of the best all-time 
climate campaigns highlighting misleading conceptual proclamations by the UK 
government and actual ground work taking us to achieve that goal by 2020.

 

I believe the government goal should be 60% private / 40% public investment in 
renewable energy to keep both sectors growing their size at optimum rate given 
the current financial market conditions. At no time goverment proportion should 
fall below 1/3 as then the cyclical variations kick in and these start 
constraining the necessary growth of wind energy industry. Any argument? OK.

 

Thus the deployment at certain war economy gearing is inevitable and of utmost 
n

[geo] Stop Using "Vladimir Cousteau"

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi, 

 

I understand that we all have enemies Finns have Swedish, British have French, 
Arabs have Israel, Americans have Russians...

 

But Vladimir Putin and Jacques Yves Cousteau are respected at least by their 
own people. Also, more so as I am doing film project with Philippe Cousteau and 
President Dmitry Medjejev is my Facebook friend, the advisor of Russian 
President backing our query on ice age ending.

 

So, may be better us to tone down.

 

Kr, Albert

_
Windows Live Messenger: Happy 10-Year Anniversary—get free winks and emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Oceanology International - Call for Papers

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Geoengineering subjects might be a novelty issue that should appear in this 
prestigious forum that discusses issues relating to the ocean technology. The 
prescriptive measures preventing the sea ice loss in the Arctic Ocean and cloud 
spraying should appear here.

 

Marine environment and geotechnics workshops could discuss these, the former 
about the impacts, the latter about methodology how to get there. If you have 
papers readily, I suggest filing proposals to take opportunity of presenting 
geoengineering at this venue.
 


From: t...@oceanologyinternational.com
Subject: Oceanology International - Call for Papers
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:07:12 +0100











































Dear Mr Veli Albert Kallio,













Call for Papers Deadline extended




The programme committee for Oceanology International 2010 are concerned that 
there are many people who have expressed a desire to submit a paper for the 
Oceanology conference but will not be able to meet our deadline of the end of 
July.

Given this, and to ensure that everyone has the chance to submit a paper, we 
have extended the deadline for paper submissions to August 31st.

Submit a paper.
Download the call for papers.














The Oceanology International Conference





The Oceanology International conference represents an excellent opportunity via 
its extensive technical programme to showcase the latest technical developments 
and thinking in the marine science and ocean technology world. The Oceanology 
Committee encourages you to submit abstracts in the following categories:







Navigation & Positioning - Committee Head Rob Balloch, Sonardyne 
Hydrography/Geophysics - Committee Head Andy W Hill, BP America 
Marine Environment - Committee Head Paul Holthus, World Ocean Council (WOC) 
Geotechnics - Committee Head Pat Power, Fugro 
Ocean Observing & Forecasting - Committee Head Professor Ralph Rayner
Submit a paper.
Download the call for papers.

If you require any more information please contact us. You can find our details 
here.

Regards,

The Oceanology Team















































In association with:









































Unsubscribe?
If you do not wish to receive any further information via email about the 
upcoming Oceanology International event, you can unsubscribe from the list by 
clicking here or replying to this message with "Oceanology International 
Unsubscribe 6260500" in the subject. 


Change your details?
If we have your details incorrect or have sent this email to the wrong person 
in your organisation then we apologise. However, please help us to keep our 
records up-to-date by clicking here and letting us know.


This email is from Reed Exhibitions (Gateway House, 28 The Quadrant, Richmond, 
Surrey, TW9 1DN, United Kingdom - Telephone +44(0)20 8910 7910), a division of 
Reed Business, registered in England and Wales. Company number 678540. VAT 
number GB 232 4004 20. Reed Exhibitions Limited is a member of the Association 
of Event Organisers (AEO), registration number 3010. Reed Exhibitions and 
Oceanology International are trading names of Reed Exhibitions Limited. 
Copyright © 2007 Reed Exhibitions Ltd. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy, 
Personal Options and Copyright.
[[1269X9535X1499838]]









_
Windows Live Messenger: Thanks for 10 great years—enjoy free winks and 
emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brig htening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response

[Veli Albert Kallio]

First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and John getting this excellent 
publicity. 

 

"The British team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the 
University of Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of 
Edinburgh, is working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura. The British 
team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of 
Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is 
working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura."  
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece

 

 

I just would like to draw your attention, whose effort and idea  it was to 
bring Meriaura into the picture and introduce Atmosmare Foundation? I.e. their 
leading geoengineering researchers Risto Isomaki, coordinator Esko Pettay and 
Auramare's Lauri Malkia to John and Steve in this picture. So ... John, Stephen 
and Risto, remember me too and prepare to give me a brush so that I can come to 
brush off the salt from your deck (if the Indianice melts away before Clinton 
finds us sponsors...).  

 

Risto Isomaki worked for many years in solitary isolation in Finland fostering 
relationships to gain practical support to his geoengineering ideas as a 
handyman-inventor and environmentalist. I really hope all these efforts are 
coming to fruition.

 

I suggest as this matter has come hot that the research proposal is presented 
in the Oceanology International that is coming. I am more inklined towards this 
as all the ice related schemes fail because of the ice simply vanisihing by 
melting ever faster.

 

 

Alvia's etc idea should be considered, I think aerosols spreading is quite 
easily doable. 

 

I think that the cooling, or, use of cloud-forming aerosols could be first 
tested from high oceanic mountains by piping gas upto the high mountain top and 
then releasing it to the winds (the pumping of gas don't cost fortunes as the 
pipes are not expensive). I was asked to help fund a pipeline to Mount Meru to 
4,500 metres, you can have a large throughput even through plastic pipes.

 

There are also almost always a strong upwards windrafts in oceanic mountains as 
the windward sides accummulate stream of rising air, this then continues over 
the top of whichever side the wind blows. Pumping of water so high is expensive 
but sulphur dioxide gas etc does not accummulate very much pressure in hoses 
when pumped uphill few kilometres. 

 

Balloon tests must continue to get a full geoengineering community support as 
the technology is so readily existing one.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert


 
From: agask...@nc.rr.com
To: chris.gr...@mcgill.ca; kelly.wan...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & 
Copenhagen study on Climate Response
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 05:17:47 -0400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
 
Lomborg is a de facto denier, cleverly framing his ever changing arguments 
in a way that misleads and misdirects. If he truly believes global warming 
is a serious problem, then how does he reconcile his statements that we 
don't need to reduce CO2 emissions? Those of us in favor of geoengineering 
research and deployment with few exceptions agree it is a stop gap, not an 
alternative to reducing emissions which he refers to as "politically 
correct."
 
Economic analyses have a role to play in selecting the technologies to use, 
not just for geoengineering, but also for emissions reduction. Above a 
certain threshold, cost is important, but effectiveness always trumps cost 
and that has to be established first. Then let the econ profs go to work. 
And try not to let Lomborg's specious arguments get in the way. Otherwise, 
Mark the Pie Man may have to make a repeat appearance, with additional pies 
as needed.
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: "Christopher Green, Prof." 
To: "Kelly Wanser" 
Cc: "Alvia Gaskill" ; 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:09 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & 
Copenhagen study on Climate Response
 
 
 
Thanks. The panel of expert economists (three of them Nobel Prize winners) 
will be evaluating a set of proposals for dealing with climate change. 
Geoengineering is one of them. The papers on which the proposals are based 
will be posted on the Copenhagen Consensus website over the next few weeks. 
The evaluation of the various proposals by the expert committee will take 
place next month.
 
 

From: Kelly Wanser [kelly.wan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:57 PM
To: Christopher Green, Prof.
Cc: Alvia Gaskill; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening 
& Copenhagen study on Cl

[geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Mike,

 

Interesting! It is not the one in Wikipedia. It seems, Wikipedia misses Mount 
Meru entirely, this is because Internet is still too expensive and unavailable 
in some parts of the world that people do not bother using it yet to put that 
kind of stuff in there.
 
Mount Meru was the tallest mountain in Africa before it blew off its entire top 
(loosing some 2.5 km height).  Mount Meru I refer is surrounded by the Greater 
Arusha, it is still third tallest mountain in Africa.  The local municipality 
of Usa River were building a water pipe from top of the mountain to the town 
and failed to account the difficult topographic terrains. As a result the water 
mains became 1,500 metres too short and the project fell apart, but the pipe 
goes up kilometres, I did enquiry about what is happening to pipe and whether 
it is in deployment or still disused. Mt. Meru is located near Mt. Kilimanjaro 
and was even taller.


Mount Meru is dormant and not posing risk to the City of Arusha. It is this 
type of pipe that could be used in suitable location to transport gas uphill; 
there are many similar tall volcanoes on islands that could be used to 
discharge climate modulating gases to encounter the accummulative inpact of 
greenhouse gases. In Greenland, Mt. Gunnbjorn at nearly 4 km could put stuff 
high up. The Pacific and the southernmost Andes near Punta Arenas also rise 
thousands of metres high and could put coolants into air.

 

I had this reply from Fulgence Rutasha back in June about the whereabouts of 
the pipeline. I can chase after the various costs and expenditure to give a 
rough idea what it costs to lay down such a pipe. Hope this clarifies your 
query where is Mt. Meru.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 

 

 


Re: Mt. Meru - Usa River Water Pipe‏





From:
 fulgence rutasha (doctord...@yahoo.co.uk) 


You may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk

Sent:
17 June 2009 18:43:57

To: 
David Balderstone (abalderst...@btconnect.com); vaus...@adra.org.uk; Alvin 
Rocero (alvinroc...@yahoo.com); champa...@hotmail.com; Max Church 
(direc...@adratz.org); barakasi...@yahoo.com; Saddock Butokes 
(butok...@yahoo.com); Veli Albert Kallio (albert_kal...@hotmail.com)

Cc: 
w_win...@yahoo.com






Dear Veli
I will find out and keep you posted. 
Regards,


Dr. Rutasha, Fulgence Dadi 
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Sea View, Plot 11, Ocean Road 
PO BOX 9182
Dar es Salaam
TANZANIA 
TEL: CELL +255 754 476 190 OFFICE Cell, +255 754 781126 or +255 22 2132002 
d...@unfpa.org

--- On Wed, 17/6/09, Veli Albert Kallio  wrote:


From: Veli Albert Kallio 
Subject: Mt. Meru - Usa River Water Pipe
To: doctord...@yahoo.co.uk, "David Balderstone" , 
vaus...@adra.org.uk, "Alvin Rocero" , 
champa...@hotmail.com, "Max Church" , 
barakasi...@yahoo.com, "Saddock Butokes" 
Cc: w_win...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, 17 June, 2009, 5:29 PM




Dear Dr. Rutasha (or anyone else who has information on this),
 
Any idea who asked me funding for laying down a drinking water pipe from Mt. 
Meru to the town of Usa River in the Greater Arusha. I'd like to get an update 
from its project manager.
 
I understood that there were lack of topographic maps and survey and the water 
pipe failed to reach the village due to unaccounted undulating terrain versus 
map and direct eye line.  It was then brought to my understanding that the too 
short drinking pipe was raided by elephants for drinking water.  
 
What is the current utilisation situation with the Mt. Meru - Usa River water 
pipe.  Is it still unfinished and taking water to nowhere?  
 
With kind regards,
 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
 

 





Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:33:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & 
Copenhagen study on Climate Response
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; agask...@nc.rr.com; chris.gr...@mcgill.ca; 
kelly.wan...@gmail.com
CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; indian...@googlegroups.com; 
kaj.engb...@pp.inet.fi

And exactly where is Mount Meru. Wikipedia offer this article: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology)  --interesting, but not 
very practical help.

Best, Mike


On 8/8/09 10:19 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio"  wrote:



First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and John getting this excellent 
publicity. 
 
"The British team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the 
University of Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of 
Edinburgh, is working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura. The British 
team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of 
Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is 
working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura."  
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece 
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece> 
 
 
I

[geo] Re: Where is that geoengineering?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi,

 

Brief notes. I also think that small projects do very much make sense. 

 

I think that the balloon projects as well as some of the oceanic islands that 
have very tall mountains can be used for releasing cloud seeding or cooling 
chemicals (aerosols), and lay down a pipe to pump out SO2 or alternatives at 
such high altitude point.

 

Costs of these are very low. The autumn time ice breaking may also spread the 
growth of winter ice. 

 

The pipeline to pump cloud forming or cooling chemicals have a benefit of large 
quantity delivery at very low cost (though duration time is much lower).

 

Rgs, Albert


 


Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 10:37:17 +0100
Subject: [geo] Re: Where is that geoengineering?
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: global_froz...@yahoo.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

I spoke to a representative of one of the funding organisations in the UK, and 
my understanding of the conversation was that there was simply an insufficient 
level of applications for credible, fundable geoengineering research from 
universities.


Perhaps those with good ideas have not been aggressive enough in their search 
for funding?  Maybe it would be worth trying unconventional approaches.  
Perhaps, for example, it would be worth US researchers teaming up with British 
counterparts to gain funding?  Maybe there is an appetite for geoengineering 
research in other countries that have previously been overlooked.  India, China 
and mainland Europe are obvious places to start looking.  Perhaps we let the 
language issue stop our search?


There are many sensible small-scale experiments that could be undertaken, such 
as Alvia's balloon project.  These would likely gain worldwide attention, due 
to the media's current appetite for geoeng.  I would like to think we've left 
no stone unturned in our efforts to get such ideas funded.


A


2009/8/9 global_frozing 


Can we here make some special page with organizations which can really
do something about geoengineering?

For example, I can suggest

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmdius.htm

Office of Science and Technology Policy
www.ostp.gov

American Meteorological Society
www.ametsoc.org

Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
arpa-e.energy.gov

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15)
en.cop15.dk/about+cop15/contact

Copenhagen Consensus Centre
www.copenhagenconsensus.com

Anything else?






_
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and 
emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: [fipc] Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Yes Esko, I noted myself. I think Risto Isomaki needs to be given some merit 
and Atmosmare. I don't like that when people call homeway excessively, like the 
Canadian Reuters claimed to have "discovered" the new nitorous oxide (N2O) 
emissions from melting permafrost as this had already been discovered last year 
in Russian permafrost.

 

I think it is partly journalistic phenomenon, I do not think Latham and Salter 
has no intention to discredit partners or potential partners. It is bit the 
same as in Russia everyone speaks about Juri Gagarin being the first man in 
space, while in England and America nobody calls Juri Gagarin a hero, but 
everyone speaks about Neil Armstrong (while the rest of the world talks about 
two space heroes). The same way Finns listen disproportionately Jean Sibelius' 
simphonies rather than Villalobos (Brazilian) composer.

 

So, I think the emphasis is perhaps to promote for home readership, then 
minimising the rest, i.e whose boat, who raised funds, who has been thinking 
along the same lines.  May be you should also push for Finnish Science Academy 
funding which also works different to Royal Society here in UK. Royal Society 
you need to be UK citizen with UK institutional affiliation and post. 
Tiedeakatemia grants in Finland are open tender project, not limited to 
established institutions or individuals, and at least in principle stands on 
merits of the proposals alone. But as it is open to all, you all could be 
participants and jointly submit a tender to Tiedeakatemia and I think you would 
be able to obtain funds for the operating costs.

 

I think Tiedeakatemia grants could be a good top up and add more resources to 
your Atmosmare Foundations sponsors and objectives. One of the other aspect is 
that Latham and Salter must also account for the situation here in the UK. The 
Finns might not get too selective with whom to work with and be partners but 
here in the UK there are stiff resistance to anything environmental and could 
work against Latha's and Salter's financing and attainance of acceptance for 
research funding. In this way there is cultural difference, the systems in 
Britain are very old and established in certain ways. I discovered this when I 
asked funding from Royal Society for some project of mine, there is no 
resiprocity here that I can just knock the door, leave a funding proposal as a 
Finn and expect Royal Society to come back with feedback like acceptance, 
amendments, or rejection. They simply do not accept here members of the public, 
especially foreigners unaffiliated to institutions making proposals to Royal 
Society. But yet, the science progresses here in its ways too. So, the system 
cannot be all that bad. UK structure just different

 

So my suggestion is that you submit a proposal to Tiedeakatemia to issue 
funding and keep pestering them just like Matti Lappalainen who got the funding 
for the large scale oxygenating for the Baltic Sea issued after 20 years of 
hard selling.

 

Please note that Kaj Engblom is also looking at some vessel and operator that 
could come in picture. Or possibly with our research project for the First 
Nations' complaint at the UN for using as a base and platform to measure the 
coastal stability of Melville Bay section in North West Greenland if their UN 
claim of ice sheet destabilising enmasse could be seen materialising and 
pushing rocks.

 

These are just my personal comments, speculation and observations nothing more. 
I will keep in touch with Kaj and especially what the meeting of the leaders 
decide, I will promote geoengineering solutions at our meeting with Clinton and 
others which remains on schedule.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert
 


Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:37:20 +0300
Subject: [fipc] Re: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud 
Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response
From: esko.pet...@gmail.com
To: indian...@googlegroups.com
CC: agask...@nc.rr.com; chris.gr...@mcgill.ca; kelly.wan...@gmail.com; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; kaj.engb...@pp.inet.fi




The idea was not to promote a shipping company. I’m not quite sure why the 
reporter decided to mention the shipping company and not Atmosmare –foundation. 
Things get mixed up so easily. But anyway I wish we will be able to proceed 
with this and other projects. 
Yours,
 
Esko


2009/8/8 Veli Albert Kallio 


First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and John getting this excellent 
publicity. 
 
"The British team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the 
University of Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of 
Edinburgh, is working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura. The British 
team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of 
Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is 
working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura."  
http://www.timesonli

[geo] Re: Home experiment

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I think there are hurdles:

 

1) legal issue of spilling oil to sea water (governments would have to be 
persuaded to allow this).

2) how to control that oil does not come to contaminate swimming beaches in the 
Caribbean where tourists go

3) how to prevent birds and fish food chains from becoming contaminated

4) how to prevent the plastic islands just like in the Pacific Ocean from 
forming, plastic chips would be eaten by fish and birds

5) food materials (biodegradable) would quickly find a better place where to 
go, if you have ever been fishing anywhere

6) deposition of plastic chips on the beaches, would this be acceptable?

 

Evaporation of oil is much slower than that of water, but it can also lead to 
anoxic conditions preventing oxygen mixing water.

 

Big oil disasters in the Mexican Gulf (leaking oil wells) and Saddam Husseins 
fill up of the Persian Gulf did not bring any benefits, these pointing that 
there might not be much to gain, but much more to loose. 

 

My comments are critical, but I would like to hear if someone has positive 
ideas, as I may be overly negative on this idea.

 

Kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio
 


Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:50:15 +0100
Subject: [geo] Home experiment
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very 
small experiment.


I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours.  I 
tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry.  Both samples remained 
afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment.


I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into 
the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms:
1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating 
of the sea
2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation
3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet 
surface area
4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective 
surface area.


I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration.  I really hope 
someone can comment on the idea.  It seems pretty cheap and environmentally 
benign to me.


A






_
Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and 
more.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG

[Veli Albert Kallio]

There are some bacground information on the impact of decline of fossil fuels 
to fuel economies in transport powered by electricity. E&C view is global oil 
production goes into terminal decline within the next two years, from 
geoengineering point of view these background considerations may be important 
factors from testing systems to running them.
 
I also believe that broad bird view into picture helps one to orienate when in 
the woods and therefore, good framework insider information can be helpful, if 
nothing else, at least as a motivational factor to carry on researching 
geoengineering solutions to the energy and climate crisis that is grabbing as 
being attempted to be addressed by various strategies.
 
With kind regards,
 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
 
 
The Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG‏






Energy and Capital (eac-elet...@angelnexus.com) 




 








 

 



















The Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG
By Chris Nelder | Friday, August 14th, 2009

 
Cleantech and hybrid car enthusiasts were all a-Twitter this week over General 
Motors's claim that the new Chevy Volt will get a fuel economy of 230 miles per 
gallon (mpg). It was widely circulated and many breathless column-inches were 
printed, yet I was unable to find a single article that actually made any sense 
of this number. 
 
As usual, I was forced to sort it out for myself. Follow me as I walk through 
the numbers. . . such as they are.
 
First, the very concept of miles per gallon doesn't make sense if it doesn't 
take the initial charge of a plug-in hybrid into account. That's like saying 
the electricity that runs the Volt for the first 40 miles is free. 
 
Instead, we should be using a new metric, like miles per kilowatt hour (I will 
use m/kWh for this). By converting the gasoline used into its kWh equivalent, 
then adding it to the kWh for the initial charge, we could come up with a 
simple number. 
 
The reality, however, is much more complex. 
 
Calculating Miles per Kilowatt Hour 
 
In a serial hybrid like the Volt, there are losses incurred (on the order of 
15%) for using an on-board generator that burns gasoline to charge up the 
battery pack which drives the powertrain motor. There are also transmission 
losses, and losses from the self-discharge of the battery pack when it's 
unplugged, both of which are difficult to quantify.
 
So simply converting the BTU content of the gasoline to kWh (33.7 kWh 
equivalent per gallon) isn't quite right. Nor do we know the actual efficiency 
of the Volt's generating and charging systems.
 
Even if we had accurate numbers to work with, it would be somewhat misleading 
to use m/kWh as a basis for comparison. As most consumers know, there is a big 
difference between city and highway driving, because straight gasoline engines 
typically operate at very low efficiency below 25 mph, and are most efficient 
between 25 and 55 mph. 
 
Electric motors operate with a fairly constant efficiency at various speeds, 
but if the battery pack on a serial hybrid is deeply discharged and the 
gasoline generator used heavily, the overall fuel economy plummets. In the case 
of the Volt, it would fall from the alleged 230 mpg to 50 mpg or less. And both 
straight gasoline engines and hybrids consume more energy over 65 mph as wind 
resistance increases.
 
In order to address the issue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
working on a new draft methodology for testing mileage and establishing fuel 
economy ratings, but it is not yet public and EPA has declined to confirm GM's 
claim for the Volt. 
 
In the absence of good comparative standards, car companies can get away with 
wild claims like 230 mpg; not to be outdone, the Nissan boasts 367 mpg for its 
new Leaf car. But we can take a stab at some reasonable calculations. 
 
GM claims that the new EPA methodology will be stated in terms of kWh per 100 
miles traveled, and that by this metric, the Volt will go 100 miles on 25 kWh 
of battery charge. This seems a less than perfect way of rating the fuel 
economy, since the Volt will only run 40 miles on a charge before the gasoline 
generator kicks in. To arrive at the 230 mpg number, GM assumes a 51-mile 
driving cycle with drivers charging up their Volts once a day, so the battery 
powers 4/5 of the distance. 
 
Taking GM's claim at face value though, we can calculate that the Volt gets 
about 4 m/kWh. This can be compared to approximately 0.8 m/kWh for a typical 
European diesel car getting an average 40 mpg, or about 0.4 m/kWh for a typical 
American gasoline car getting an average of 20 mpg. (Newer models have a range 
of higher fuel economies, but those are the averages of the current fleets.) 
 
Professor David MacKay of the University of Cambridge notes that even this 
metric can range wildly from 0.24 m/kWh for the BMW Hydrogen 7 car, to 3-10 
m/kWh for some all-electric vehicles. 
 
A blog post by f

[geo] Orbiting solar power station and other bulk shipments off stuff ...

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I just got contacted solar power satellite operator that will microwave down 
beam the energy to receiving station where it is converted back to electricity. 
The launch is within year 2010 and can use mobile receptor stations to transmit 
electricity of disaster zones.

 

I will post later today the messages and their contact details for the people 
involved in sun shades or other spaceborne bulk shipment requiring 
geoengineering applications.  I hope this is useful contact to those of 
spaceborne applications.
 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 
> From: euggor...@comcast.net
> To: mmacc...@comcast.net; agask...@nc.rr.com; anr...@nytimes.com; 
> Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...
> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:35:43 -0400
> 
> 
> I belioeve such stunts have been demonstrated by college students. I think
> it is the case that sometimes cars drive at night or in rainstorms. Where do
> they get energy in that case? Or is this a plug in hybrid, wherein most of
> the energy is conventional engine?
> 
> Since typical autos get say 3 miles per kilowatt hour and may go 50 miles
> per hour the power generation should be ~16+ kilowatts from the panel atop
> the roof. Since the available energy is about 1 kilowatt per meter^2 I
> doubt a car roof would have enough area to power the car.
> 
> Please check the numbers.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:29 AM
> To: Alvia Gaskill; Andy Revkin; Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...
> 
> 
> I am for putting up solar cells on a roof structure over the cars, as is
> already being done in some locations. I would think it would be a much more
> efficient way to capture the energy and it would shield the cars from the
> heat, so reduce their air-conditioning requirement. Now, indeed, that might
> not work in potential high wind (i.e., hurricane) regions, but I would think
> it would work fine in the West.
> 
> I'd also note that hot asphalt is also radiating an awful lot of energy
> away--if it really had high conductivity, the surface would stay cooler. So,
> the hot layer must be fairly thin and since one gets energy out of a
> temperature gradient, one really wants the heat conducting tubes near the
> surface, necessitating structural strength. Not to mention that darkening
> the surface has meant a lower planetary albedo, by a bit here and there. I
> would think it would be much, much more efficient to use the high quality
> solar energy directly rather than taking it up after absorption, unless what
> you need is a lot of hot water for some industrial process or for supplying
> some large facility needing hot water (sport facilities for their showers,
> etc.) or heat energy (e.g., when living in a cold environment, but then snow
> would cover the ground.
> 
> I would note Iceland as an interesting example of using heat energy in
> clever ways. The steam and boiling water from geothermal sources is first
> used to generate electricity, then piped 40 km or so to Reykjavik to heat
> homes and hot water, and then is piped under the roads to melt winter snow
> and ice as they really don't want to have to devote people to clearing roads
> as opposed to generating income for their country. The US Southwest has the
> reverse problem--it would benefit from a pipeline of cold, deep ocean water,
> if only the pumping cost were free.
> 
> Mike MacCracken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/09 9:07 AM, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The GeoBusters are hard at work this morning, what with cereal being 
> > used to stop hurricanes and my entry into the transformational energy 
> > debate, the White TARP (so-named to gather immediate grass roots or 
> > more likely astroturf support from the angry 
> > teapartybirtherdeathpanelprotesterswhoallseemtobewhitepeople). The 
> > White TARP is to be distinguished from that other TARP which cost a 
> > lot of money and the blue one I bought at Lowes recently. The White 
> > TARP stands for Thermal Ambient Reduction Program. OK, doesn't roll 
> > off the tongue like Toxic Asset Relief Program, but for now will do.
> > 
> > Here is my proposition. Whitening or lightening of parking lot 
> > pavement to reduce the urban heat island effect will be a generational 
> > project both domestically and internationally. Placing heat 
> > exchangers under the asphalt to recover IR for the purpose of heating 
> > water or some other use will be very expensive and also a generational
> length project.
> > 
> > It is also unclear which one of these would give us the biggest bang 
> > for the buck near term to use an old military cliche. Most of the 
> > parking lot space is not used for parking, but cars go in and out all 
> > day, so in effect it is used and any alteration has to take that into 
> > consideration. But not all parking 

[geo] Re: atmospheric and oceanic warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I would suggest that white surface would be good for permafrost and more stable 
on land than at sea (where these styrofoam sheets can sail allover world to the 
beaches and disrupt oxygen balances in the sea). They could all be piled in 
huge mountains like styrofoam "pack ice" rendering them as rather useless 
polystyene ice bergs on beaches.
 

The high arctic could contain lots of redundant ground that might be possible 
to cover by white surfacing. But wouldn't this approace work even better in 
deserts to reflect heat.

 

May be just few of the table-top mountains of Tassili mountains in Algeria 
could be covered by white plastic and see how this could effect, I would think 
this would not eat anyone's purse too much. Reflective folio film could also be 
fine. US$ 100k - 500k at maximum ?

 

During ice age many Saharan mountains had glaciers and snowtops anyway, so it 
would not be entirely new to see white surfaces re-occurring there.

 

Rgs, Albert

 
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:05:16 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Re: atmospheric and oceanic warming
> From: ds...@yahoo.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> >Consider that in the arctic, above 38 degrees north latitude, a
> reduction of more than 1,134 Megawatts per square mile per day can be
> achieved by replacing open seawater with a layer of snow-covered ice.
> 
> Megawatts per day?
> 
> On Aug 17, 9:45 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon"  wrote:
> > Peter:
> >
> > My dogs do not distinguish between spheres and circular plates; they will
> > chase anything that I throw; they are all 'balls'.  I characterized the idea
> > as silly but perhaps not as silly as might appear.
> >
> > Spray foam insulation in houses typically costs 90 cents pr square meter
> > including installation. I would guess the large volume cost for spraying
> > bursts of foam on the ocean by a ship to make round floating plates would be
> > about 10 cents per square meter or $100 K per square kilometer or $100
> > million for 1000 square kilometers on the ocean as say 1 square meter
> > roughly circular pieces made by timed spray bursts. They would float freely
> > and and remain on the surface and certainly reduce heat absorption even if
> > they are covered by bird droppings, but in fact that might stay reasonably
> > clean. They would be moved naturally out of the way of small and large boats
> > and even if they break into pieces they would be effective in keeping
> > sunlight from being absorbed by the water. Since they are insulating the
> > effective surface reflectivity would be 100% even if they got dirty.
> > Absorbed energy would be simply radiated away and not heat the water
> > underneath unless it splashes over the warmed surface.
> >
> > If it indeed would cost no more than $100 million it would be a bargain if
> > it made ice form by keeping the ocean water from heating.
> >
> > -gene
> >
> >   _  
> >
> > From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:30 PM
> > To: euggor...@comcast.net; terratw...@gmail.com;
> > geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: atmospheric and oceanic warming
> >
> > Why balls when flat plates would do better? e.g. all the polystyrene packing
> > material that gets junked, if it could be persuaded to stay white and if
> > seals and polar bears could be persuaded not to eat it.  Or, if you get
> > serious, what cost for 1000 sq Km of 2 cm thick polystyrene boards that
> > would get embedded in the winter ice and maybe stop it melting through in
> > the summer?
> > Peter
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Eugene I.   Gordon
> > To: terratw...@gmail.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:21 AM
> > Subject: [geo] Re: atmospheric and oceanic warming
> >
> > Thanks for your e-mail. There is a trivial typo; 97% should be 93%. If we
> > could reverse the arctic ice melt it would go a long way toward reducing the
> > rate of warming or even might achieve some cooling.
> >
> > In any case the earth is warming independent of manmade greenhouse gas and
> > will continue to warm until the temperature reaches 25 C as it has done many
> > times during the past 450 million years. That is an offline discussion thta
> > we can have but the bottom line is that geoengineering is needed in any case
> > with or without CO2 emissions and long term; reversing the artic ice melt
> > may not be enough.
> >
> > My choice for reversing the ice melt would be to distribute SO2 over the
> > Arctic only. It will slowly spread southward but the main cooling would be
> > over the Arctic and that should allow more ice to form.
> >
> > Here is a silly idea. Form lightweight sunlight reflecting balls that can
> > last for a few years and distribute them to float on the arctic ocean
> > waters. That would certainly increase the solar reflectance and possibly
> > allow ice to form trapping the balls in the ice. On open ocea

[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton

[Veli Albert Kallio]

nd of straw, with ice 
and of course there was the Discovery Project Earth episode about placing 
insulating foam sheets around melt lakes.
 
The Royal Society report is not going to endorse the immediate use of 
geoengineering.  Most of these "evaluation type studies" have either rejected 
research altogether (the DEFRA paper) or called for some kind of long drawn out 
research program (Koonin workshop) in which the authors are never able or 
willing to pull the trigger and say what should be done and when.

- Original Message - 
From: John Nissen 
To: Veli Albert Kallio 
Cc: John Davies ; gorm...@waitrose.com ; Geoengineering 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:43 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton


Hi Albert,

Thanks for calling last night.  As I said, this is an opportunity to get three 
vital points across to Bill Clinton for your meeting in September:
* the situation is far more serious and urgent than any scientist dares to 
admit [1], and warrants emergency action [2];
* the action must include geoengineering, because emissions reduction will 
be too slow to have an effect;
* geoengineering must be both SRM for cooling and carbon air capture for 
reducing acidification.

As regards the situation, there is both the risk of sea level rise from 
Greenland (with tsunami if there's a containment failure) and the risk of 
massive methane release (see John Davies' email yesterday) if the Arctic sea 
ice disappears in summer.   The temperature forcing (from positive feedback) is 
building up much faster than expected or forecast by IPCC models.  The ocean 
acidification, loss of coral reefs, reduction of rainforest and glacier decline 
(e.g in Himalayas) are also critical problems requiring action, starting now.  

The consensus of scientists is concentrating on emissions reduction, but it's 
clear, from the Climate Congress in March, that this alone is not going to be 
enough to reduce the risk of catastrophic warming [3] to an acceptable level.  
The risk could already be > 50:50, without geoengineering.  (Every year that we 
delay increases this risk - politicians should note.)

For saving the Arctic sea ice we need SRM - for which there are two main 
candidates: stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.  (A report 
from the Royal Society is due 1st September, so you can mention that.)  The 
risks of such geoengineering have to be balanced against the risk of not 
geoengineering - i.e. catastrophe for everybody!

If you can get Clinton to appreciate these central points, then you will have 
done a service for the world!  Try and explain slowly, simply and clearly, so 
he can really take in the enormity of what you are saying.  Be careful not to 
drown him with science.  And be careful not to distract him with thoughts which 
are not central to these three points about where we are now, why we have to 
change course and what we have to do most urgently.

It would be really helpful to have a draft of a paper that you will present to 
Clinton, summarising your arguments and including these points.

BTW, please email me details about this amazing bloke you've discovered, who 
has studied the possibility of containment failure and has considered 
geoengineering.  I couldn't find anything on Google to track him down.  Can you 
also remind me of the other people you have asked?

Cheers,

John

P.S.  I'll try to see the film!  I wish that being plunged into an ice age were 
a significant possibility, as this would save us from becoming toast.

[1]  Dares to admit, or is able to face.  People stop admitting the existence 
of danger when it gets too great - e.g. in final stages of cancer or when 
living just below a dam.  And what do you tell your children - that they could 
be doomed?

[2] Manhattan Project is good example of what can be done in emergency when 
facing an enemy.  We need to treat global warming as an enemy, regardless of 
whether it is anthropogenic or not, and so regardless of responsibility.

[3] Global warming likely to provoke global conflict and risk nuclear war, 
because of extreme effects on food scarcity, water shortages, and mass 
migration. 
---

Veli Albert Kallio wrote: 


If you have not seen the film A Day After Tomorrow, please hire or buy a copy 
of it.
 
The only thing you substitute in the film is that the sea level surge and 
subsequent massive cooling is a result of global warming causing the footing of 
the ice sheet getting damange due to melt water lubrication within and under 
the ice. Once ice slides and breaks into sea, a sudden climatic cooling results 
as the disintergrating ice sheet rapidly melts into warm sea, making it as cold 
as your coca-cola in summer.
 
I'll take the points and trying to accommodate people as much as I can as I 
have a good team here and in the States moving this thing and the Danish, will 
eventually turn around too if things go to the direction the First Nati

[geo] Alvin's Lake Agassiz Comet not Appealing Idea to the First Nations

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The First Nations do not recall any extraterrestrial projectile being involved 
in the collapse of Lake Agassiz, this lake bursted its banks due to overflow 
problems and the permafrost ice melting away within its moraine banks that had 
held back the water. The lake had - on several previous occasions - posed 
problematic floods prior to the catastrophic collapse to St. Lawrence. If so, a 
whole swarm of comets would have had to fall one after another to Lake Agassiz, 
a good sci-fi theory, which makes all the First Nations' people to laugh at 
this perceived "scientific wisdom" of the white American scientists.

 

We propose that the micro-diamond dust was formed in the on-shore and off-shore 
methane clathrate explosions as permafrost and sea beds melted, events like 
redirected rivers running over ice-and-permafrost covered gas fields, and the 
Arctic sea bed methane clathrate explosions and the immense heat and pressures 
in the fireballs creating the diamond dust. 

 

We are propose that the Lake Cheko in Tungusga is an on-shore methane explosion 
crater site and in June 1908 there were an ice dam that redirected the spring 
flood and river water to cross over a permaforst held gas field, the roof 
melting and giving in. The gas integrity failure occurred, the gas coming out 
and the huge river falling in and the methane laden water accummulated 
nucleating and releasing methane and carbon dioxide.

 

We have also looked possibility to carry out expedition to Lake Cheko to 
measure whether its conical deep water basin is methane and carbon dioxide 
laden and seeded by organic methane or volcanic methane (there are some old 
volcanism also in the area). Lake Kiwu is another saturated lake laden with 
enormous amount of dissolved methane and carbon dioxide that could nucleate 
like soda water.  

 

Michel Halbwachs is an expert in mitigating this type risk and I have already 
suggested him to come to the Arctic region to have a look at deep water pockets 
as methane clathrates disintgrate and the released their methane which is also 
partially converted by microbes to carbon dioxide, the sudden nucleation of 
this mixture causing a possibility of large scale fatal suffocation and 
explosions as seen on the 22,000 craters dotting the sea beds of Siberia, some 
of the gas pockets being on land and held together only by layers of ice and 
permafrost mud that easily ruptures if flood occurs, or the continued loss of 
permafrost weakens the ceiling of the cavities. 

 

The west Siberian gas fields are better mapped and well depleted by extractive 
industries whereas on the eastern Russia, the lay out and distribution of 
methane pockets are still quite unknown as they are economically difficult to 
develop and have not attracted the interest of the extractive industries. At 
Campaing agaist Climate Change meeting at London School of Economics, Russian 
government had suggested that gas field containment integrity failures could 
soon lead to gas distribution problems to Europe as the gas leaks directly out 
to the birds rather than runs into gas pipes if the ceilings of some of their 
fields weaken further by the permafrost thinning.

 

When Caspian Sea heading water was redirected in 1950's to fill reservoir, 
massive 500 meter tall methane flarings started to occur, all these stuff may 
create microdiamons by heat and the pressures and we do not need a chain of 
comets to fall Lake Agassiz.

John Nissen:

P.S.  I was interested in Alvia's point about lake Agassiz dam being bust by 
meteors (or comet), and found this reference:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/science/02impact.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=nanodiamonds&st=cse
 








- Original Message - 
From: Alvia Gaskill 
 
Various theories have been advanced for the collapse of the ice dam, but the 
most likely one now seems to be a comet strike in eastern Canada that also 
caused massive wildfires, killing off most of the large mammals in N. America 
along with the Clovis people of New Mexico.  Soot and quartz particles found at 
the proposed impact site seem to confirm an extraterrestrial source of the 
event.  There is no evidence that Greenland was affected by the comet strike.  
The explanation for the much shorter cooling period of around 8000 years ago 
also seems to be related to a discharge from Lake Agassiz, although that one is 
also still debated.
 
_
Celebrate a decade of Messenger with free winks, emoticons, display pics, and 
more.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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/geoengine

[geo] RE: [clim] The International Maritime Organisa tion’s plans to warm the world

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I'll put this picture to Clinton to underline the cloud seeding technologies, 
may be this raises their attention to the prospects and benefits. Sometimes an 
eye-catching picture speaks more than 1,000 words and is easy to fit into the 
First Nations agenda. Kr, Albert
 


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:34:39 -0700
Subject: [clim] The International Maritime Organisation’s plans to warm the 
world
From: kcalde...@stanford.edu
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com

A nice piece by Oliver Morton:  

http://heliophage.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/the-international-maritime-organisations-plans-to-warm-the-world/

(PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ATTACHED PDF'S ARE LOW RES VERSIONS WITH LINKS TO HIGH 
RES VERSIONS ON PUBLISHER'S WEB SITE.)


The International Maritime Organisation’s plans to warm the world 
August 20, 2009, 12:33 pm 
Filed under: Geoengineering, Interventions in the carbon/climate crisis 




Ship tracks in the Bay of Biscay
Yesterday Dan Lack of NOAA gave a talk to the NCAR media fellows about his work 
on pollution from shipping, and told us something I found pretty 
flabbergasting. Last year the International Maritime Organisation, as part of a 
number of measures aimed at air pollution, decided to do something about the 
sulphur emissions from shipping by reducing the amount of sulphur dioxide 
permissible from 4.5% today to 0.5% in 2020. This would have great benefits; 
sulphate pollution, and associated particulate matter, cause significant health 
problems. According to a new paper in Environmental Science and Technology by 
Winebrake et al, if in 2012 the world’s shipping complied with this 
requirement, the associated sulphate pollution would cause 46,000 premature 
deaths; if that shipping used today’s higher sulphur fuels the death toll would 
be 87,000.

However, sulphur emissions from shipping have another effect: the sulphate 
aerosols that form from the gas make the oceans cooler by increasing the cloud 
cover above them, as the image at the top of this post shows. The effect is 
large enough that shipping cools the planet through sulphate aerosols much more 
than it warms the planet through greenhouse gas emissions. In a companion paper 
in Environmental Science and Technology, this time with modeller Axel Lauer as 
first author, the same team looks at this effect. Using the same 2012 scenarios 
they used for the health figures the researchers find that the cooling effect 
using fuel like today’s, expressed in terms of radiative forcing, is about 0.57 
watts per square metre. The cooling effect if everyone uses the new low sulphur 
fuels is 0.27 W/m². That means a difference of 0.3 W/m² — which is to say that 
that’s the amount of warming that switching to low-sulphur fuels would produce.



What does a radiative forcing of 0.3 W/m² mean? Here’s a chart from the IPCC 
showing the radiative forcings associated with all human climate-changing 
activities as of today. The total (with biggish error bars) is 1.6 W/m², which 
shows straight off that 0.3 is quite a lot. It is, for example, twice the 
amount of forcing as is due to N2O, 60% of the forcing due to methane, and the 
same as the amount due to halocarbons (HFCs). A huge amount of money is 
currently being spent on the HFC problem.

Put another way (and I calculated these numbers myself, so please check and 
correct if you have the necessary skills) 0.3 W/m² is the radiative forcing you 
would expect if you dumped 47.5 billion tonnes of carbon (in the form of carbon 
dioxide) into the atmosphere, raising the concentration of CO2 from today’s 387 
parts per million to 409 parts per million. That’s well over a decade’s worth 
of carbon emissions and an enormous amount of warming for the IMO to have 
committed the world to with no-one, as far as I can see, paying very much 
attention. (The most obvious environmental response to the IMO changes, from 
the Clean Air Task Force, was to applaud the health effects of the cuts in 
sulphur while deploring the lack of action on greenhouse gases and not 
mentioning the cooling issues at all. If you accept Dan Lack’s figure of just 
0.06 W/m² for the total warming from shipping, that seems an odd omission.)

Now there are obviously complexities and caveats. This is just one modelling 
study — but  its figures for the amount of cooling due to sulphur fit with 
those quoted by of others, such as Dan Lack. Taken at face value it would imply 
both that the total cooling effect of sulphur on clouds was probably greater 
than the IPCC best guess, and that sulphate from shipping was responsible for a 
disproportionate amount of it. But the IPCC’s guess has big error bars, and you 
would indeed expect sulphate from ships to be peculiarly effective — it gets 
sprayed into places where the clouds are very susceptible to such things. (This 
is the effect that John Latham’s geoengineering scheme based on cloud 
brightening seeks to emulate).  The papers compare effects for 2012 not 2

[geo] Lake Agassiz Comet is not Appealing Idea to the First Nations

[Veli Albert Kallio]

lain the extinction of mammoths, saber-tooth tigers and maybe 
even the first human inhabitants of the Americas, the scientists report in 
Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

The hypothesis has been regarded skeptically, but its advocates now report 
perhaps more convincing residue of impact: a thin layer of microscopic diamonds 
found in rocks across America and in Europe. 

“We’re up over 30 sites, as far west as offshore California, as far east as 
Germany,” said Allen West, a retired geology consultant who is one of the 
scientists working on the research. 

The meteors would have been smaller than the six-mile-wide meteor that struck 
the Yucatán peninsula 65 million years ago and led to the mass extinctions of 
the dinosaurs. The killing effects of the hypothesized bombardment 12,900 years 
ago would have been more subtle.

Climatologists believe that the direct cause of the 1,300-year cold spell, 
known as the Younger Dryas, was a sudden rush of fresh water from a giant lake 
in central Canada to the North Atlantic. 

Usually a surface current of warm water flows northward in the Atlantic toward 
Greenland and Europe, then cools and sinks, returning south in the deep ocean. 
But the fresh water, which is less dense, blocked the sinking of the cold, 
salty water in the North Atlantic, disrupting the currents.

That sudden change in plumbing has long been known, but what caused it has 
never been satisfactorily explained.

The authors of the paper in Science say it was meteors.

At each site the scientists looked at, the diamond layer in the rocks 
correlates to the date of the hypothesized impact. Within the layer, the 
scientists report finding a multitude of diamond particles, all encased within 
carbon spheres. “We’ve yet to find a single diamond above it,” Dr. West said. 
“We’ve yet to find a single diamond below it.” 

Perhaps more telling, the scientists reported last month at a meeting of the 
American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, the carbon atoms inside some of 
the diamonds are lined up in a hexagonal crystal pattern instead of the usual 
cubic structure. The hexagonal diamonds, formed by extraordinary heat and 
pressure, have been found only at impact craters and within meteorites and 
cannot be formed in forest fires or volcanic eruptions, Dr. West said.

Last year the scientists presented other evidence of an impact, including 
elevated levels of the element iridium.

At least some skeptics are not convinced. “The whole thing still does not make 
sense, and there are lots of contradictions,” said Christian Koeberl, a 
professor of geological sciences at the University of Vienna in Austria.

His chief reservation is that there is no crater. “A body of this size does not 
just blow up without a trace in the atmosphere,” Dr. Koeberl said. “Physics 
won’t have it.”

Proponents have suggested that the meteor hit an ice sheet a couple of miles 
thick or that there was a series of smaller objects that exploded in the air. 
But Dr. Koeberl said something hitting an ice sheet would still generate a hole 
in the ground underneath, and he questioned whether smaller impacts or air 
explosions would produce the shock waves needed to make diamonds.

An impact should also have left remnants of melted rocks and shocked minerals, 
Dr. Koeberl said.

But if true, the hypothesis could explain the disappearance of ice age mammals 
like mammoths and argue against the alternative idea that the animals were 
hunted to extinction by humans.

It might also help explain the disappearance of the Clovis people, a culture 
named after a distinctive arrow point discovered in a mammoth skeleton in 
Clovis, N.M., who are believed to have arrived in the Americas more than 13,000 
years ago.

Douglas J. Kennett, a University of Oregon archaeologist who is the lead author 
of the Science paper, said no Clovis points or bones of the extinct animals had 
been found above the diamond layer. “It seems those two things synchronously 
end,” he said.

Dr. Kennett said there also appeared to be a gap of several centuries between 
the disappearance of the Clovis and the resettlement by other people.

Gary Huss, a scientist at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, who was one of the 
early reviewers of the paper in Science, said though the scientists had not 
proved their case, they had offered enough evidence that the idea warranted a 
closer look by others.

“They have a hypothesis that explains several things that hard to explain any 
other way,” Dr. Huss said. “Diamonds are less convincing by themselves, but 
they strengthen their case considerably.”



- Original Message - 
From: Veli Albert Kallio 
To: John Nissen ; euggor...@comcast.net 
Cc: pre...@attglobal.net ; agask...@nc.rr.com ; John Davies ; 
gorm...@waitrose.com ; Geoengineering FIPC 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:36 AM
Subject: Alvin's Lake Agassiz Comet not Appealing Idea to the First Nations

The First Nations do not recall any extraterrestria

[geo] FW: One phone call = 1,000 emails

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

I agree this assesment by one sky: When lobbying for geoengineering, e-mails 
are just but  worthless and instant response and reaction is guaranteed by a 
call rather than email.

 

If you have two choices, always go by default for telephone call. (Even better 
for face-to-face meetings, than leave it to the convenience of just blasting 
e-mails out.)

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 


Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:05:08 -0400
From: i...@1sky.org
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: One phone call = 1,000 emails












Hi Albert Kallio, 






 












A strong clean energy bill starts now.  
Call toll-free today!Have your senators heard from you on the clean energy 
bill? Because they've definitely heard from every big polluter under the sun.

The opposition is spending a lot of time and money trying to kill this bill -- 
and the mainstream media thinks they're winning! 

We know from talking with Senate offices that they haven't heard enough from 
people like you who support a strong clean energy bill. Your senators need to 
hear your voice directly about why we need a strong clean energy bill now.

Now make a toll-free call for a clean energy future: www.1sky.org/call.  
 
The Senate is back at work and the first drafts of a Senate climate bill will 
be ready in the next few weeks. We need to keep sending a strong message with 
10,000 calls into Senate offices in the next two weeks.  
 
Big polluters will be flooding the Senate with calls, so we need to be louder 
and drown them out. The next few months will be among the most critical ever 
for our planet. Let's start them off right: make a quick call to your senators 
now with our easy-to-use online tool: www.1sky.org/call.
 
After your call, ask your friends, family, and neighbors to call as well. We 
need 10,000 voices pushing for a strong clean energy bill -- and it starts with 
your calls today.

Thanks again for all your hard work to pass a strong bill!
 
Liz Butler 
Deputy Campaign Director, 1Sky












Get Local! Become a Climate Precinct Captain

How do I donate? Fund our efforts and make bold climate action a reality

Join our network:

Sign Up: If you received this email as a forward, sign up to receive your own 
email updates

How do I stop receiving emails? Click here to unsubscribe

_
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I think that Alan's position is right in a stable Holocene setting but in the 
cycles of the ice age when large volcanic discharges occurred this might not 
have been the case.


A good picture of the frequency and fluctuation in geothermal output is from 
the Pacific Ocean where its human occupancy was guided by the rise of constant 
steam columns.

 

In order to navigate through the ocean the mushroom clouds of the newly forming 
islands must have had a far more frequent event at times in the past than it is 
today.

 

No one in their right mind today would try to navigate the pacific on basis of 
rising columns of steam as most of these are just large storm clouds in a 
horison, a bit like seeing water in Sahara. In order to successfully colonise, 
the ratio of real steam columns to normal anvil clouds had to be very high as 
from a very long distance all they look a pretty much similar.

 

Of course, many polynesians lost their lives chasing "steam colums" which 
turned out to be just a storm cloud in a horison, but even for allowing for 
this, the Holocene stability cannot be extrapolated to the large fluctuations 
in earth's geothermal output.

 

Therefore, the First Nations' complaint on ice sheet mass balance and 
geothermal fluctuations remain firmly on our agenda during the various meetings 
in the UN and will obviously have all the support from the Polynesian people 
who disagree European ideas.

(And for good reasons.)

 

We cannot today navigate anywhere in the Pacific between islands by using smoke 
stacks to hop from island group to another. At current rate of geothermal heat 
and output and lack of columns no Polynesian would never have discovered dry 
land under their feet. They would all have been lost at sea just chasing storm 
clouds in the far horizons - and become soon extinct like the Neanderthals. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 

 
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:29:26 -0400
> From: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> CC: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
> w.mcgu...@ucl.ac.uk; s...@earth.ox.ac.uk
> Subject: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> If you want to learn about volcanic eruptions and climate, I recommend 
> my review article:
> 
> Robock, Alan, 2000: Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev. Geophys., 38, 
> 191-219.
> 
> http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROG2000.pdf
> 
> http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROGcorrection2007RG000232.pdf
> 
> 
> Ward is wrong. Eruptions do not cause warming, except as Alvia 
> explained through outgassing of CO2 over geologic time scales.
> 
> Volcanic dust falls out in weeks and then if it fell on ice or snow 
> would be quickly covered by clean snow, so would not warm the surface. 
> Sulfate aerosols fall as acid rain or snow and again, would not warm.
> 
> Wind patterns from tropical eruptions do produce a positive mode of the 
> Arctic Oscillation with warming of continents in winter, but that is a 
> regional pattern on the backdrop of global cooling.
> 
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Professor II
> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, John Nissen wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > The passage you are referring to is this:
> >
> > "But too many eruptions, too close together, may have the opposite effect 
> > and quicken global warming, said U.S. vulcanologist Peter Ward."
> >
> >
> > The same gentleman has views that stratospheric aerosols will have a
> > heating effect, and various other odd-ball ideas. This view of the
> > effect of many eruptions was not challenged at the meeting, but I think
> > it was not challenged because people were not taking him too seriously.
> > (Bill can correct me on this.) Of course there is some truth in his
> > assertion, in that eruptions produce water vapour and CO2 which have a
> > long-term warming effect. But this is true for a single eruption as
> > well as multiple eruptions.
> >
> > There is another short term effect to consider. The volcanic dust may
> > spread to polar regions and reduce snow and ice albedo. For a
> > Pinatubo-like eruption, I would expect that effect to last at most a
> > couple of years, similar to the effect of the stratospheric aerosols
> > from the eruption. So with Pinatubo, at any rate, the cooling effect of
> > the aerosols dominated over other effects for two years. But I'm not a
> > vulcanologist. (I'm copying this email to Seb Watt, who is one, and who
> > was at the meeting.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Lockley wrote:
> >> This raises interesting points about the limits of SRM geoengineering.
> >> Perhaps the experts on the l

[geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

During the second day of the Hazards Colloquium, during the evening dinner 
venue , I had opportunity to discuss with Peter L. Ward about the 
much-talked-about geoengineering idea of using stratospheric sulphur dioxide to 
bring down the athmospheric temperatures.  

 

According to Peter the cooling effect of sulphur dioxide in isolation from 
water in high stratosphere does not work very well because of the stratospheric 
dry surroundings. Instead of sulphur dioxide, it would have to be sulphuric 
acid that is shipped up into high athomosphere. 

 

The volume of water will have to be 3 times the amount of sulphur dioxide, thus 
better results would come from using sulphuric acid readily. 

 

Peter also reminded that the sulphuric acid from Mt. Pinatubo destroyed about 
5% of the stratospheric ozone.  It is, therefore, questionnable for its large 
side effects, especially the attack of sulphur on ozone.  

 

To reduce the destruction of ozone layer, may be the spreading of sulphuric 
acid should take place just below it to keep it just beneath the main ozone 
belt but still a slightly higher than the clouds to prevent it flushed down too 
soon. Any comments and opinon on this "opportunity window" just beneath the 
ozone layer with a reduced impact to the ozone layer whilst still cooling the 
skies somewhat long?

 

Hope, I have cited Peter's dinner time comments above accurately - I didn't 
drink too much wine, should be more or less put down correctly.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert (the occasional heretic)

 


> > by Bill McGuire, at UCL, London.

 


 
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:02:08 +0100
> Subject: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
> From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; w.mcgu...@ucl.ac.uk
> 
> 
> This raises interesting points about the limits of SRM geoengineering.
> Perhaps the experts on the list could explain why frequent volcanic
> eruptions cause a warming effect? Can we be sure that H2S
> geoengineering techniques we propose cannot result in this 'blowback'?
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/9/17 John Nissen :
> >
> > This is a press report on the first day of the Hazards Colloquium, organised
> > by Bill McGuire, at UCL, London.
> >
> > http://planetark.org/wen/54708
> >
> > Global Warming May Bring Tsunami And Quakes: Scientists
> >
> > Date: 17-Sep-09
> > Country: UK
> > Author: Richard Meares
> >
> > LONDON - Quakes, volcanic eruptions, giant landslides and tsunamis may
> > become more frequent as global warming changes the earth's crust, scientists
> > said on Wednesday.
> >
> > Climate-linked geological changes may also trigger "methane burps," the
> > release of a potent greenhouse gas, currently stored in solid form under
> > melting permafrost and the seabed, in quantities greater than all the carbon
> > dioxide (CO2) in our air today.
> >
> > "Climate change doesn't just affect the atmosphere and the oceans but the
> > earth's crust as well. The whole earth is an interactive system," Professor
> > Bill McGuire of University College London told Reuters, at the first major
> > conference of scientists researching the changing climate's effects on
> > geological hazards.
> >
> > "In the political community people are almost completely unaware of any
> > geological aspects to climate change."
> >
> > The vulcanologists, seismologists, glaciologists, climatologists and
> > landslide experts at the meeting have looked to the past to try to predict
> > future changes, particularly to climate upheaval at the end of the last ice
> > age, some 12,000 years ago.
> >
> > "When the ice is lost, the earth's crust bounces back up again and that
> > triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause
> > tsunamis," said McGuire, who organized the three-day conference.
> >
> > David Pyle of Oxford University said small changes in the mass of the
> > earth's surface seems to affect volcanic activity in general, not just in
> > places where ice receded after a cold spell. Weather patterns also seem to
> > affect volcanic activity - not just the other way round, he told the
> > conference.
> >
> > LONDON'S ASIAN SUNSET
> >
> > Behind him was a slide of a dazzlingly bright orange painting, "London
> > sunset after Krakatau, 1883" - referring to a huge Asian volcanic eruption
> > whose effects were seen and felt around the world.
> >
> > Volcanoes can spew vast amounts of ash, sulphur, carbon dioxide and water
> > into the upper atmosphere, reflecting sunlight and sometimes cooling the
> > earth for a couple of years. But too many eruptions, too close together, may
> > have the opposite effect and quicken global warming, said U.S. vulcanologist
> > Peter Ward.
> >
> > "Prior to man, the most abrupt climate change was initiated by volcanoes,
> > but now man has taken over. Understanding why and how volcanoes did it will
> > help man figure out what to do," he said.
> >
> > Speakers were careful to point

[geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming

[Veli Albert Kallio]

latively safe and made against 
the opportunity cost of staying put with the congestion in old habitats. 

 

I do not think at all that the Pacific island people need to be ushered to go 
to sea but the journeys still had to be done with relative safety and 
occasional pleasure and adventure component in it to explain it all. There is 
no good argument to dismiss that the Holocene stability is the norm we can 
always rely safely upon to extrapolate to past or future, therefore the 
geothermal heat and percipitation effects as presented in the geohazards 
collogium, needs to be kept in mind and hopefully more research accrues also on 
this aspect of any melee prospect ahead. 

 

Kr, Albert
 
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:26:06 +0100
> From: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
> CC: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; 
> andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
> w.mcgu...@ucl.ac.uk; s...@earth.ox.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
> 
> Dear Albert
> 
> Swell from a distant source comes with long wave crests, many times the 
> wave length. But if swell passes an island the fronts are refracted 
> around it and the two sets of wave fronts cross each other on the 
> down-wave side. This crossing can be observed in any lagoon with two 
> entrances. To find an island you should sail along the bisector of the 
> refracted fronts, trying to keep their amplitudes the same. If you 
> understand the roll response of your boat you can do it at night.
> 
> I am sure that Polynesians will have used several navigation techniques 
> and so we cannot use their survival to prove one of them.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> School of Engineering and Electronics
> University of Edinburgh
> Mayfield Road
> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> Scotland
> tel +44 131 650 5704
> fax +44 131 650 5702
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 
> 
> 
> 
> Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
> > I think that Alan's position is right in a stable Holocene setting but 
> > in the cycles of the ice age when large volcanic discharges occurred 
> > this might not have been the case.
> >
> > A good picture of the frequency and fluctuation in geothermal output 
> > is from the Pacific Ocean where its human occupancy was guided by the 
> > rise of constant steam columns.
> > 
> > In order to navigate through the ocean the mushroom clouds of the 
> > newly forming islands must have had a far more frequent event at times 
> > in the past than it is today.
> > 
> > No one in their right mind today would try to navigate the pacific on 
> > basis of rising columns of steam as most of these are just large storm 
> > clouds in a horison, a bit like seeing water in Sahara. In order to 
> > successfully colonise, the ratio of real steam columns to normal anvil 
> > clouds had to be very high as from a very long distance all they look 
> > a pretty much similar.
> > 
> > Of course, many polynesians lost their lives chasing "steam colums" 
> > which turned out to be just a storm cloud in a horison, but even for 
> > allowing for this, the Holocene stability cannot be extrapolated to 
> > the large fluctuations in earth's geothermal output.
> > 
> > Therefore, the First Nations' complaint on ice sheet mass balance and 
> > geothermal fluctuations remain firmly on our agenda during the various 
> > meetings in the UN and will obviously have all the support from the 
> > Polynesian people who disagree European ideas.
> > (And for good reasons.)
> > 
> > We cannot today navigate anywhere in the Pacific between islands by 
> > using smoke stacks to hop from island group to another. At current 
> > rate of geothermal heat and output and lack of columns no Polynesian 
> > would never have discovered dry land under their feet. They would all 
> > have been lost at sea just chasing storm clouds in the far horizons - 
> > and become soon extinct like the Neanderthals. 
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Albert
> > 
> > 
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:29:26 -0400
> > > From: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> > > To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> > > CC: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
> > w.mcgu...@ucl.ac.uk; s...@earth.ox.ac.uk
> > > Subject: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > If you want to learn about volcanic eruptions and climate, I recommend
> > > my review article:
> >

[geo] Merciless Figures for the Arctic Sea Ice

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All,

 

Please find attached the news release in full from the UK Meteorological 
Office. 

 

The mean Arctic annual temperature increase could be as high as +15.2C

while the North Pole may see the mean temperature to rise as much as +20C.

 

This suggests styrofoam and polystyrene ice substitution might be necessary.

Please draw your attention to the attached diagram where rises are > +16C.

 

In my view, sulphur oxide and carbon tetrasilicate do not dent the loss of sea 
ice.

Please give feedback on the Meteorological Office modeling what shall we do?

 

We better not to despair, but get our hands on and be prepared to put up fight.

I am not gonna give up for the sinking ship if the Met Office figures are 
correct.

 

I have reproduced the text exhaustively and with the original web link to Met 
Office.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 

Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign

of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans

 

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html

Four degrees and beyond
28 September 2009

 

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked, it is likely that 
global warming will exceed four degrees by the end of the century, research by 
Met Office scientists has revealed.

 

Our scientists, working on behalf of Department of Energy and Climate Change 
(DECC), have found that if current high emissions continue there could be major 
implications for the world — with higher temperature rises than previously 
thought.

 

Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, 
presented the new findings at a special conference this month. 4 degrees and 
beyond at Oxford University, attended by 130 international scientists and 
policy specialists, is the first to consider the global consequences of climate 
change beyond 2 °C.

 

Dr Betts said: “Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates 
into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in 
rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major 
climate changes within our own lifetimes.”


High-end temperature change

Fig 1. Comparison of surface temperature projections from the high-end 
emissions scenario, without carbon cycle feedbacks. Temperature increases 
between 1961-1990 and 2090-2099, averaged over all high-end members.

 

In some areas warming could be significantly higher (10 degrees or more).

 


The Arctic could warm by up to 15.2 °C for a high-emissions scenario, enhanced 
by melting of snow and ice causing more of the Sun’s radiation to be absorbed.
For Africa, the western and southern regions are expected to experience both 
large warming (up to 10 °C) and drying.
Some land areas could warm by seven degrees or more.
Rainfall could decrease by 20% or more in some areas, although there is a 
spread in the magnitude of drying. All computer models indicate reductions in 
rainfall over western and southern Africa, Central America, the Mediterranean 
and parts of coastal Australia.
In other areas, such as India, rainfall could increase by 20% or more. Higher 
rainfall increases the risk of river flooding.
 

Dr Betts added: “Together these impacts will have very large consequences for 
food security, water availability and health. However, it is possible to avoid 
these dangerous levels of temperature rise by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. 
If global emissions peak within the next decade and then decrease rapidly it 
may be possible to avoid at least half of the four degrees of warming.”

 

A DECC spokesman said: “This report illustrates why it is imperative for the 
world to reach an ambitious climate deal at Copenhagen which keeps the global 
temperature increase to below two degrees.”









 




 

 
  
_
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Block Prevent Southward Ice Movement

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All,

 

Please find enclosed a brief satellite animation on the Robeson Channel from 
this summer which suggest that use of bridge-style suspension cabling could 
hold ice in place and prevent it moving into the warm waters further along the 
channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. The link attached below which 
shows the summertime ice movements.

 

The shortest suspension cables would be Ellesmere - Hans Island - Greenland 
each stretch about 10 kilometres in length. (The concept is to create ice 
congestion behind barrier that is self-locking jam of pack ice behind cable 
that remains longer in the cold waters.)

 

On the negative side, the ice amount south of any successful cable barriers 
will decrease. The impact of cables for boats, whales and perhaps other large 
fish and wild life would also have to be addressed. After melting, the barrier 
cable is lowered to the seafloor when ice is on northward move or there is a 
lack of ice, the barrier is raised up to surface whenever there is ice flow 
moving southward. It is also raised up to surface for the winter freeze.

 

In Nunavut, the suspension cabling could help to keep the North West Passage 
clear of thick sea ice floes that damage ships while preserving ice on the 
north side of the channel. This might help justify such a system at least in 
Nunavut. The profile of the Swalbard Islands and Franz Joseph Land could also 
be enlarged by blocking the straights by cables. This would increase the ice 
congestion behind these archipelagoes and decrease some sea ice escape from the 
high Arctic Basin.

 

I have not considered blocking of the Fram Staight due to its width, but 
materially the largest amount of sea ice loss through escape will occur there. 
The barriers can slow down ice movement and loss to the south due to decreases 
in ice movements but if ice melts away due to warm weather behind barrier, 
these measures become all but useless. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert
 

From: janne.bjorkl...@sll.fi
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Greenpeace dokumentoi pohjoisen pallonpuoliskon jäätiköiden sulamista
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:18:14 +0300


http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/fi/mediakeskus/lehdistotiedotteet/greenpeace-dokumentoi-pohjoise

  
_

MSN straight to your mobile - news, entertainment, videos and more.

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] FW: Do you know about this? >> Virgin Geoengineering Prize - New Rules

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,
 
Just remind you of this Prize, if not recalling it already.

It seems they have changed few of the rules recently.
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert
 


From: jim.mcne...@ice-warrior.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Do you know about this?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:39:11 +0100








http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/
 
Jim
p.s. details of my expedition next year - attached.

 
Jim McNeill
Founder
+44(0)1344 883861
+44(0)777 565 1471
 
Ice Warrior Expeditions Ltd.
Rosewood Cottage
Woodside Road
Woodside
Berkshire
SL4 2DP UK
+44(0)1344 883861
www.ice-warrior.com 
 
© Ice Warrior Expeditions Limited. All rights reserved. 
Registered number: 06177730
 


Beyond Hotmail - see what else you can do with Windows Live. Find out more. 
  
_

MSN straight to your mobile - news, entertainment, videos and more.

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Prevent ice Escape?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear All,


The Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Prevent ice Escape?


Please find enclosed a brief satellite animation on the Robeson Channel from 
this summer which suggest that use of bridge-style suspension cabling could 
hold ice in place and prevent it moving into the warm waters further along the 
channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. The link attached below which 
shows the summertime ice movements.


http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/fi/mediakeskus/lehdistotiedotteet/greenpeace-dokumentoi-pohjoise


The shortest suspension cables would be Ellesmere - Hans Island - Greenland two 
stretches 8 and 12 kilometres wide. (The concept is to create ice congestion 
behind barrier that forms a self-locking jam of pack ice behind cable so that 
ice survives longer in the cold waters that if allowed to float to the south.)

On the negative side, the ice amount south of any successful cable barrier will 
decrease. 

 

The impact of cables for boats, whales and other wild life would have to be 
addressed. After melting, the barrier cable is lowered to the seafloor, or, 
when the sea ice is on northward reverse movement. The cable barrier is raised 
up to surface whenever there is ice flow moving southward. It is also raised up 
to surface in autumn for the winter freeze.

In Nunavut, the suspension cabling could help to keep the North West Passage 
clear of thick sea ice floes that damage ships while preserving ice on the 
north side of the channel. 

 

The benefit for the shipping may help to justify a cable system in Nunavut 
arhcipelago. 

 

Cables could enlarge the profiles of the Swalbard Islands and Franz Joseph Land 
by blocking the straights between islands by cables. This would increase the 
ice congestion behind these archipelagoes and decrease the sea ice escape from 
the high Arctic Basin.

I have not considered blocking of the Fram Staight due to its width, but 
materially the largest amount of sea ice loss through escape occurs there. The 
barriers to sea ice movement can slow down ice movement and reduce ice loss to 
the south due to decreases in ice movements - but if ice melts away due to warm 
weather behind the barrier, the cable measures become all but useless for the 
part of year when there is sheer lack of ice.

Kind regards,

Albert

From: janne.bjorkl...@sll.fi
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Greenpeace dokumentoi pohjoisen pallonpuoliskon jäätiköiden sulamista
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:18:14 +0300

http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/fi/mediakeskus/lehdistotiedotteet/greenpeace-dokumentoi-pohjoise
  
_
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Block Prevent Southward Ice Movement

[Veli Albert Kallio]

ome areas warming could be significantly higher (10 degrees or more).

 


The Arctic could warm by up to 15.2 °C for a high-emissions scenario, enhanced 
by melting of snow and ice causing more of the Sun’s radiation to be absorbed.
 

These temperatures +16-20C may well warrant the answer to the well intentioned 
question by a member of public during "Arctic - Mirror of Life" symposium in 
Greenland querying when the current rate of global warming might be sufficient 
enough for people to start planting palm trees in their gardens (there is a 
nostalgia of ancient fossilised palm trees found in the high Arctic, and in few 
places people have made a mock-up plastic palm trees as their garden decor in 
Alaska).


Kind regards,

 

Albert Kallio

 


Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:42:21 +0100
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: mmacc...@comcast.net
CC: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
risto.isom...@luukku.com; esko.pet...@atmosmare.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Block 
Prevent Southward Ice Movement


Hi all,

Some time ago, Albert and I discussed cables and barriers at length - and at a 
length to cross straits.  You really want a valve, that will let ice flow in 
one direction (North) but not the other (South).  It's quite difficult to do 
that with a cable.

My thoughts are that a floating barrier might be best.  It can be rounded and 
point into the ice, so that ice pressure becomes a compression of the barrier.  
Basically what you want is to create an ice jam of ice flows (or icebergs) on 
one side of the barrier which would then take most of the pressure as the ice 
builds up.  The barrier could be made across a fjord or across straits.

The barrier would be made of sections, so it could come apart to let ice flow 
in the opposite direction (possibly in two sections, like canal lock gates).  
The barrier could possibly be made out of pykrete [1], which has excellent 
compressional strength (over twice as strong as normal ice) and good tensile 
strength as well (much better than concrete) to give it rigidity, while having 
a density less than water so it floats (just).

One major problem with such a barrier (across straits) could be when the wind 
is from the North, while the sea current is from the South, keeping the barrier 
open.

BTW, I've seen recent research suggesting that there is a stable weather 
condition which can sit over the North Pole, with winds which tend to disperse 
the ice.  This condition is considered to have been instrumental in the 
unprecedented sea ice retreat in 2007.  Perhaps one of you can find a 
reference, please.

Cheers from Chiswick,

John

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete



Mike MacCracken wrote: 
What about doing this across Jakobshaven and other fjords that allow ice 
streams to flow rapidly?

Mike


On 10/1/09 9:25 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio"  wrote:


Dear All,

Please find enclosed a brief satellite animation on the Robeson Channel from 
this summer which suggest that use of bridge-style suspension cabling could 
hold ice in place and prevent it moving into the warm waters further along the 
channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. The link attached below which 
shows the summertime ice movements.
 
The shortest suspension cables would be Ellesmere - Hans Island - Greenland 
each stretch about 10 kilometres in length. (The concept is to create ice 
congestion behind barrier that is self-locking jam of pack ice behind cable 
that remains longer in the cold waters.)
 
On the negative side, the ice amount south of any successful cable barriers 
will decrease. The impact of cables for boats, whales and perhaps other large 
fish and wild life would also have to be addressed. After melting, the barrier 
cable is lowered to the seafloor when ice is on northward move or there is a 
lack of ice, the barrier is raised up to surface whenever there is ice flow 
moving southward. It is also raised up to surface for the winter freeze.
 
In Nunavut, the suspension cabling could help to keep the North West Passage 
clear of thick sea ice floes that damage ships while preserving ice on the 
north side of the channel. This might help justify such a system at least in 
Nunavut. The profile of the Swalbard Islands and Franz Joseph Land could also 
be enlarged by blocking the straights by cables. This would increase the ice 
congestion behind these archipelagoes and decrease some sea ice escape from the 
high Arctic Basin.
 
I have not considered blocking of the Fram Staight due to its width, but 
materially the largest amount of sea ice loss through escape will occur there. 
The barriers can slow down ice movement and loss to the south due to decreases 
in ice movements but if ice melts away due to warm weather behind barrier, 
these measures become all but useless. 
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert

From: janne.bjorkl...@sll.fi
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: Greenpeace dokumentoi

[geo] Re: Robeson Channel -- lessons for all on ice dynamics (and a good fist-fight at the UN for the future!)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

to the UN, the rapid erosion forces 
would have materialised when the "ice sheet thrust" caused a fault to occur in 
the mooring of the ice dome over the basin now known as the Hudson Bay. The 
first of these rapid erosion forces occurring under the moving ice dome would 
have been the cavitation when the water under the moving ice sheet started to 
move very fast, creating tiny vacuum bubbles that formed along the rock 
surfaces which then explode inwardly in a rapidly moving water. The bubbles 
explode inwardly and pound the rock with a great foce reducing it quickly to 
powder. The cavitation process is soon complemented by the plucking as the 
impacting ice, water and rock debris starts to rip up loose blocks of bedrock 
that collide and create further shower of fast moving debris. In the abrasive 
action ice is also converting to water increasing rapidly the volume of 
available water in the ice - bed rock interface. 
 
In places, there forms underwater tornado-like currents called the kolk, which 
(just like tornado in the air) can lift and remove large chunks of the 
underlying material. Tubulent currents like kolking may also be the cause of 
giant's cauldrons and potholes (although the water pouring in moulins over 
extended periods of time can also cause these formations even in hard granitic 
rocks). Whatever the case, I can see chances of Greenland ice sheet loosing its 
footing in the post sea ice Arctic and the claim of the strong coupling between 
the Arctic marine and terrestrial ice losses be a near future reality in a much 
shorter time frames than previously thought, and certainly IPCC's 18 cm sea 
level rise prediction to year 2100 is too fanciful.
 
Like in the climate change there is Type 1 (gradual climate change) and Type 2 
(abrupt climate change), there are gradual erosion by weathering of rocks 
tidals forces, frost etc., but also a rapid erosion with the action of far 
greater impact, major high-enery events occurring under destabilised, warmed 
and wet ice sheet which loses its footing due to excessive melt water 
accummulation between ice and bed rocks.
 
If you have any queries, our last discussions in New York and at the United 
Nation did not produce as much as we had hoped for. Though, we are keenly 
following invitation by the government of Egypt who seem to have given ear to 
our ideas about the risk of sudden sea level jump emerging from Greenland and 
its potential damage to the economy of Egypt if Nile Delta agricultural area 
gets flooded, plus the potential of emergency agriculture if the Last Dryas 
cooling occurs much alike in the Day After Tomorrow film as the North Atlantic 
Ocean becomes loaded with tens to hundreds of millions ice bergs from the 
collapsed Greenland ice dome and upper Egypt's agricultural zone suddenly 
expanded (until the sea water mixing pushes the newly formed fresh water layer 
to the sea floor after it mixes few years with saline water and cold sinks to 
the sea floor and the Atlantic Ocean re-stratifies and warms up again). In the 
Southern Atlantic the sudden sea level jump causes a teleconnected ice berg 
event as the higher sea level bends and may break off the Ronne and Ross Ice 
Shelves, speeding up greatly the WAIS glacier run off, in a synchroneous 
fashion, in the subsequent years.  Should we put a cable around these? Simply, 
not possible.

Kind regards,
 
With kind regards,
 
Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
 
HH Plenipotentiary Scientific Ambassador,
Global Environmental Parliamentary Group
 
United Nations' General Assembly complaint 
UNGA 101292 complaint handler for the 
the First Nations' of the North America
(under auspices of the World Indigenous
Nations' Summit and its closing plenary 
request to the Western Group of Nations)

 

 

 

 
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html


Four degrees and beyond
28 September 2009

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked, it is likely that 
global warming will exceed four degrees by the end of the century, research by 
Met Office scientists has revealed.
 
Dr Betts said: “Four degrees of warming, averaged over the globe, translates 
into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in 
rainfall. If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon, we could see major 
climate changes within our own lifetimes.”


High-end temperature change

 


Fig 1. Comparison of surface temperature projections from the high-end 
emissions scenario, without carbon cycle feedbacks. Temperature increases 
between 1961-1990 and 2090-2099, averaged over all high-end members.

 
In some areas warming could be significantly higher (10 degrees or more).



The Arctic could warm by up to 15.2 °C for a high-emissions scenario, enhanced 
by melting of snow and ice causing more of the Sun’s radiation to be absorbed.
 

 
 






From: pre...@attglobal.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; mmacc...@comcast.net
CC: alber

[geo] Copenhagen Approaches: Albert's Hockey Stick of Climate Science Errors Emerges out of IPCC

[Veli Albert Kallio]

There is only November left separating us from Copenhagen. The sudden last 
minute surge of errors in climate change studies on the advent of Copenhagen is 
almost like opening a Christmas calendar and finding a new present hidden 
behind each peel away door of IPCC.

 

I could have bet a year ago that Kallio's hockey-stick of climate study defects 
were soon to emerge as the climate change sceptics poured over and over again 
with their magnification glasses over hundreds of studies and methods to find 
defective papers on climate change. And God's mercy, there they are in the tree 
rings to refute whole climate.

 

Surely, with hundreds and thousands of IPCC papers one could go for something 
that isn't as good as the rest of studies where facts may have been overlooked 
like my philosophy teacher at the university on the umpteenth year and on my 
third degree who fixed a wrong grade.

 

Who said IPCC was an infallible entity guaranteeing error-free process as on 
its entirety: when the Apollo and Saturn 5 launched to the Moon, it is said 
that at any given moment at least 12 parts were found malfunctioning. Was the 
mission then a failure? It wasn't. So it be with IPCC/UNEP processes. With all 
practical probability, in a worl,d where even peer review or science itself is 
not always perfect it is always possible to find a defect or shortcut that does 
not meet the standard. Surely, more will be dug up by Copenhagen.

 

 

Isn't all this just citing those old scare-mongering bollocks who think climate 
change is a great big conspiracy and sponge a half dozen largers in a bar 
without worrying for the tomorrow:

 

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed 
climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for public trust in 
science. . This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what 
happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?

  --Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009

Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in prominent 
journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey stick-like result. 
The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey Stick view, and since it 
had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC Lead Author for this topic, there 
was no chance it would question the Yamal data. Despite the fact that these 
papers appeared in top journals like Nature and Science, none of the journal 
reviewers or editors ever required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve 
McIntyre's repeated requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules 
were ignored.
   --Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009

The official United Nation's global warming agency, the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that is fast losing its legs.  To 
carry the message of man-made global warming theory to the world, the IPCC has 
depended on 1) computer models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature 
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm 
ground. 

   --Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009

Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not sure 
whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or whether 
it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming supporters in the 
mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to delete 
any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been extraordinary.
  --Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009

Britain will have to stop building airports, switch to electric cars and shut 
down coal-fired power stations as part of a 'planned recession' to avoid 
dangerous climate change. A new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate 
Change Research says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping 
point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020. This would mean reducing 
the size of the economy through a "planned
recession".
  --Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2009

 

 

Kr, Albert
  
_
Save time by using Hotmail to access your other email accounts.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] Further Points of Consideration: The other inconvenient truth; Another Inconvenient Truth

[Veli Albert Kallio]

2. 

The other inconvenient truth; Another Inconvenient Truth 
Posted by: "Jim Roland" quailreco...@hotmail.com   jimroland99 
Tue Oct 6, 2009 1:57 pm (PDT) 



1. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2196

[This article also published by The Guardian, 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/06/global-land-use]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Jonathan Foley is the director of the Institute on the Environment at the 
University of the Minnesota, where he is also a professor and McKnight 
Presidential Chair in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. He 
also leads the institute's Global Landscapes Initiative, which focuses on the 
nexus of global land use, agriculture and the environment.

05 Oct 2009: Opinion
The Other Inconvenient Truth:
The Crisis in Global Land Use 
As the international community focuses on climate change as the great challenge 
of our era, it is ignoring another looming problem — the global crisis in land 
use. With agricultural practices already causing massive ecological impact, the 
world must now find new ways to feed its burgeoning population and launch a 
"Greener" Revolution.
by jonathan foley

It’s taken a long time, but the issue of global climate change is finally 
getting the attention it deserves. While enormous technical, policy, and 
economic issues remain to be solved, there is now widespread acceptance of the 
need to confront the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. 
Collectively, we are beginning to acknowledge that our long addiction to fossil 
fuels — which has been harming our national security, our economy and our 
environment for decades — must end. The question today is no longer why, but 
how. The die is cast, and our relationship to energy will never be the same.

Unfortunately, this positive shift in the national zeitgeist has had an 
unintended downside. In the rush to portray the perils of climate change, many 
other serious issues have been largely ignored. Climate change has become the 
poster child of environmental crises, complete with its own celebrities and 
campaigners. But is it so serious that we can afford to overlook the rise of 
infectious disease, the collapse of fisheries, the ongoing loss of forests and 
biodiversity, and the depletion of global water supplies?

Although I’m a climate scientist by training, I worry about this collective 
fixation on global warming as the mother of all environmental problems. 
Learning from the research my colleagues and I have done over the past decade, 
I fear we are neglecting another, equally inconvenient truth: that we now face 
a global crisis in land use and agriculture that could undermine the health, 
security, and sustainability of our civilization.

Our use of land, particularly for agriculture, is absolutely essential to the 
success of the human race. We depend on agriculture to supply us with food, 
feed, fiber, and, increasingly, biofuels. Without a highly efficient, 
productive, and resilient agricultural system, our society would collapse 
almost overnight.

But we are demanding more and more from our global agricultural systems, 
pushing them to their very limits. Continued population growth (adding more 
than 70 million people to the world every year), changing dietary preferences 
(including more meat and dairy consumption), rising energy prices, and 
increasing needs for bioenergy sources are putting tremendous pressure on the 
world’s resources. And, if we want any hope of keeping up with these demands, 
we’ll need to double, perhaps triple, the agricultural production of the planet 
in the next 30 to 40 years.

Meeting these huge new agricultural demands will be one of the greatest 
challenges of the 21st century. At present, it is completely unclear how (and 
if) we can do it.

If this wasn’t enough, we must also address the massive environmental impacts 
of our current agricultural practices, which new evidence indicates rival the 
impacts of climate change. Consider the following:

Ecosystem degradation. Already, we have cleared or converted more than 35 
percent of the earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, whether for 
croplands, pastures or rangelands. In fact, the area used for agriculture is 
nearly 60 times larger than the area of all of the world’s cities and suburbs. 
Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s 
ecosystems than agriculture. What will happen to our remaining ecosystems, 
including tropical rainforests, if we need to double or triple world 
agricultural production, while simultaneously coping with climate change?

Freshwater decline. Across the globe, we already use a staggering 4,000 cubic 
kilometers of water per year, withdrawn from our streams, rivers, lakes and 
aquifers. Of this, 70 percent is used for irrigation, the single biggest use of 
water, by far, on the globe. As a result, many large rivers have greatly 
reduced flows and some routinely dry up. Just look at the Aral Sea, now turn

[geo] Re: Taming the methane monster

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Dan,

 

Although it would be ideal to keep permafrost as a permafrost, this may not 
work. In that case, I would suggest planting a forest cover would be the best 
option as forests themselves mop up carbon dioxide efficiently. I have seen the 
forests in Finland becoming very lush, trees strong and dense over the last 20 
years, carbon is sort of tree fertiliser.


The albedo effect can be somewhat mitigated by planting birch trees. These 
trees have white bark with high albedo on tree trunk and large branches. They 
have a green leaves only in the summer, but in winter the leaves drop and are 
under snow. Therefore, during spring birch forest has very high albedo as the 
light penetrates to the ground where there is snow cover, some of the remaining 
light being reflected by the white tree bark.

 

The pine, fir, spruce on the other hand are evergreen conifers which mop up 
lots of sunlight in the spring sunshine season and warm up the climate. 
Fortunately, there are trees like birch that can grow almost on a permafrost. 
But again, someone should look at the cost of planting new forests in these far 
flung regions. The extension of forest cover works only as long as the forest 
can be expanded northwards, the limit being the sea side.

 

It looks like this year the sea ice thinned again record much. When the autumn 
winds and waves have come, the greatly thinned Arctic Ocean sea ice has been 
piled up and therefore the sea ice area remains smallest since 2007.  

 

The near record current autumn minimum of Arctic Ocean sea ice predisposes us 
for similar conditions to February 2008 when the record snow storms extended 
wintry weather and snowfall to the vicinity of the Vietnamese borders in China. 
Yet, in May Yakutia was already back in record melt. The 'wet' snow falling on 
warmer grounds versus 'dry' snow of the cold grounds of the past, makes the 
snow cover far less resilient to springtime heat.

 

In addition, I have obtained new satellite microwave altimetry images of 
Greenland's ice, the warmed and wet ice seems to have collapsed on itself in 
some places due to the extra accummulated weight of melt water, therefore, 
there are immense rift appearing (300 miles) behind Petermann Glacier where the 
cold and dry top of Greenland ice dome towers high in the skies, while the 
warmed and wet ice below is collapsing on itself (due to meltwater weight 
accummulation within itself). 

 

Thus, Greenland ice seems to be splitting up: forming crevasse valleys between 
top of ice dome and the lower areas where ice altitude is dropping as the rigid 
and light (cold and dry) ice is separating from soft and heavy (warm and wet) 
ice on lower ice dome slopes.

 

These could be that I am just reading in "Martian Channells" on data with near 
its discernibility limits, but if there are huge fissures opened up between 
Greenland's ice dome top and the lower parts of the ice sheet, these cannot be 
very old structures knowing that the ice dome is an accummulated build up of 
snow. If there were valleys and fissures on top of the high ice dome, these 
should have been filled up by drift snow during winds. Any valley or fissure in 
Greenland's ice dome cannot be an ancient structure, if they exist.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 


Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:14:31 -0700
Subject: [geo] Re: Taming the methane monster
From: dan.wha...@gmail.com
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
CC: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Andrew,

The permafrost regions, like peat bogs, are an incredible carbon sink.   I 
think the best answer is probably to try to keep them that way--not to burn 
them or convert them to something else--which by definition will release carbon 
in the process.

D


CH4 produced by thawing permafrost is released at the point of melting.  By 
definition anything you did to try to convert the permafrost to something else 


On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Ron Larson  wrote:


Andrew - see few responses below


Andrew Lockley wrote:
> I'm looking to address the problem of runaway climate change, which
> may potentially result from methane excursions from clathrates and
> permafrost.  I have a few a few quick questions, which people on this
> list may be able to help with.
>
> Questions about permafrost:
> You can cut peat and burn it.  Does permafrost also burn? If it does,
> what is the energy balance?  Would this process cost energy or
> generate energy?
> Can permafrost be used to make biochar? If it can be charred, then
> burning it might be the best way to render it safe.
>
  *RWL:  For sequestration purposes, one should pyrolyze, not  use
the term "burn".   I think one should limit this possibility to peat,
not permafrost, which seems not to have carbon content.  But this is not
to endorse the concept of pyrolyzing arctic peat - although I'd say it
is too early to discard also.  I have not seen anything in print on
doing this - and it sounds quite expensive.  But a terri

[geo] Re: I am Planning A New Geoengineering Foundation

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Tom,

 

I think the geoengineering foundation is the most brilliant idea, I ever heard.

 

The Law of Diminishing Returns already affects the over-long, dragged climate 
negotiations and IPCC processes. Anything renewing our human pool and 
initiative to tackle the climate is required. The marvellous works of Charles 
Keeling, Michael Mannix, oft-repeated loose impact with diminishing return on 
policy makers, much like any new dots on a temperature graph once the fever 
were charted in a patient by the UK's Meteorological Office.

 

The overarching danger is that the Copenhagen Summit of "climate science 
movement" becomes today's Copenhagen Council, in fashion of the Medieval 
Conciliatory Movement that tried to tackle all the social and societal ills 
left over from the Medieval Scholasticism. Renaissance Movement came to relieve 
some of the bandages of the old orders of the dark ages, but the Renaissance 
was not enough to stop the soon explosion of the Reformation. 

 

In the past we had human systems we argued with our vexed interests. Today, the 
Dark Age of the scholasticism has been replaced by the age of fossil fuels, the 
Renaissance goes to right direction but is wholly insufficient as a move away 
from the tight-rope of the fossil fuels to age of clean renewables. Today's 
explosion, the Reformation to Come, is centred on the subject of all human 
vexed interests tightened against our inanimate planet "Gaia" that protests all 
the climatic forcing the dark age of fossil-fuelled mankind. Argument with an 
inanimate object no one living can win, the earth will survive it all, but 
perhaps without us if need be. This second reformation of our age, will make 
face of the Earth without us and much of anything else living it carries.

 

The Councils of Stockholm (1973), Rio de Janeiro (1992), Kyoto, Bali, 
Copenhagen, it bears a striking similarity to the Medieval Conciliatory 
Movement trying to untangle the vexed interests of the Medieval Society that 
retarded its social progress. Outlook is really bad.


The geoengineering foundation will stir the political pot from new directions 
and we need to do all we can to make it a viable reality and make the stupid 
masses of scholastics in throes of dark ages of fossil fuels to see its value 
to tackle the global warming this way. 

 

The nuclear energy, renewables, forestation, emission cuts, home insulation, 
re-use, recycling, contraception, public transport and geoengineering all have 
their place to get us over this and provide help where the climate science 
movement has got stuck much like the Medieval Conciliatory Movement, unable to 
accomplish its reformatory work for the betterment of society by the inflexible 
vexed system primed to their self-destruction.

 

Whilst geoengineering offers direct benefits on its own, it is important to 
notice the value of our work and encouragement to people in the other fields 
that are generally supportive to our ideas. The whole is greater than the sum 
of its parts, makes this idea even greater.

 

With kind regards,

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 

HH Plenipotentiary Scientific Ambassador

of Global Environmental Parliament Group

 

International Guru Nanak Peace Prize Nominee for 2008

(for sea level rise risks for global security & economic stability)

 

Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign

of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans

 

 

> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:02:49 -0600
> From: wig...@ucar.edu
> To: kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> CC: pro...@worldnet.att.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: I am Planning A New Geoengineering Foundation
> 
> 
> The emphasis will be on geo-engineering as opposed to
> > climactic research and ecology.
> 
> CLIMACTIC RESEARCH  WOW.
> 
> Tom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Caldeira wrote:
> > 
> > ... and I was hoping I could ask you for money !!
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:19 PM, VNBC INC  > <mailto:pro...@worldnet.att.net>> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I saw your webpage. Would the Carnegie Foundation fund my foundation
> > if it was dedicated to devising potential theoretical solutions then
> > testing them? The emphasis will be on geo-engineering as opposed to
> > climactic research and ecology.
> > 
> > On Oct 11, 11:31 pm, Ken Caldeira  > <mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > Where will the money come from ?
> > >
> > > On Oct 11, 7:56 pm, Neil Farbstein  > <mailto:pro...@worldnet.att.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm thinking about starting up a nonprofit geoengineering
> > foundation.
> > > > We will study the problems of greenhouse warming and geoengineering
> >

[geo] Re: I am Planning A New Geoengineering Foundation

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Please do not make references! I am a man of low profile and avoid publicity! 
My closest to these circles would be my Scanning Tunnelling Microscope Weber 
Bar Graviton Resonance Particle Detector which I submitted as a proposal to 
youth electronics planning competition and I became co-incidentally the 
co-inventor of this particle detector with Professor Gerd Binnig who did win 
Nobel Price for Physics in 1986. However, the third generation machines, LIGO 
Interferometry has taken over this method since the days I was involved in 
Physics.
 

Please note that I was a nominee, not a winner of the 2008 Guru Nanak Peace 
Prize, and how could I, unless I nail iron-clad proofs that the ice sheets of 
the past never melted but slid when the ice age ended during the previous 
global warming episodes. If I could prove that Greenland's ice dome pushes 
through Melville Bay barrier, then I might be in line-up, but I don't want 
that: world with suddenly higher sea level wouldn't be good place to live.

 

(I leave climate porn publicity for Greenpeace and other writers desparate to 
scare us.)

 

But as per geoengineering, it is one of the most worthwhile pursuits as our 
world is what it is at the moment, with the Arctic losing its marine sea ice 
cap at fast rate. Many thanks.

 

Kr, Albert

 

> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:02:32 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Re: I am Planning A New Geoengineering Foundation
> From: pro...@worldnet.att.net
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> You have been speculating about my motives David. You seem to think
> I'm motivated by greed and nothing else. You misunderstood what I'm
> attempting here. I asked the group for advice on starting up a
> geoengineering foundation. I wasnt asking for money itself. I want
> information on what already existing foundations and sources of money
> to promote geo engineering research are known to them. Ken thinks
> there is nothing wrong with my topic and he is the moderator. The
> foundation I'm talking about promotes the goals of the geoengineering
> discussion group here. According to the rules I have a right to post
> this topic. Tom has no ojections to my topic either.
> Its news to me that Tom Wigley is Nobel Prize winner. Tom can you tell
> us about your Nobel Prize? Veli, you're on the Nobel Prize Committee?
> Thanks for your support.
> It's important to have a foundation focused on what this group is
> dedicated to discussing but with the goal of researching ways of
> modifying the climate if they are warranted.
> 
> On Oct 13, 4:53 am, David Schnare  wrote:
> > Neil,
> >
> > I've made no speculation about you, or about anyone.
> >
> > Indeed, I'm trying to stop speculation about anyone by anyone.
> >
> > I don't want to see Tom, a Nobel Laureat, drawn into this quagmire; and I
> > don't want to see you pushed around.
> >
> > 'nuff said.
> >
> > David.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM, VNBC INC  wrote:
> >
> > > GUIDELINES FOR POSTING TO THE GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP
> >
> > > 1. ALL POSTS SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO INTENTIONAL INTERVENTION IN THE
> > > CLIMATE SYSTEM.
> > > 2. NO POST MAY MAKE AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK OR SPECULATE ABOUT SOMEBODY
> > > ELSE'S MOTIVATION.
> > > 3. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POST WITH YOUR REAL NAME AND PREFERABLY ADDITIONAL
> > > CONTACT INFORMATION.
> >
> > > This topic is   RELEVANT TO INTENTIONAL INTERVENTION IN THE CLIMATE
> > > SYSTEM.
> >
> > > It seems Schnare is speculating about my reasons for posting this
> > > topic. Thats a rule violation.
> >
> > > His speculation is an ad hominem attack.
> >
> > > He and Gordon have made other ad hominem attacks that are unrelated to
> > > the business at hand, Geo engineering solutions to a reverse runaway
> > > greenhouse effect.
> >
> > > Shnare and Gordon both seem to have chip's on their shoulders. They
> > > would rather make ad hominem attacks than make contributions to the
> > > topic here or to further the goals of the Geo engineering group
> > > itself.  I'm not going to speculate about what motivates them but they
> > > are obviously violating the rules.
> >
> > > I will call you about this Ken.
> >
> > > THIS WILL BE A LIGHTLY MODERATED EMAIL GROUP. Moderation will enforce
> > > these two guidelines and eliminate other abuses ( advertising, foul
> > > language, etc )
> >
> > > On Oct 12, 10:21 pm, David Schnare  wrote:
> > > > Gents:
> >
> > > > It is time to shut this thread down.  It is not in keeping with the 
> > > > rules
> > > of
> > > > the group.  I appeal to Ken to apply his wisdom and admit we all are
> > > > frustrated, but this is not a platform to allow that frustration to vent
> > > on
> > > > to anyone.  Anyone.
> >
> > > > Those are our rules.  Ken wrote them and we all agree to them or we 
> > > > leave
> > > > the group.
> >
> > > > So, let it be.
> >
> > > > David
> >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Tom Wigley  wrote:
> >
> > > > > The emphasis will be on geo-engineering as opposed to
> > > > >  > climac

[geo] Re: Arctic ice free in 10yrs?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

David's point is very valid. Also, it is important to point out that the 
Russian coast melts now every year. The methane is on the coastal shallows, not 
in the high Arctic Basin which melts away now. Therefore, it is only misleading 
to say that loss of ice on the North Pole itself means anything as far as 
methane is concerned. The danger is already: coasts are the region impacted by 
the possible large scale methane escapes, plus the terrestrial sites.

 

It is unwise to read Harmageddon into loss of ice on the North Pole, but be 
aware of the risks that the warming climage generally does, not on the high 
Arctic Basin but on periphery of the Arctic Ocean. 

 

I think this emphasis on the loss of ice on the North Pole is similar 
mis-conception to the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro, which is often referred as 
the sign of warming high altitude climate (as it has lost 90% of its snow). 
However, as conincidentally being the Patron of University of Arusha (campus 
laid on the slopes of these mountains), our engineering people looked at 
production of 40 Megawatts of geothermal electricity from hot gases that leak 
out of Mount Kilimanjaro and pumping water into mountain to create steam. 
Obviously, there are heat flucutations therein to produce this energy and so 
the melting of snows of Kilimanjaro can easily be caused by fluctuations in the 
heat output of the mountain. If the mountain were to erupt, surely, all the 
snow would melt away and all environmentalists referring to this melting event 
would get only embarrased and ridiculed.

 

Melting North Pole is not Harmageddon, but it is the warming of the soils and 
the sea in the longer run, not instantaneously but in time. If too much 
emphasis is put on immediate catastrophy, "end of the world and geoengineering" 
by methane blasts, similar disappointment and ridicule will only follow, so 
detrimental to our all common causes.


Let's still keep things in perspective just like David suggest. I will not 
support people who will make mockery after the Arctic Ocean is ice-free as I am 
100% convinced nothing will happen immediately. But without ice the warming of 
the sea escalates and winter seasons shorten and in a few years' time natural 
GHG emissions could become a big problem that would have to be accommodated 
into international emissions regime by more severe cuts.

 

Kind regards,


Albert

 


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:17:57 -0400
Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic ice free in 10yrs?
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


The Catlin "survey" is a farce.  Take a look at Anthony Watt's blog to 
understand why.  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/
 
 
Bottomline, if you want to make a cogent statement about Arctic ice thickness, 
use the data from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research 
towed radar array survey.  It is far more comprehensive, more accurate and is 
the data serious scientists are using.  Competent arctic scientists have 
refused to use the Catlin data due to the multiple failures in their 
experimental methods and the self-admitted and dreadful lack of representative 
samples.  
 
Will the Arctic be ice free in 2010 (or 2016)?  Actually no one knows.  The 
past predictions have failed miserably.  Might be, might not.  Because of the 
"might be", I continue to support full scale testing of geoengineering 
techniques, especially in the northern latitudes.
 
dschnare


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Andrew Lockley  
wrote:


I'm still very keen to see calculations which clarify whether such a
changes can be reversed (as opposed to prevented) by aerosol
geoengineering.  My fear is that even geoengineering cannot save us
when the ice is lost, and we will simply have to wait until the
methane pulse kills us all. (or at least leaves the survivors
scrabbling around in a 'Mad-Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland).

A

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during
the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has
said.
"It's like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet,"
said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge.
Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s.
He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the
Catlin Arctic Survey.
The expedition trekked across 435km of ice earlier this year.
Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the
ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick - typical of so-called "first
year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to
melting.

 You'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open
sea in the summer
Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge
The survey route - to the north of Canada - had been expected to cross
areas of older "multi-year" ice wh

[geo] Re: Arctic ice free in 10yrs?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/ 

---

Veli Albert Kallio wrote: 



David's point is very valid. Also, it is important to point out that the 
Russian coast melts now every year. The methane is on the coastal shallows, not 
in the high Arctic Basin which melts away now. Therefore, it is only misleading 
to say that loss of ice on the North Pole itself means anything as far as 
methane is concerned. The danger is already: coasts are the region impacted by 
the possible large scale methane escapes, plus the terrestrial sites.
 
It is unwise to read Harmageddon into loss of ice on the North Pole, but be 
aware of the risks that the warming climage generally does, not on the high 
Arctic Basin but on periphery of the Arctic Ocean. 
 
I think this emphasis on the loss of ice on the North Pole is similar 
mis-conception to the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro, which is often referred as 
the sign of warming high altitude climate (as it has lost 90% of its snow). 
However, as conincidentally being the Patron of University of Arusha (campus 
laid on the slopes of these mountains), our engineering people looked at 
production of 40 Megawatts of geothermal electricity from hot gases that leak 
out of Mount Kilimanjaro and pumping water into mountain to create steam. 
Obviously, there are heat flucutations therein to produce this energy and so 
the melting of snows of Kilimanjaro can easily be caused by fluctuations in the 
heat output of the mountain. If the mountain were to erupt, surely, all the 
snow would melt away and all environmentalists referring to this melting event 
would get only embarrased and ridiculed.
 
Melting North Pole is not Harmageddon, but it is the warming of the soils and 
the sea in the longer run, not instantaneously but in time. If too much 
emphasis is put on immediate catastrophy, "end of the world and geoengineering" 
by methane blasts, similar disappointment and ridicule will only follow, so 
detrimental to our all common causes.

Let's still keep things in perspective just like David suggest. I will not 
support people who will make mockery after the Arctic Ocean is ice-free as I am 
100% convinced nothing will happen immediately. But without ice the warming of 
the sea escalates and winter seasons shorten and in a few years' time natural 
GHG emissions could become a big problem that would have to be accommodated 
into international emissions regime by more severe cuts.
 
Kind regards,

Albert
 


Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:17:57 -0400
Subject: [geo] Re: Arctic ice free in 10yrs?
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


The Catlin "survey" is a farce.  Take a look at Anthony Watt's blog to 
understand why.  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/
 
 
Bottomline, if you want to make a cogent statement about Arctic ice thickness, 
use the data from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research 
towed radar array survey.  It is far more comprehensive, more accurate and is 
the data serious scientists are using.  Competent arctic scientists have 
refused to use the Catlin data due to the multiple failures in their 
experimental methods and the self-admitted and dreadful lack of representative 
samples.  
 
Will the Arctic be ice free in 2010 (or 2016)?  Actually no one knows.  The 
past predictions have failed miserably.  Might be, might not.  Because of the 
"might be", I continue to support full scale testing of geoengineering 
techniques, especially in the northern latitudes.
 
dschnare


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Andrew Lockley  
wrote:


I'm still very keen to see calculations which clarify whether such a
changes can be reversed (as opposed to prevented) by aerosol
geoengineering.  My fear is that even geoengineering cannot save us
when the ice is lost, and we will simply have to wait until the
methane pulse kills us all. (or at least leaves the survivors
scrabbling around in a 'Mad-Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland).

A

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during
the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has
said.
"It's like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet,"
said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge.
Professor Wadhams has been studying the Arctic ice since the 1960s.
He was speaking in central London at the launch of the findings of the
Catlin Arctic Survey.
The expedition trekked across 435km of ice earlier this year.
Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the
ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick - typical of so-called "first
year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to
melting.

 You'll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially

[geo] South Asian nations resist binding emissions cuts

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I was already wondering where was this hanging around, but got it today through 
UN news wire service. I have for long time heard from Indian politicians that 
the per capita carbon reductions are impossible to sell to electrorate as long 
as there remains huge gap to West.

 

This is not much of news but puts the onus for the geoengineering to solve the 
emissions issues as the South Asian politicians look for the votes that count 
in the elections. 

 

South East Asia's per capita carbon use is to rise to American or European 
standard, so geoengineering solves the gap between falling Western emissions to 
rising Eastern ones.

 

Level playing field for per capita carbon consumption is said to be essential 
target to reach the American and European living standards and there will be no 
agereement without this.

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/712862--south-asian-nations-resist-binding-emissions-cuts


 

South Asian nations resist binding emissions cuts

 

Published On Tue Oct 20 2009

 

NEW DELHI – Eight South Asian countries have agreed they can't be part of any 
climate change deal that sets legally binding limits on their emissions, an 
Indian official said Tuesday.

 

India, Pakistan and six other nations will present a co-ordinated stance at a 
key global meeting in Copenhagen in December to stick with the Kyoto Protocol, 
agreed in 1997, Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said after a two-day 
meeting of regional environment ministers.

 

The Kyoto Protocol was the first global agreement requiring modest reductions 
in emissions by industrialized countries. The United States rejected it because 
it exempted such countries as India and China, both major polluters, from 
obligations.

 

The Copenhagen meeting aims at approving a new climate treaty. Developed 
countries, including the United States, want newly emerging economies to do 
their part in cutting emissions of such heat-trapping gases as carbon dioxide.

 

India, however, has previously said in blunt terms it won't accept legally 
binding limits on its emissions – a stance that could jeopardize efforts to 
reach a meaningful climate change accord.

 

"There is a consensus among South Asian nations that we should not budge from 
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol and 
the Bali declaration," Ramesh said.

 

Countries such as India, China, Brazil and Mexico have agreed to draw up 
programs to slow the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions, but they have 
resisted making those limits binding and subject to international monitoring. 


 
  
_
New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/ 
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: Arguments against geoengineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 their ancient recollections wanted for 
closer inspections and scrutiny. Was it 400 years ago this year?

 

Recognising the following shortcomings of the human mind, the advisor of the 
former leader, Lheonid Brezhnev, to the U.S.S.R. who is himself a geoengineer, 
the author of the last U.S.S.R. push to turn Siberia's rivers to south (partly 
stopped on fears of shortening growth seasons and perhaps inducing ice age). It 
isn't Galileo 400 years ago, just 20 years ago Russian economists and American 
economist could not agree anything how economy should be run. As a familiar of 
these wars between these the schools of thought, he is supporter of our 
investigations to challenge the Western Nations (and Russia's current own view 
of ice age which is an effective play-back and import from the west).

 

There is a risk that 270 indigenous nations do recall something what happened 
before Holocene stability. Professor Sir Ghillean Prance, ethnobotanist and the 
retired director of Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew supports some of our 
causative hypothesis elements, and nominated me on my efforts for the last 
year's international Guru Nanak Peace Prize (for sea level rise risks for 
global security and economic stability).

 

(*Please note that this kind of matter cannot be hidden, it will come up as 
this "heresy" was once put onto the floor of the United Nations General 
Assembly by another major world nations body, however unconventional or heretic 
idea it is, it will not disappear for good or bad.) 

 

My last word on this subject (I do not want to steal discussion on basis of 
some little-known hypothesis from the First Nations) is that, IF, Greenland Ice 
Sheet land containment did occur, it would be the right time to cool climate 
even more to get a deep freeze, otherwise, we will just see the temporarily 
cooled ocean re-warming and then the next ice sheets go the same way as per 
President Morales. Most likely the sudden sea level jump would create 
teleconnection to Ronne and Ross and other Antarctic Ice Shelves, unable to be 
bent metres upwards, more ice from glaciers behind would follow and strongly 
coupled southern cooling due to many ice shelve break ups as sea bends ice 
shelves. 

 

I am not willing to discuss these indigenous heresies put to the UN General 
Assembly anymore, but I do find it plausible that Greenland and other ice 
sheets might behave same way as the snow on top of my house roof when its 
starts melting, a few drips of water, and ice down.


Ever so challenging of the conventions and comfort zones...

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 
> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:20:58 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Re: Arguments against geoengineering
> From: pro...@worldnet.att.net
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> I used to be surprised when people acted rationalylly now I'm not. The
> age of unreason seems to be declining in intensity. I always hear
> arguments that preparing for the worst scenario, a runaway greenhouse
> effect will lead to a slow down measures like buildinbg solar enrgy
> plants in favor of shifting resources to geo engineering instead of
> funding all options. People in this generation are much more myopic
> about the future than past generations. They care about hedonistic
> pleasure and getting ahead and not much else. Every where I go i
> notice people becoming conscious of green issues and there are much
> less arguments about the existence oif the greenhouse effect. It was
> 71 in New York this afternoon, probably a new high.
> 
> On Oct 31, 6:58 pm, Ken Caldeira 
> wrote:
> > Large scale intentional interference with the climate is a awful way to deal
> > with the carbon-climate problem.
> >
> > Unfortunately, we may come to a time when not intentionally interfering with
> > the climate system at large scale will be even more awful.
> >
> > (Some think we have already reached that point.)
> >
> > Does anticipating the possibility of such an outcome make it more likely?
> >
> > Humans evolved in an environment where long-term planning meant storing
> > enough nuts to survive the harsh winter, where thinking on large spatial
> > scales meant worrying about the village in the next valley. Our brains are
> > not designed to respond emotionally to problems with large temporal and
> > spatial scales, so worrying about such problems remains endemic to eggheads.
> >
> > Can humanity as a whole become sensitized to problems where the relevant
> > temporal scales are decades to millennia, where the relevant spatial scale
> > is global?
> >
> > It is possible, but last night I ate a tasty, but fatty, morsel. Although I
> > knew intellectually that it would likely shorten my life and that I was not
> > optimizing my lon

[geo] RE: [clim] Re: Sea ice: beware of hype, uncertainty cut's both ways

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Further to Mike,

 

I would like to draw also attention to terrestrial snow cover. Snow has 
increased due to less ice covered Arctic Ocean during the summers and autumn. 
This insulates air more from the ground. On the other hand, the amount of 
ground heat has increased as the soil beneath snow is warmer than in the past. 
The warmed grounds radiate, put out more heat, during the cold winter time 
where the snow coverage remains average thickeness.

 

Thermal inertia of soil may be less than that of sea water and there is 
certainly little mixing, but some areas have active ground water that may 
produce variable heat output. Both the thickeness and area have increased, but 
so has the volatility of snow. The record Northern Hemisphere snow cover of 
February 2008 was quickly followed by record melts.

 

As per the above, the terrestrial variability has become greater, more chaotic 
due to multiple variables having a greater say to the stability of the snow 
cover. The microbial activities have also kicked in a positive feedback in soil 
heat budget in some areas where a tipping point in this respect has been 
reached, the decay releasing also heat in systems.

 

Kr, Albert
 
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:29:13 -0500
> Subject: [clim] Re: Sea ice: beware of hype, uncertainty cut's both ways
> From: mmacc...@comcast.net
> To: ke...@ucalgary.ca; j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> CC: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
> kcalde...@stanford.edu; julian.nor...@iop.org
> 
> 
> Also please see 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/10/30/panic-at-2-am-the-search-for
> -multiyear-arctic-ice/
> 
> Ice cover is not the only issue--ice thickness also matters for it takes an
> extensive, pretty solid (i.e., very small or no leads) ice cover about a
> meter thick or more (with a bit of snow on top) to insulate the winter
> atmosphere from the ocean and allow ice surface temperatures to drop down to
> -40 or lower so that the really cold winter air masses that create the
> winter weather that we have depended on can form.
> 
> Best, Mike
> 
> 
> On 11/2/09 10:08 AM, "David Keith"  wrote:
> 
> > A couple of points on sea ice:
> > 
> > 1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently 
> > that
> > confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer sea ice.
> > There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting interannual
> > variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it was the July 2009
> > compilation of forecasts every single one of which overestimated the actual
> > sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with the 2009 data added as an
> > annotation. See the following for the original report:
> > 
> > http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/g
> > raphs/JulyReport_JuneData_Chart.pdf
> > 
> > I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
> > unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time 
> > traveling
> > on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that 
> > uncertainty
> > cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise 
> > as
> > signal when it goes the way they expect.
> > 
> > 2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if it is
> > not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the central reasons
> > for the polar amplification of predicted global warming and has been in 
> > models
> > in various forms since the early 70s. In recent years the big focus has been
> > improving dynamic (including ocean currents) sea ice models. Among the 
> > things
> > typically not included are the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost
> > on methane emissions, this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard 
> > to
> > have methane emissions large enough to significantly change radiative 
> > forcing
> > over half-century timescales.
> > 
> > 3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of 
> > large-scale
> > loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
> > (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html
> >  ) on the topic and our
> > compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows that
> > IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
> > 
> > 4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be particularly
> > appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that climate change
> > impacts and responses are largest there, and because by increasing
> > reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the albedo feedback
> > that decreases reflectivity.
> > 
> > -David
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
> > Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
> > To: David Keith
> > Cc: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
> > Ken
> > Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
> > Subject: R

[geo] UK PARLIAMENT CLIMATE EMERGENCY (EDM MOTION 2057)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Getting a good political environment for geoengineering once things get hold ...

 

Early Day Motion

EDM 2057 
   

CLIMATE CHANGE (No. 2)
15.10.2009


Challen, Colin 
 

That this House recognises that there is a climate emergency and that the 
catastrophic destabilisation of global climate represents the greatest threat 
that humanity faces; further recognises that the world is already above the 
safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for a stable planet; 
further recognises the need to reduce this level to 350 particles per million 
or below; believes it is impossible to predict how close the world is to 
dangerous tipping points and that action to reduce emissions now is worth 
considerably more than doing the same later; further believes that immediate 
action is required to enact a program of emergency measures with substantial 
emissions reductions in the short term of the order of 10 per cent. by the end 
of 2010; further believes that the majority of money spent on reviving the 
economy should be on green measures and that at least two hours of prime time 
television per week should be used to explain the gravity of the crisis to the 
public; further believes that unabated coal and domestic flights should be 
phased out by the end of 2010, that a speed limit of 55 miles per hour should 
be introduced and investment made in energy efficiency and renewable energy, 
public transport and the retro-fitting of efficient insulation to existing 
housing stock technologies leading to the creation of a million green jobs by 
the end of 2010; and further believes that the introduction of such measures 
would send a positive signal to other countries leading up to the UN climate 
change summit in Copenhagen and beyond.

 



 

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT:

 

Challen, Colin  
Bottomley, Peter  
Hepburn, Stephen  
Austin, John  
Pound, Stephen  
Hoyle, Lindsay  
Holmes, Paul  
McDonnell, John  
Clapham, Michael  
Cryer, Ann  
Drew, David  
Gerrard, Neil  
Hancock, Mike  
Stunell, Andrew  
Heath, David  
Hopkins, Kelvin  
Jones, Lynne  
Meale, Alan  
Morley, Elliot  
Caton, Martin  
Corbyn, Jeremy  
Durkan, Mark  
Simpson, Alan  
Brooke, Annette  
Hunter, Mark  
Davies, Dai  
Flynn, Paul  
Cook, Frank  
Gidley, Sandra  
Williams, Betty  
Williams, Mark  
Etherington, Bill  
Prosser, Gwyn  
Mulholland, Greg  
Laxton, Bob  
Marshall-Andrews, Robert  
Galloway, George 

  
_
Chat to your friends for free on selected mobiles
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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] UK PARLIAMENT CLIMATE EMERGENCY (EDM MOTION 2057)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Web Link: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39285&SESSION=899
 





Getting a good political environment for geoengineering once things get hold ...
 

Early Day Motion

EDM 2057 
   

CLIMATE CHANGE (No. 2)
15.10.2009


Challen, Colin  
That this House recognises that there is a climate emergency and that the 
catastrophic destabilisation of global climate represents the greatest threat 
that humanity faces; further recognises that the world is already above the 
safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for a stable planet; 
further recognises the need to reduce this level to 350 particles per million 
or below; believes it is impossible to predict how close the world is to 
dangerous tipping points and that action to reduce emissions now is worth 
considerably more than doing the same later; further believes that immediate 
action is required to enact a program of emergency measures with substantial 
emissions reductions in the short term of the order of 10 per cent. by the end 
of 2010; further believes that the majority of money spent on reviving the 
economy should be on green measures and that at least two hours of prime time 
television per week should be used to explain the gravity of the crisis to the 
public; further believes that unabated coal and domestic flights should be 
phased out by the end of 2010, that a speed limit of 55 miles per hour should 
be introduced and investment made in energy efficiency and renewable energy, 
public transport and the retro-fitting of efficient insulation to existing 
housing stock technologies leading to the creation of a million green jobs by 
the end of 2010; and further believes that the introduction of such measures 
would send a positive signal to other countries leading up to the UN climate 
change summit in Copenhagen and beyond.
 

 
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT:
 
Challen, Colin  
Bottomley, Peter  
Hepburn, Stephen  
Austin, John  
Pound, Stephen  
Hoyle, Lindsay  
Holmes, Paul  
McDonnell, John  
Clapham, Michael  
Cryer, Ann  
Drew, David  
Gerrard, Neil  
Hancock, Mike  
Stunell, Andrew  
Heath, David  
Hopkins, Kelvin  
Jones, Lynne  
Meale, Alan  
Morley, Elliot  
Caton, Martin  
Corbyn, Jeremy  
Durkan, Mark  
Simpson, Alan  
Brooke, Annette  
Hunter, Mark  
Davies, Dai  
Flynn, Paul  
Cook, Frank  
Gidley, Sandra  
Williams, Betty  
Williams, Mark  
Etherington, Bill  
Prosser, Gwyn  
Mulholland, Greg  
Laxton, Bob  
Marshall-Andrews, Robert  
Galloway, George 




Chat to your friends for free on selected mobiles. Learn more.  
  
_
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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: An interesting question

[Veli Albert Kallio]

As per Jim's rebuke about reference to fusion energy as a solution, it is 
important to note:

 

I do agree that that the big 'X-factors' in the energy equations are: the 
fusion generators, safe and reliable fast-breeder reactors, and, clean coal 
projects (to start injecting CO2 into this underground rocks), these can 
produce massive reduction in the emissions. The problem is that they are 
unproven techonologies that have not yet done a dent in mainline energy 
production. As such they may either remain in the twilight zone (fusion 
energy), or, quite peripherial in volume of the overall energy production (fast 
breeders, clean coal).  

 

Their successful and quantitatively meaningful proportion in the world energy 
generation mix would be a positive "x-factor", but we cannot rely on 
possibilities and wishful hopes. The engineers have not yet come over hurdles 
to generate more energy out of fusion and after that is still the hurdle the 
fast breeder reactors face: system reliability and safety. I am quite aware 
that there is a need to develop new materials for tokamak reactors as the odd 
stray ions contained in the donough shape magnetic bottle strips materials into 
fields, this non-fusion stuff accummulates and starts to inhibit the fusion 
reactions within it.

In fast-breeder the problem is the sodium reactions with most of things and 
when system needs to be shut down the solidified metal causes problems if 
trying to repair or restart.

 

I should not be too judgemental on saying that we should not discuss the above 
positive "X-factors" if human technologies advance and replace polluting 
generation capacity due to new innovation and technological breakthrougs. But 
we cannot rely on something that does not exist. Similarly, we should exercise 
caution on the issue the First Nations told to the UN General Assembly that the 
ice sheets slid suddenly into oceans instead of melting. That negative X-factor 
relies on the statement and recollection of the ancient peoples who might be 
right as well as the might be wrong, so far their concept remains unproven.

 

These are uncertainties we cannot do anything about, except pour more money 
into R&D in the hope that this would resolve the issues. But as a precautionary 
principle, it would be best of all if we could be prepared to the point that 
all these +/- uncertainties would be kept within manageable limits, and that to 
me should be the goal of geoengineering efforts as well. As we are outside 
already, and probabilistically runaway events, abrupt changes, are entirely 
possible the efforts in all areas should continue until we are back in safe 
harbour and the boat will not tip over by any tall wave the nature might throw 
at us. 

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio  
 
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:24:04 -0800
> Subject: [geo] Re: An interesting question
> From: jimwoolri...@hotmail.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> Andrew: whatever you do don't put your eggs in the fusion basket. Why?
> Its always been empty and, as you yourself point out, always 40 years
> away. We don't have 40 years...you do the math!
> 
> On Nov 4, 3:53 pm, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> > We will still, I suggest, need geoengineering to deal with the existing CO2
> > and the feedback effects - especially methane.  The challenge is how to
> > effect a permanent solution, and I suggest that fusion + air capture is the
> > only credible method I've seen to date.
> >
> > A
> >
> > 2009/11/1 Eugene I. Gordon 
> >
> > > We also have the desired nuclear reactor; it is just below the Earth's
> > > crust. Someone has called it geothermal. We have deep drilling technology
> > > and geothermal is already being exploited near the surface. It is
> > > completely
> > > free of carbon emissions. We also have stores of molten rock heated by
> > > radioactivity near the surface, volcanoes, that it may be possible to
> > > exploit more than it is.
> >
> > > If we don't watch out the CO2-free energy problem will be solved and we
> > > won't need geoengineering. Great solution.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> > > [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Larson
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 6:28 AM
> > > To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> > > Cc: geoengineering
> > > Subject: [geo] Re: An interesting question
> >
> > > Andrew - cc list:
> >
> > >I don't mean to sound flip - and maybe you were asking for this
> > > response:  We already have the desired fusion machine:  our sun.
> >
> > > The two reasons that Bioch

RE: [geo] Greenland ice sheet - tipping in progress

[Veli Albert Kallio]

>> "I am pretty sure the term is already included in models, and I don’t know 
>> of any reason to think that it is increasing—certainly not in comparison to 
>> the increased heat from the surface due to warming and the meltwater that in 
>> flowing down into the ice sheet is carrying heat (i.e., meltwater) well down 
>> into the ice and likely all the way to the base. <<

 

Hi,

 

In our models the disequilibrium between the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is 
losing weight, and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that is gaining weight is 
creating ice sheet balance disequilibrium. In our view, this raises ground 
pressure under East Antarctica and decreases it under the West Antarctica. As 
the volume beneath the East Anatrctica is under increased compressional 
stresses, the displacement of liquids should drive these towards the West 
Antarctica if suitable conduits and connectivity between areas exists. If so, 
there should be volcanic activities increasing under the West Antarctic ice 
sheet.

 

I have suggested that the Pine Island Glacier might be a recipient of displaced 
volcanic liquids beneath its ice sheet as it has less pressure while the East 
Antarctica has more and would have a tendency to drive out liquids from beneath 
ground, if they can find way out. When volcanism under ice sheet melts ice 
away, and the water drains to sea, more displaced volcanic rocks could move in 
and melting of the ice sheet like Pine Island is very fast and could end up in 
a sudden burst of lava flood.

 

In our UN complaint, one issue is the isostatic ground-carrying-capacity being 
exceeded by ice accummulation (as in case of ice sheets there is a lack of 
geological driver, tectonic uplift, to support accummulation of tall grounds). 
When isostatic ground carrying capacity is exceeded, the base and grounds under 
ice sheets rapidly sink down. This leads the periphery of ice sheet (where ice 
is much thinner) starting to bulge out at the time when the 
ground-carrying-capacity under the thicker parts of the ice dome have been lost 
by excessive ground pressures. The interior subsidence of ice sheet creates a 
temporary tectonic uplift on the thin edges of ice sheet. This according to 
World Indigenous Nations' complaint, fed volcanic materials and caused the 
'rapid ice age'. (The initial ice sheet was lost due to geothermal heat 
penetration from crevasses within fractured bed rocks leading to Eemian 
Interval. I do not elabore full view of the First Nations ideas of the fast ice 
age.) Only in Antarctica which is very large area in size for glacier, the 
middle was forced to bulge up generating Gamburtsev rise, while the pressure on 
the edges were down. Greenland is smaller and its edges gave away just like in 
Scotland, Norway and Kara Sea.

 

So, without taking the base heat discussion too much to the First Nations 
complaints at the United Nations, I would like to point to the possibility that 
the ice sheet mass balance can cause liquid displacements where there is 
movement of equilibrium states.

 

Kr, Albert
 


Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:18:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Greenland ice sheet - tipping in progress
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: r2007...@gmail.com; j...@cloudworld.co.uk
CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; john.dav...@foe.co.uk; 
oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org; m.hu...@uea.ac.uk; albert_kal...@hotmail.com

I am pretty sure the term is already included in models, and I don’t know of 
any reason to think that it is increasing—certainly not in comparison to the 
increased heat from the surface due to warming and the meltwater that in 
flowing down into the ice sheet is carrying heat (i.e., meltwater) well down 
into the ice and likely all the way to the base.

Best, Mike MacCracken


On 11/18/09 7:12 AM, "Raymond Law"  wrote:


Hi everybody,
 
Why has no one mentioned one possible causes of the melting/sliding of the 
major and thick  Greenland's ice sheet could be due to the minute temperature 
changes (primarily, warming up) of the earth/ground beneath  ?  Or have I 
missed out on this  ?
 
Comments and advices, please ! 
 
Raymond Law

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:04 PM, John Nissen  wrote:


Hi all,

Professor Mike Hulme gave a talk at the RGS yesterday evening [1], in which the 
Greenland ice sheet was shown as a tipping point, along with a dozen others on 
a map of the world [2].

The BBC article below shows how positive feedbacks are building up in the 
Arctic.  What is not discussed is whether the whole sections of ice sheet could 
become unstable and slip off into the sea, causing a massive step change in sea 
level, as shown to have happened from time to time in the geological record of 
the Ice Ages [3].  If we are to avoid a complete tipping of this system, sooner 
or later giving us 7 metres of sea level rise, there seems to be no alternative 
to geoengineering to cool the Arctic.  And the sooner we start the 
geoengineering, the more likely we are to succeed in halting the tipping 
pr

RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi David,

 

I think you may have overlooked on this. The temperature had followed the CO2 
trend definitely since the industrial revolution. The issue this paper is not 
about denying the accumulative effect of rising p.p.m. which Charles Keeling's 
work has well established since 1950's.

 

What the paper points to is that there has not been change in ratio 40% airbone 
/ 60% absorved carbon dioxide. The airborne CO2 fraction in ratio has been 
increasing only 1.4% +/-0.7% per decade since year 1850. Though, when 
multiplied by 16 decades, the cumulative increases amount to growth from the 
base year (1850) much more. The chief importance is not to challenge the 
accumulation of CO2, but the health of CO2 sinks.

 

If the CO2 sinks are starting to decline carbon dioxide intake, and the 
proportion of 60% absorved carbon dioxide starts to fall, this means that then 
more radical cuts on the emissions will be required if the absorved emissions 
proportion starts to decrease from current amouts we can dump in the air. 

 

Both the athmospheric CO2 can grow if both airborne and absorved volumes both 
grow in line or the absorbtion follows increasing in line with what is being 
put out, but the level of CO2 is now nearly 400 p.p.m. a major rise since 1957. 
It also bears in mind that the oceans are acidifying and this cause ecosystem 
damages as well, which is nothing to do with the climate or temperature, but 
the pH of sea water.

 

This is a good news for the moment, however, it is also well known that the 
warmer liquids absorb less gases. The only way sea water could negate this is 
by increasing algae booms or other biological growth that uses up the 
additional carbon stocks that dissolve into water. You also need to bear in 
mind feedback loops, the melting permafrost will release carbon too and we 
cannot safely extrapolate to infinity on this.

 

It is more than likely that somewhere there suddenly pops up an abrupt tipping 
point when the system saturates and may even start reverse.

 

Kind regards, 

 

Albert


 


Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:32:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
From: dwschn...@gmail.com
To: orangeh...@gmail.com
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Except that the temperature has refused to follow the CO2 trend.  
 
We are begining to see more and more extreme statements of alarm that depart 
from actual observations.  Further, the Nature paper is but one view.  See the 
Knorr paper showing the opposite outcome.  Ask yourself, which one is based on 
models and which one is based on observations.  Then ask yourself it that's 
important to you as a scientist.
 
David Schnare
 




Public Release: 10-Nov-2009
 Geophysical Research Letters
Controversial new climate change data
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction 
of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 
having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year 
now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much 
greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. 
 Natural Environment Research Council
Contact: Cherry Lewis
 cherry.le...@bristol.ac.uk 
44-117-928-8086
 University 
of Bristol
- - - - - 

Controversial new climate change results
Press release  issued 9 November 2009 
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction 
of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite 
emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 
1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. 
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater 
capacity to absorb CO 2  than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects 
that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO 2  
should start to diminish as CO 2  emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas 
levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in 
fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per 
decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research 
Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, 
including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on 
computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission 
targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 
Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon 
free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this 
approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to 
decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, 
says Knorr. “Like all studies 

[geo] SCIENCE MAGAZINE SUPPORTS THE FINNISH NATIONAL EPIC "KALEVALA"

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Seldom surprises come that big... especially when reading Sciene or Finnish 
epic Kalevala:

 

The 150th anniversary edition of Finnish National Epic "Kalevala" with a 
commentary dedicates a whole chapter to the events about sudden changes in the 
Earth's turning axis in the ancient distant past according to Kalevala. (I 
always discounted this as a rubbish, but today found this possibility being 
discussed in Science Magazine as below.)

 

To me this is another possible warning sign of ice sheet land containment 
failures in the past when the warmed and wet ice sheets started to float on its 
own melt waters and lost its footing on elevated grounds and fell suddenly into 
sea. If so, the mooring of Greenland ice is a very important geoengineering 
consideration as the suppoting sea ice disappears.

 

If you know any other ancient literature which refers to turning of earth axis 
or anomalies in the length of day, I would be very happy to get references of 
science magazines and literature as this builds on argument that the warmed ice 
in Greenland may suddenly slide out like melting snow falls from roof as a 
sheet rather than melting peacefully into oblivion. 

 

Mercy on us, if this Science article is right, we might be in yet another 
serious trouble if there is coupling of marine losses with the terrestrial ice 
losses in the nearby Geenland.

 

 

Source: Science Magazine
Authors: Jerry X. Mitrovica, Natalya Gomez, and Peter U. Clark
Science 6 February 2009 323: 753 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1166510]
 

Scientists say the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would have such 
profound effects it would shift the planet’s rotation, sending a bulge of water 
into the Northern Hemisphere.

 

The enormous ice sheet, which many experts believe could collapse as the 
climate warms, is so heavy that as it melts it “will actually cause the Earth’s 
rotation axis to shift rather dramatically,” reports a team led by geophysicist 
Jerry Mitrovica, at the University of Toronto.

 

http://www.canada.com/melt+shift+earth+rotation/1260349/story.html
  
_
Got more than one Hotmail account? Save time by linking them together
 http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/

--

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

RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi,

 

I can only but agree Ken's arguments, we do not want our e-mails stolen and 
circulated like the University of Anglia's climate unit and the read these kind 
of stories in newspapers.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
 
E-mail is basically a written media and as such is prone to abuse, if someone's 
political reason rose. Also, when the doctors and nurses in night duty went 
hide and seek during work at quiet hours in hospitals, for such a triviality, 
they were almost dismissed and publicly reprimanded. So, if you are taking this 
seriously, please guard your language.
 
People who habitually use vulgar language bring our standards and dignity down. 
We become like Pirellis' nude girl calendar. There are warnings of bad language 
and nudity every time before film starts if it contains strong language or nude 
or violent scenes. 
 
I can understand and put up with a 'blib in tongue', but if it is a habit it 
really pisses me off. So, let's try to keep this site in tidy language and 
avoid those things and Ken's position is therefore most reasonable to drill on 
this point. (All this saves us potential later abuse and shame if the messages 
end up in wrong hands and in wrong places like happened to the climate 
scientist at the University of Anglia.)
 
kr, albert
 


Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:26:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
From: kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
To: glynlrobe...@gmail.com
CC: dwschn...@gmail.com; euggor...@comcast.net; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
orangeh...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Anybody who sends email to this group about ... will be put on the "moderated 
list" and any such message will be rejected. People who repeatedly discuss 
issues in such terms will be designated as "spam" senders.

This is not the level of conversation we want on this email group.
___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  




On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Glyn Roberts  wrote:

I have observed an enormous amount of valuable discussion on this
googlegroup.  People have violently diverse views on how to move
forward.  The discussions have influenced my opinions on some tough
philosophical aspects of geoengineering and the climate crisis, and
I'm sure it does the same for others who are active in the sector,
working on solutions and trying to influence change.

This is not the forum to carry out that work, only to interact with
people with the common interest.  A diversity of ideas and
perspectives is always healthy.

So my questions are:  What is the scientific data to assert the size
of our balls?  How can you assert groupthink?

After three years of making your carefully incorrect views, give up.

Glyn




On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:03 PM, David Schnare  wrote:
>
> Gene makes the point I have been making for the last three years. The 
> question is not about mitigation. The question is as to when you guys on this 
> List are going to be honest to your core alarmist view--that it is, under 
> your scientific orthodoxy, that it is simply too late to avoid using 
> geoengineering.
> The only ways to avoid using geo are either to willing partake of the 
> catastrophe or to revisit the core AGW assumption.
> You simply have no other choices.
> David Schnare
> Center for Environmental Stewardship
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 8:49 PM, "Eugene I. Gordon"  wrote:
>
> David’s excellent comment was ignored. In any case the real issue is have we 
> reached a temperature point beyond where we want to be. It is not going to 
> stop or get cooler by wishing for reduction in CO2 emissions. What CO2 is 
> already in the atmosphere is going to hang around for a long time and the 
> concentration will continue to grow. The solution is not simply stopping 
> insertion of more CO2 in, but active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or 
> blocking sunlight. Convincing governments, companies, and people to go green 
> is too late. Save the airfare to Copenhagen.
>
>
>
> Why are all of you having so much trouble to say it? The only solutions that 
> can work are based on geoengineering.
>
>
>
> -gene
>
>
>
> From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:16 PM
> To: dwschn...@gmail.com; orangeh...@gmail.com
> Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
> Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I think you may have overlooked on this. The temperature had followed the CO2 
> trend definitely since the industrial 

[geo] Seas Grow Less Effective at Absorbing Emissions

[Veli Albert Kallio]

(This NYT item via the UN seems to contradict something recently circulated in 
our group.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/science/earth/19oceans.html?_r=1

 

 

Seas Grow Less Effective at Absorbing Emissions 









 

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

Published: November 18, 2009 

 

The Earth’s oceans, which have absorbed carbon dioxide from fuel emissions 
since the dawn of the industrial era, have recently grown less efficient at 
sopping it up, new research suggests. 

 

Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels began soaring in the 1950s, and 
oceans largely kept up, scientists say. But the growth in the intake rate has 
slowed since the 1980s, and markedly so since 2000, the authors of a study 
write in a report in Thursday’s issue of Nature. 

 

The research suggests that the seas cannot indefinitely be considered a 
reliable “carbon sink” as humans generate heat-trapping gases linked to global 
warming.

 

The slowdown in the rise of the absorption rate resulted from a gradual change 
in the oceans’ chemistry, the study found. “The more carbon dioxide the ocean 
absorbs, the more acidic it becomes and the less carbon dioxide it can absorb,” 
said the study’s lead author, Samar Khatiwala, a research scientist at the 
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and a professor at the 
Georgia Institute of Technology. 

“It’s a small change in absolute terms,” Dr. Khatiwala said. “What I think is 
fairly clear and important in the long term is the trend toward lower values, 
which implies that more of the emissions will remain in the atmosphere.”

 

To calculate the slowdown, Dr. Khatiwala and his collaborators created a 
mathematical model using tens of thousands of measurements of seawater 
collected over the past 20 years, including temperature, salinity and the 
presence of manufactured chlorofluorocarbons as a reflection of industrial 
activity. 

 

They then worked backward with the data to create a formula that estimated the 
accumulation of human-generated carbon dioxide in the oceans from 1765, the 
opening of the industrial era, to 2008.

 

Even as human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide increase, the oceans’ 
uptake rate growth appears to have dropped by 10 percent from 2000 to 2007, Dr. 
Khatiwala said. 

The last major research effort to measure industrial carbon uptake in the 
oceans was published in a 2004 Science study led by Christopher Sabine.

 

His methodology was different but arrived at similar conclusions. 

 

Dr. Sabine used carbon dioxide measurements taken by more than 100 cruise ships 
to come up with a single figure: the oceans’ total industrial carbon uptake 
until 1994. 

 

Dr. Khatiwala’s approach provides estimates of ocean carbon storage for every 
year from 1765 to 2008.

 

“Sabine’s estimate was like a single fuzzy snapshot,” Dr. Khatiwala said. 
“We’ve gone from that to having a relatively short movie of what happened from 
the start of the industrial era.” 

 

Dr. Sabine said he agreed with the analogy, pointing out that his estimate for 
uptake up to 1994 was very close to Dr. Khatiwala’s for that period. 

 

“Even though the techniques are completely different, they are in consensus at 
the one point that we can compare them,” Dr. Sabine said.

 

Yet much work remains to be done to confirm the results and to expand upon 
them, Dr. Khatiwala said. 
  
_
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

--

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

[geo] BBC: East Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting Worries Scientists

[Veli Albert Kallio]

ANTARCTIC APOCALYPSE ON THE MAKING?


 

”Enten, tenten, telika menten, olle, dulle, doff, kinke lade koff”…
"Enten, tenten, telika menten, pirum parum puff!"


 

It almost comes like from the Hogwarth School of Wizardry that the 2012 
visionaries predict the Antarctic ice demise in some magic mirror image of 
Greenland. Even BBC has now joined trumpeting the... East Antarctic Ice's 
demise. Hooo..ooorrraahhh!!! 

It seems that the demise of Greenland Ice Sheet is cropping up time to time as 
if it were the perpetual-motion-machine of all the 'climate-doom' forecasters. 

 

But the perennial plotters of Greenland's Ice Dome overthrow have every time 
burned their fingers - with their tails sent wagging between their legs after 
throwing their tender into a fiery furnace whenever questioning the stability 
of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS).


The adage has been "the EAIS isn't melting". But now, doom, gloom, boom! And 
the East Antarctica seems to be joining the club again (the same way the 
nay-sayers once said that the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice takes over 1,000 years of 
greenhouse gas emissions to melt away [in 1980 when I was at school], in May 
2007 the IPCC and the Arctic Council were still telling of another century 
[until the sceptics became the new under dogs by August 2007]).

 

Since the Larsen B Spectacular, and the subsequent speed up of the ice streams 
it held back, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) became to join Greenland in 
the doom-gloom-club. Last time it was the Pine Island glacier-demise-doom boom 
that had made our doom forecasters to promise the demise of the West Antarctic 
Ice Sheet (WAIS) to call it a day. 
Now it is the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) School of Wizardry! Although it 
may be too early to be seen what shall happen: Is the current East Antarctic 
Ice Sheet a result of some temporary ice loss, or is it the start and the onset 
of a new trend towards warmer world with little or no frozen ice left to be 
seen anywhere on the globe? 

 

In the Wizardry of Ice Sheet hocus-pocus disappearances light seems to have 
turned just like His Excellency President Evo Morales Ava warned us at the 
Podznan Conference just year ago: The Weischelian hocus-pocus, via the 
Laurentide disappearance soon arrived to the Patagonia. On our current round of 
ice sheet hocus-pocuses, the round of disappearances from Greenland, via West 
Antarctica, finally arrives to the East Antarctica. 

 

Morales' hocus-pocus is that the ice will melt everywhere, if this man-made 
lirum-larum-lorum is allowed to continue: a suspected disappearance becomes, 
the Disappearance. And soon 60% of world's population will see their homes 
vanishing by the invisible hand of the CO2 magician.

 

Happy reading and cinema-going, though I would have been much happier had 
Roland Emmerlich read the "2012" authors' UN petitions that the destabilised 
ice sheets were the blame of this pandemonium (instead of the neutrino showers 
of the Internet-junkies).

 

May be, next Christmas I put a new climate change advent calendar on market, 
behind each window is hidden a new parcel of gifts from our warming and 
CO2-infested world.

 

Kr, Albert 

 

---

 

East Antarctica 'is losing ice' 
By Richard Black 


Environment correspondent, BBC News website 


The East Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass for the last three years, 
according to an analysis of data from a gravity-measuring satellite mission. 
The scientists involved say they are "surprised" by the finding, because the 
giant East Antarctic sheet, unlike the west, has been thought to be stable. 
Other scientists say ice loss could not yet be pinned on climate change, and 
uncertainties in the data are large. 
 
The US-based team reports its findings in the journal Nature Geoscience. 

The data comes from Nasa's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) 
mission. 

“ It energises me as a scientist, but I'm not convinced that as yet it should 
energise anyone else ” 

Professor Richard Alley 

Grace has previously shown that the smaller West Antarctic and Greenland ice 
sheets are losing mass. 
 
These two bodies of ice contain enough water to raise sea levels by about six 
to seven metres (20ft) each if they melted completely. 
Melting the East Antarctic sheet would raise sea levels by much more - about 
50-60m. 
But scientists have generally discounted the possibility of it happening 
because the region is so cold. 
 

The Grace measurements suggest there was no net ice loss between 2002 and 2006. 


But since then, East Antarctica has been losing 57 billion tonnes (Gt) per 
year. 
 
"We felt surprised to see this change in East Antarctica," study leader Jianli 
Chen from the Centre for Space Research at the University of Texas in Austin 
told BBC News. 
 
The loss still looks small by contrast with West Antarctica, which is losing 
132Gt per year, and with Greenland, where a recent analysis combining Grace 
data with o

RE: [geo] scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of research programs (or program)

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Ken,

 

I suggest couple further points as the list is perhaps too much of engineer 
perspective and therefore missing out some vital human points (which can make 
or kill political support):

 

A.3. Approaches that prevent positive GHG feedbacks (if there is risk or when 
they occur)


(i.e. if the Amazon forest becomes dried-up, clear-felling the dead trees and 
heaping up the dead wegetation into piles and rows to create fire-breaks in 
between) CO2 risk 95 gigatonnes of positive feedback in laizzez-faire scenario 
when nothing is done. 

 

A.4. Large scale human food and water security (and relocation) projects

 

(without incorporating human populations international co-operation do not 
materialise)

 

C.4. Forest fires in warmer and dryer climates

 

C.5. Irrigation and housing in dryer world with higher seas

 

(i.e. redirection of Siberian Rivers towards South Central Asia, re-direction 
of River Nile)

 

Kr, Albert

 

 


Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:33 -0800
Subject: [geo] scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of research programs (or 
program)
From: kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Folks,

I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we need 
research into climate intervention.

However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope, 
emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs). 

Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which 
program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be 
prioritized.

I would like to open this discussion:



With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several independent or 
quasi-independent research programs:

A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively active 
gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods)

A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases 
from the atmosphere

A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse 
gases from the atmosphere

B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage that do 
not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e., Solar 
Radiation Management methods)



Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to address 
problems. One could imagine another program element that is organized around 
assessing potential threats and possible responses:

C. Threat and response assessment

C.1. Ice sheet stability

C.2. Permafrost methane degassing

C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural productivity

C.4. etc



I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they should 
be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear that A.1 
needs to be closely linked to A.2.

===

Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B, and 
C, some initial comments:

I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide 
removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and 
environmental consequences.

I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation 
management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity of 
possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences.

I distinguish cost from affordability in that program elements A will, at least 
in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus marginal cost is 
critical. However, program elements B might be used in an emergency situation 
where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a bad enough 
situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of GDP on 
deployment.

==

Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of 
climate intervention research programs (or program)?

==

Best,

Ken
___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
  
_
Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both
 http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394591/direct/01/

--

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

[geo] USA Agrees Emission Cuts of Only 3-4% by 2020

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

I just noticed that USA has just announced 3-4% emission cuts by 2020 which is 
a way too low to address any of the issues for the practical purposes.

 

3-4% cut refers to the baseline which is comparable to one used by the European 
Union where the baseline year is 1990. The USA has its baseline set 15 years 
later, this produces much more impressive looking emissions cut of 25%, but 
21-22% of which is pre-2005 rise.

 

Thus the issue of Geoengineering is hot and alive as the conniving US will 
probably wreck the Copenhagen efforts to rain in fossil fuel consumption 
elsewhere if the USA doesn't join.

 

Effectively, the USA is pleading a status quo, a temporary hold on its growing 
emissions, not a difficult task considering the present, recessionary cut on 
fossil fuel demand.

 

Not too much hope for sea ice and stopping the permafrost melting.

Business as usual, tailpipe emissions as usual. 3-4% cut probably is from 
carbon trading.

 

Kr, Albert
  
_
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

--

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

RE: [geo] scale, scope, structure

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Diana,

 

The geoengineering debate is largely forced upon us for the human unwillingess 
to cut emissions. Had you followed tonight's announcement the United States are 
not prepared to reduce their emissions more than 3-4% from 1990 levels, they 
present the matter using figures just couple years ago as the period 1990-2005 
saw the CO2 emissions to raise 21-22% over the period, effectively announcing a 
status quo.

 

Until you can get the emitters like the United States to agree a substantial 
cut, 3-4% cut is less than Kyoto cut well over decade ago, the only other 
option, people unwilling to rain in greehouse gases that have global warming 
forcing effect on the athmosphere and acidification effect on the oceans, the 
remaining option in the toolbox to combat the committed warming and the future 
projected warming, may well be geoengineering. The scope of geoengineering is 
not unlimited but always stay relatively marginal for practical intents and 
purposes at least.

 

If the overall global warming projected is 4C to 6C which appear in recent 
models, geoengineering hardly could make our planet too cool to mitigate even 
half of that warming whatever we wished to implement with our finite financial 
resources.

 

I would draw attention to your language here which seems prejuducial and 
prescriptive:

 

"how a more comprehensive, democratic and sustainable approach could be devised 
should we ever be in the unimaginably horrible situation where deployment could 
be considered as a serious option."

 

This seems to have the pre-trial judgement that "unimaginably horrible 
situation" of deployment is the answer before the question is even made, a 
totally unscientific and prejudiced approach, giving a value-based assessment 
before anything is done. With this kind of attitude the 19th century diggers of 
the Suez Canal were told that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean fish 
populations would transfer diseases and both seas would go into extinction due 
to pathogenic pollution from one sea to the other once the ships started to 
take short cut. So much better then to make all the ships to go around Africa 
and pour billions of tonnes extra fuel each year.  Your prejudiced approach is 
scare-mongering.

 

Similarly, many geoengineering solutions loose their effect immediately or 
almost immediately when turned off.

 

You also include everything and anything, as a way to stymify any reasonable 
outcome within acceptable time frames. There is also the issue of indigenous, 
the Chinese consider themselves indigenous, the Japanese industrial revolution 
was indigenous, also large nations can be indigenous although this is now 
hijacked to mean small, stateless, tribal, et cetera, making the consultations 
in complex scientific issues infinite due to need of raising the educational 
standards to comprehend the geo and climate science in detail. Does this mean 
that the indigenous need to be fed and opinionated by Greenpeace and the kind 
of folk to do what their patrons in the West want indigenous say.

 

"It must be democratic, participatory, informed and international.  Those on 
the front line of the fight against climate change (think Arctic peoples, 
Indigenous Peoples, small island states, least developed countries, coastal 
peoples) need to be involved. For the most part, they have not participated in 
this conversation and are largely unaware it is even going on."

 

When doctor needs to do an operation and remove appendicitis or do judgemental 
decisions in case of food poisonings or some unclear inflammatory condition, is 
the patient put through the science classes learn how the operations are 
conducted. No. The good scientific judgement is there to determine whether the 
operation delivers more benefits than harms, all in balance of probabilities. 
Sometimes people do worsen and die as they did not respond to the operations as 
was hoped for. But does that mean that no operation must go aheat until every 
patient is fully acquainted with the medical trials or knows the pharmaceutical 
studies of the tablets he eats to control his condition. No. If the effect is 
bad the treatment is suspended. Trials of new therapies are also made to 
minimise the impact in sample size or in duration.

 

This sounds like Greenpeace in 1970s, 1980s, 1990s saying that nuclear energy 
is bad, coal-power stations were tolerable and cleaner. It goes the same way 
like in 1960s DDT was banned claimed to kill millions of people. In fact the 
malaria deaths that stood at 50,000 per year in 1960 increased to over 
1,000,000 cases per year in the areas where DDT treatment was withdrawn, 
resulting in over 40,000,000 deaths. WMO finally reintroduced DDT for malaria 
battle back in 2006 and the cases are rapidly falling in areas where pandemics 
had grown so large. When AIDS were discovered and only 500 cases were diagnosed 
it was suggested that quarantine for the sexual intercourse transmitted disease 
wou

[geo] Geoengineers Needed for the UK National Climate March - Support Materials

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

RE:  Geoengineers Needed for the National Climate March 

 

Tens of organisations are present at the national climate March.  We need to 
set up a small delegation of geoengineering people to put up our view out on 
geoengineering as a way to tackle with the climate. I would like to fund any 
participant and make a poster size placards A0.

 

We could include biochar, forestation of warming tundra, cloud-whitening 
schemes and stratospheric sulphur aerosols, if I know who is coming I can ask 
printing houses to make us few A0 size placards for the climate march. 


In my view it is far better that those who participate the National Climate 
March in UK that we appear as our own distinctive group which promotes 
geoengineering solutions than joining to the other parties for the march, then 
we are just couple people mixed in the thousands.

 

Please get in touch if you are able to come so that I could equip you with a 
nice geoengineering related placard.

It also indirectly shows the widening base of general concern on our 
environment that is deteriorating so fast.

 

Please let me know soon if you are able to come as printing 4 colour posters is 
quite expensive process in small amounts.

Without nice placard it is hard to be taken notice of in the national climate 
march, in best case we may appear on newspaper front cover.

 

Text me or call me 07794 - 981238 if you are able to join us, or if you have 
some nice geoengineering image you wish to pass for poster.

 

Many thanks,

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert

 

 


From: i...@campaigncc.org
Subject: Placard making is on - this SUNDAY!
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:33:56 +






Campaign against Climate Change www.campaigncc.org








 
 
Placard making is go!!!
 
We’ve got 1500 placards to put together this Sunday, trouble with finding a 
venue means we are now doing it on the top floor of the Castle Climbing Centre 
so more than ever we need volunteers. If we get 6 people helping it will take 
all day – if we get 12 it could be done in half the time – if you can come 
along for just the morning or a few hours in the afternoon it would be hugely 
appreciated, here’s the details:
 
Placard making 
 
Date: Sunday 29th November
 
Time: 9am till 6:30pm or till we finish – come for as little or as long as you 
can
 
Venue: The Castle Climbing Centre, 
Green Lanes (between Manor House and Stoke Newington) 
North London N4 2HA
Nearest tube Manor House (Piccadilly Line) see here for map
 
When you arrive please ring Abi on 07859970709 or Phil on 07903316331 to gain 
access.
 
 
 
Stewarding at the Rally
 
We still need steward volunteers for the rally, if you can make the 
steward/planning meeting great but don’t worry if you cant, simply email 
stewa...@campaigncc.org if you’re available to help at the Rally on Saturday.
 
Steward and Planning Meeting for the National Climate Rally
 
Date: Monday 30th November
 
Time: 6:30pm
 
Venue:  The Kings Cross Social (Upstairs bar), 
2 Britannia Street, 
Kings Cross, WC1X 9JE 
Nearest tube Kings Cross see here for map
 
 


Without our supporters, there would be no campaign. Please make a donation 
today and help us reach Target Ten Thousand. 



You can also find us on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.
You can see videos of our demonstrations, public meetings and other events on 
our YouTube Channel. 

You can also get involved in our discussion forums



This email was sent to: albert_kal...@hotmail.com.

This email was sent by: Campaign against Climate Change 
5 Caledonian Road
Top floor
London N1 9DX+44 (0)20 7833 9311 


Unsubscribe from this list. Subscribe to other lists. 

Opt out from all Campaign against Climate Change lists. 
  
_
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

--

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

RE: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hydroxyls role in relation to ozone should not be forgotten; 

that might warrant extra study for hydroxyl's roles:
 

i.e. adding hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, 

in order to help to promote or stabilise the ozone formation, if do-able.


rgs, albert

 
> From: sam.car...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:28:03 +1100
> Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
> To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> Good point, Oliver,
> 
> Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was
> estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further
> hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing
> additional radiative forcing.
> 
> However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much
> shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation,
> which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore,
> additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected
> back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds
> and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial,
> especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane.
> 
> Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the
> aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding
> hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather
> than water vapor.
> 
> Much research and testing has already been done and further research
> can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with
> testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely
> only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated
> conditions during lab testing.
> 
> As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes
> catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost
> and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should
> aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs,
> feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be
> researched as a geoengineering project.
> 
> If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to
> start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do
> this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have
> eventuated.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam Carana
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter  wrote:
> > Dear Sam and Andrew,
> >
> > Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect GHG.
> >
> > H2 is a significant OH sink globally.
> >
> > Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes
> > place,
> >
> > CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O.
> >
> > Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half
> > of the H2 in the atmosphere.
> >
> > A good summary can be found in
> >
> > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Oliver Wingenter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to
> >> increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O
> >> and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in
> >> more hydroxyls.
> >>
> >> I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be
> >> produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of
> >> UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order
> >> to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare
> >> for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to
> >> dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means
> >> of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of
> >> biomass.
> >>
> >> You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion.
> >> The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could
> >> at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce
> >> ozone.
> >>
> >> You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this
> >> avialable online, or are you still working on it?
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Sam Carana
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, we
> >>> need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry.  Making ozone isn't
> >>> terribly difficult.  You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite
> >>> happily.  If you sling them under a balloon, then they should work quite
> >>> merrily to boost ozone levels.  Power would be a issue, but some options
> >>> include microwave beams, lasers, solar panels and satellite-style
> >>> micro-nuclear plants.
> >>> I know less about hydroxyl radicals.  I'm assuming that some similar
> >>> flying
> >>> Heath-Robinson contraptions could be used to fix them up too.  Does
> >>> anyon

RE: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I recall this too. But then I read that hydroxyl OH- has a positive effect on 
the ozone. Is there any way to send a generators of hydroxyl, some sort of 
catalysator that would turn up that and help to create ozone which is said to 
be higher in the presence of OH- ions.
 
> From: gorm...@waitrose.com
> To: sam.car...@gmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:55:16 +
> 
> A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on 
> the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2 
> based transport energy idea.
> 
> Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if 
> it would have other positive effects.
> 
> John Gorman
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Sam Carana" 
> To: "geoengineering" 
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM
> Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
> 
> 
> Good point, Oliver,
> 
> Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was
> estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further
> hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing
> additional radiative forcing.
> 
> However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much
> shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation,
> which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore,
> additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected
> back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds
> and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial,
> especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane.
> 
> Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the
> aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding
> hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather
> than water vapor.
> 
> Much research and testing has already been done and further research
> can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with
> testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely
> only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated
> conditions during lab testing.
> 
> As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes
> catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost
> and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should
> aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs,
> feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be
> researched as a geoengineering project.
> 
> If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to
> start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do
> this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have
> eventuated.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam Carana
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter  wrote:
> > Dear Sam and Andrew,
> >
> > Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect 
> > GHG.
> >
> > H2 is a significant OH sink globally.
> >
> > Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes
> > place,
> >
> > CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O.
> >
> > Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half
> > of the H2 in the atmosphere.
> >
> > A good summary can be found in
> >
> > http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Oliver Wingenter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to
> >> increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O
> >> and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in
> >> more hydroxyls.
> >>
> >> I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be
> >> produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of
> >> UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order
> >> to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare
> >> for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to
> >> dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means
> >> of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of
> >> biomass.
> >>
> >> You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion.
> >> The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could
> >> at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce
> >> ozone.
> >>
> >> You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this
> >> avialable online, or are you still working on it?
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Sam Carana
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, 
> >>> we
> >>> need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry. Making

RE: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

en winds 
blow towards the warm sea areas and carry the loosened ice to areas of sea 
where it melts away in a process they call "ice chipping". No one ever came to 
ask them question to remove sea ice cover artificially this way, they just do 
it as it delivers benefits.

 

Sometimes it might be possible to find a philantrophist or a corporate sponsor 
that might do the project and ask not too many questions and opinions. Since 
the CFC scare people are concerned of all athmospheric or sea water 
modifications that might become irreversible, but as I have seen most 
geoengineering are entirely reversible and can be turned off, or that the pilot 
projects can be made small enough that any damage is not in any way substantial.

 

The issue with geoengineering is to tap into right philantrophists, corporate 
sponsors, or political establishment who do not get bogged into infinite rounds 
of reviews which planning process will sap all the energy before any actual 
work in the field trials or facility running are in place.

 

There ought to be instances where research or operation may attract the funding 
for execution your plans. Perhaps we geoengineers should discuss more at this 
particular option and draw plans to try to get ahead also on this way to get 
our dreams materialised. 

 

Human mind is complex one and the patrons of climate change denialists know 
that. Hacking of CRU computers create confusion and disorder, this destabilises 
public confidence to the scientists and politicians and the commerce can do 
selling polluting things and way of life as before. Professor Ian Plimer and 
Daily Express who I have taken to the Press Complaint Commission claimed that 
the athmosphere has had 1,000 times more carbon dioxide in the past 
300,000-400,000 parts per million. Half a dozen Conservative break away 
politicians immediately supported it. However, in my calculus the athomosphere 
has O2 in concentrations of only 210,000 parts per million, so how come CO2 at 
400,000 p.p.m.? The facts do not always matter, the sentiments do, if someone 
tells us a lie we want, we tend to believe it even if it is total nonsense. 

 

I wish, the First Nations old recollections would also be nonsense. My 
sentiments and look at their details tells me the opposite. Time shows.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 

 

Hawkins, Dave wrote: "Come on folks. There is no reason to dismiss the entire 
scientific community as afraid to publish a paper due to concerns about 
political correctness or impact on careers.  I don't buy this slur on an entire 
profession."

 

Gorman, John wrote: "This is a case where the correct answer is that "there 
isnt any peer reviewed reference because it wouldnt be politically correct to 
say it and to do so would be to risk ones career" However the back of an 
envelope  calculation  is simple; The area of sea ice  has halved in little 
more than a decade. Whatever scenario one takes it will be gone in 30, 40, 50 
years. Even with no further emissions from today the CO2 will stay at 380 and 
the temperature in the Arctic will stay at 3 or 4 deg C above 50 years ago. The 
sea ice will continue to melt. With any conceivable emissions limitation 
scenario it will be gone much sooner."

 


 


Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:08:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering?
From: wf...@utk.edu
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; dhawk...@nrdc.org
CC: gorm...@waitrose.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org

Dear John Nissen:
How important is it to avoid loosing summer sea ice in the Arctic?  The bads 
from it include: positive feedback on warming due to albedo lowering and 
increased input of GHG emissions from permafrost melting and hydrate 
decomposition causing some acceleration of the impact of warming on the 
Greenland ice sheet, damage  to ecosystems (including iconic species) and 
social systems, possible harmful impact on northern latitude weather patterns, 
and perhaps others that I don’t know about.  There are some goods to like the 
Northwest passage I suppose.  To your knowledge has anyone or any group tried 
to quantify these bads or do a rough cost/benefit analysis. One important part 
of your arguments, with which I am in agreement, is that the bads are pretty 
bad, and, therefore, there is an urgency to do something. If that can be shown 
unequivocally, then it argues for finding out if  some form of SRM can reduce 
the bads; i.e. Initiating an urgent, focused and comprehensive RD&D program.  
Perhaps the first step in the program is to do the cost/benefit as best it can 
be done.
With best regards,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN

FW: [geo] Env Res Web: Saving Greenland's ice by geoengineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Please note that Dan's proposition cited below is fundamentally flawed and I 
like to draw attention to the reasons why:
 

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:43:43 -0800
Subject: [geo] Env Res Web: Saving Greenland's ice by geoengineering
From: dan.wha...@gmail.com
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
 
 http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245

 
Dec 15, 2009


Saving Greenland's ice by geoengineering
... 
 Current estimates suggest that it would be impossible to prevent the Greenland 
ice sheet from melting completely if atmospheric carbon dioxide is allowed to 
climb to four times pre-industrial levels (1120 ppmv) and remain around or 
above this concentration. With "business as usual" emissions we are predicted 
to reach this particular tipping point by 2150, jamming the Greenland ice sheet 
into melt mode and leading to complete melting within a few thousand years at 
most.
 
 Using a global-climate model coupled with an ice-sheet model, Irvine and 
colleagues assessed the impact of varying levels of solar-radiation management 
on a world with carbon dioxide levels four times those of pre-industrial times.



1) First of all, where we stand now? 

 

October 2009 the concentration of CO2 was 384.38 p.p.m.  Table data source: Dr. 
Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL
 
 
2) Second, allowing CO2 to raise 1,120 p.p.m.v. or four times our current use 
of athmosphere as a carbon sink?
 
If CO2 emissions are allowed to raise to 1,120 p.p.m., we are already 
suffocating ourselves with the carbon dioxide poisoning, just please refer to 
the Workplace Health and Safety Authority table about safe CO2 in the workplace 
air. The windows are always opened for the breaks to allow the fresh air in to 
prevent the classroom air becoming putrified at 1,000 p.p.m. The workplace 
authorities define this phenomenon as follows: "1000 ppm 0.1% Prolonged 
exposure can affect powers of concentration."
 
Can we imagine a world where we need air conditioning to pour out excess CO2 
from our living space to outdoor carbon sink. This defies any intelligence and 
has not been adequately recognised by the meteorologists who have become too 
segregated in their study from a real world.
 
Or may be, we need to re-write the whole story of evolution, perhaps the early 
stages were so slow, as the air was so putrified by CO2 that the whole globe, 
like the Neanderthals were just like an army of "walking zombies due to carbon 
dioxide poisoning" at 1,000 p.p.m. and above.
 
I think these meteorologists should be locked up in their own study to sniff 
their own CO2 long enough that they loose their powers of concentrations to do 
these crazy propositions. I think they should sue the workplace health and 
education authorities' instructions for classroom ventilations that are there 
to prevent the kids getting their heads filled 1000 ppm CO2 poisoning "to lose 
powers of concentration".
 
 
http://www.analox.net/site/content_HOSP_co2_dangers.php
 
The Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
 









Dangers of Carbon Dioxide


 



 






Carbon Dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising levels 
of Carbon Dioxide affect the human body, but what level is dangerous and how do 
you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide poisoning? 

The box below shows how rising levels of Carbon Dioxide affect the human body 
and what side effects you may experience with Carbon Dioxide poisoning. 
 
The Dangers of Carbon Dioxide





1000ppm 

0.1% 

 

Prolonged exposure can affect powers of concentration 


5000 ppm 

0.5% 

  

The normal international Safety Limit (HSE, OSHA) 


10,000ppm 

1% 

  

Your rate of breathing increases very slightly but you probably will not notice 
it. 


15,000ppm 

1.5% 

  

The normal Short Term Exposure Limit (HSE, OSHA) 


20,000ppm 

2% 

  

You start to breathe at about 50% above your normal rate. If you are exposed to 
this level over several hours you may feel tired and get a headache. 


30,000ppm 

3% 

  

You will be breathing at twice your normal rate. You may feel a bit dizzy at 
times, your heart rate and blood pressure increase and headaches are more 
frequent. Even your hearing can be impaired. 


40,000-50,000ppm 

4-5% 

  

Now the effects of CO2 really start to take over. Breathing is much faster - 
about four times the normal rate and after only 30 minutes exposure to this 
level you will show signs of poisoning and feel a choking sensation. 


50,000-100,000ppm 

5-10% 

  

You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like 
fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with laboured breathing, 
headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become 
confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness. 


100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm 

10-100% 

  

Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer 
the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker 
suffocation occurs. 

 
3) Physiolog

[geo] Geological Society of America commercial databases - - my redundant access to their articles and reports

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

If anybody wishes to use articles published and retained in Geological Society 
of America's commerical database, Santa Claus has arrived!

 

For the COP15, I needed one-off access to refute Professor Ian Plimer's dubious 
statistics that were to spread confusion and disarray at Copenhagen. The 
delegation of Professor Ian Plimer claims that scientific evidence supports 
ultra-high CO2 levels in the past where carbon dioxide concentrations prevailed 
between 300,000-400,000 parts per million. Legally, they are in their rights to 
supply supporting evidence.

 

I have extreme concerns about the carbon dioxide statistics distributed by 
Professor Ian Plimer and I am utilising legal process for him to disclose his 
scientific source which he is citing. The athmospheric carbon dioxide 
concentration peaking in the past, somewhere between 300,000 to 400,000 parts 
per million, appears to me very high as currently oxygen O2 content in the air 
is at 210,000 parts per million. 

 

Furthermore, the Workplace Health and Safety Authority states that at 
concentration of 1,000 parts per million (0.1%) carbon dioxide becomes toxic 
and "starts affecting the powers of concentration", because of this, the 
schools are required to ventilate their class rooms between lessons whenever 
CO2 levels reaches 1,000 parts per million. I also feel, Professor of Mining 
Geology, Ian Plimer, should also know health and safety guidelines in place for 
safe levels of concentrations of: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane 
in the coal mines.

 

I am, therefore, concerned of Professor Ian Plimer's statistics of ultra-high 
carbon dioxide concentrations in the athmosphere between 300,000-400,000 as a 
science fraud in order to cause confusion at COP15 unless proven that he has 
cites some pre-existing research. 

 

If anybody knows periods when the athmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 
have been around 300,000-400,000 parts per million, please provide these 
URGENTLY to us for assistance on the above legal case. (But otherwise, I do not 
need the databases and GSA pay service access, so if you feel any need I am 
more than happy to use my credits up with them.)

 

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS

 

HH Plenipotentiary Scientific Ambassador 

of Environmental Parliament Group, NGO.

 

 

===
This message was generated automatically by a computer.
There is no need to reply unless there is a problem.
===
 
Your registration has been successfully completed for
GSA Publications' Bloc of Docs.
 
 
The current information in our database is:
 
Customer Number: *
(It is very important not to lose your Customer Number.
If you ever do, please contact: Geological Society of America.)
 
User Name: *
First Name: *

Last Name: *
Email Address: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
 
Your GSA Publications' Bloc of Docs access has been activated.
 
If you need assistance, please contact us: Geological Society of America
 
GSA Sales & Service
3300 Penrose Place
P.O. Box 9140
Boulder, CO 80301-9140
Tel: +1-888-443-4472 or +1-303-357-1000
E-mail: gsaserv...@geosociety.org
 
Thank you,
 
Geological Society of America's publications Online
Geological Society of America
 


Subject: FW: Press Complaint Commission - reference: 095807
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:10:50 +
From: becky.ha...@pcc.org.uk
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com






Dear Mr Kallio,
 
As you are aware, the Commission is currently investigating your complaint.
 
Your complaint was sent to the Daily Express on 11 December, a reply was 
received on 14 December stating that the matter had been passed to the 
newspaper's legal team.  A reply was expected within seven days.  We spoke on 
21 December and I explained the situation and said I would chase the newspaper 
for its response.  This was done and I received notification that the legal 
advisor dealing with your concerns will be out of the office until Tuesday 29 
December.  I have reminded the newspaper of its obligations under the Code and 
shall contact it again when I return to work after Christmas (Wednesday 30 
December).
 
I do apologise for the delay but I hope this information is useful.  I shall 
keep you up to date with any further developments.
 
Kind regards,
Rebecca Hales
 
 ----Original Message-
From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: 23 December 2009 13:01
To: Simon Yip; complai...@ppcc.org
Cc: Meteorological Office
Subject: Press Complaint Commission - reference: 095807

 
Dear Simon,
 
RE: REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE (Your Ref. 095807)

Please note that we are still awaiting the response for Daily Express, its 
editor and Professor Ian Plimer to provide the disclosure of their scientific 
sources stating that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been 
1,000 times higher than the present 386 p.p.m. in t

RE: [geo] Arctic could face ice-free conditions

[Veli Albert Kallio]

The extreme rapid warmings in the past are suggestive that the sea ice cover 
makes a suprise retreat into oblivion much like the surprise half-way melting 
of 2007. As the ice probably thins further the flips appear much faster. This 
report draws attention to the rapid rate of coastal erosion, but this forgets 
that the wave penetration, sea ice split-up and lead generation is enhanced the 
same process. Furthermore, the wind pushes water under the ice on windward 
sides, on still sides water emerges from beneath ice and from the deeper ocean. 
So, there is intensified mixing of sea water that also erodes the sea ice.

 

As the sea ice area declines further the wave generating open sea ice area 
grows bigger generating waves that brake the thinned ice much easier than in 
the past, allowing almost infinite wave penetration under thin newly formed ice 
in comparison to the old and stiff multi year ice. It is just my fear now that 
our measurements for the United Nations General Assembly complainants can be 
started before loss of sea ice. If the indigenous peoples' recollections hold 
water that there is to be a strong coupling with the terrestrial ice being lost 
almost imminently after loss of marine ice cover (due to melt water 
accummulation on subglacial slopes of Greenland chiseling the ice off the 
ground by an expanding water mattress) this rapid warming will end with even 
more rapid cooling when the ice dome looses its footing and falls into sea.

 

In my view, despite the possibility of strong likely opposition of additionally 
enhancing this "Last Dryas" cooling resulting from Greenland ice sheet land 
containment failure, I would see geoengineering delivering its last chance to 
revert permafrost melting at that time (Europe's and America's agriculture 
being in disarray until the discharged ice melts and the resulting cold water 
falls to the sea floor). Agriculture failing Europe-wide, much resistance in 
that cold weather would mean public opposition to further enhance that severe 
sudden cooling which lasts until sea water re-stratifies once again.

 

I do not want to be the Devil's Advocate always telling the worst outcomes, but 
this is not my view but that what the World Indigenous Nations Summit put 
effectively forward to the United Nations General Assembly to investigate based 
on their ancient recollections what happened to the ice dome on the Hudson Bay 
that they recall of loosing its footing and suddenly starting to move down and 
collapse to sea. We are more or less on schedule to put the GPS monitoring in 
place for Melville Bay coast to see within accurracy of 0.01 metres whether 
there are any movement of Greenland's periphery towards sea there.

 

Until we have two measurement points in time bagged we are unable to say 
whether the concerns to the United Nations General Assembly some 17 years ago 
(after Rio de Janeiro climate change summit) will hold water or is an 
unwarranted fear. However, as all these new reports affirm, the melting 
processes and rainfall in Greenland will see massive increase in the post sea 
ice Arctic Ocean and ice-free North Pole. Will these things the North American 
indigenous history-keepers warned the United Nations General Assembly will only 
be seen in the future as marine ice cover melts away or is it already happening?

 

Because of the darkeness and snow, the installation work will start only with 
the arrival of spring when we can start inserting the markers and fly 
helicopters from Thule - Pituffic in the north and Ilulissat Airport from the 
south these equipments. Anyway, it is both sad and distressing to see these 
reports coming every now and then reconfirming us the growing inevitability of 
the North Pole becoming entirely ice-free.

 

Rgs, Albert


 


Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:13:07 +
Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic could face ice-free conditions
From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; geoengineering@googlegroups.com

That's a very interesting result for geoengineers.  My interpretation of these 
results is that the late application of SRM may not be able to reverse Arctic 
thawing and keep the methane locked up.  Considering the work of Robock 
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011652.shtml my previous belief was 
that SRM geoengineering would be enough to keep the permafrost frozen and the 
methane locked up, no matter how bad the global temperature rise was in the 
medium term.  However, this new research, which considers a period with lower 
CO2 than today (if I'm not mistaken), suggests a level of regional warming far 
exceeding the global rise.  It is clearly the regional warming which unleashes 
the 'methane monster'.


I am very interested to know if the late application of SRM can reverse this 
profound regional warming.  If we can't be certain that SRM will reverse the 
regional warming, we may need to look at 'emergency SRM', to be deployed ASAP.


I note the outcome of the funding mee

[geo] GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS BY UK AIR FORCE CREATE CLOUDS ABOVE BRITAIN

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 

The British Army created a circular holding pattern to create an immense 
artificial coil in the sky made of the military aeroplane's contrail. This was 
then easy to distinguish and track by satellites to see undisputed, how 
aeroplane emissions can be made to turn clear skies to artificial cirrus 
covered clouds.

 

Link to the slide show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8309629.stm

 
  
_
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/-- 

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

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

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

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

[geo] Handling uncertainty in science, 22-23 March

[Veli Albert Kallio]

For your diary:

 

This conference is pertinent as one of the key argument against geoengineering 
is uncertainty. The filosophy goes if you do not know what you are doing, then 
it is probably better to do nothing. Then the issues of abrupt climate change 
(Type 2 climate change).

 

If able to make, this could help to formulate the soft problems and hard 
problems, how to deal with the situitions better and how to apply 
geoengineering.
 


Subject: Handling uncertainty in science, 22-23 March
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:20:40 +
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
From: discussion.meetings.cvlrivdmtye...@newsletters.royalsociety.org







If you are having difficulties viewing this email, click here for an online 
version









Discussion Meetings







Handling uncertainty in science

22 - 23 March 2010



 



Organised by:
Professor Tim Palmer FRS 
Professor Paul Hardaker
Location:
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG

























We encourage you and any staff or students in your department to register for 
this free two day Discussion Meeting, and would be grateful if you could 
circulate this appropriately.

Synopsis
A highly multi-disciplinary meeting discussing how scientists from a range of 
disciplines handle the issue of uncertainty in their area of specialisation: ie 
how uncertainty can be characterised, estimated, predicted and communicated. 
The meeting will also address the question of how decisions are made, and 
should be made, in the light of scientific uncertainty. An exceptionally 
eminent set of speakers have agreed to participate.


Speakers
Professor John Barrow FRS, Professor Harvey Brown, Dr Philip Campbell, 
Professor Sally Davies, Lord Smith of Finsbury, Lord Krebs of Wytham FRS, Mr 
Mervyn King, Lord May of Oxford FRS, Sir Roger Penrose FRS, Dr Nina M 
Skorupska, Professor Julia Slingo, Professor David Spiegelhalter FRS, Lord 
Stern of Brentford, Professor Ian Stewart FRS, Professor Kathy Sykes, Professor 
Peter Webster.

Registration 
This meeting is free to attend, but pre-registration (online) is essential. The 
online registration form and programme information can be found at 
royalsociety.org/events-diary


Between November 2009 and November 2010, the Royal Society will be celebrating 
its 350th anniversary, promoting a spirit of enquiry, excitement and engagement 
with science.

This meeting is part of the Royal Society's 350th anniversary programme.
More information about the anniversary year can be found at royalsociety.org 











If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe immediately.



© Copyright The Royal Society
The Royal Society,
6-9 Carlton House Terrace,
London SW1Y 5AG


t: 020 7451 2500
e: discussion.meeti...@royalsociety.org 
w: royalsociety.org/events-diary

Registered Charity No 207043



See further with the Royal Society in 2010 – celebrate 350 years of excellence 
in science

If you wish to unsubscribe, please click on the link below.
Please note this is an automated operation.
 http://newsletters.royalsociety.org/u/12hjvm5eAHd4p
  
_
Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

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

[geo] CLOUD SEEDING WILL WORK - AFTER ALL ITS NATURAL AT LEAST IN THE ANTARCTIC SEAS

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This arrived via the UN Wire.

 

This article points to positive points of blowing sea salt into air once again.

The increases of ozone may on the other hand have also negative effects.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html?ref=world

The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’ 








The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’

By SINDYA N. BHANOO 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html
JAN 26 2010
The New York Times
 
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: January 25, 2010 

 

That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big 
victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say 
there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming. 

 

It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual 
clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by 
greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in 
Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters. 

 

“The recovery of the hole will reverse that,” said Ken Carslaw, a professor of 
atmospheric science at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper. 
“Essentially, it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the Southern 
Hemisphere.”

 

The hole in the layer, discovered above Antarctica in the mid-1980s, caused 
wide alarm because ozone plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth from 
harmful ultraviolet radiation. 

 

The hole was largely attributed to the human use of chlorofluorocarbons, 
chemical compounds found in refrigerants and aerosol cans that dissipate ozone. 
Under an international protocol adopted in 1987, many countries phased out the 
compounds, helping the ozone to start reconstituting itself over the Antarctic.

 

For their research, the authors of the new study relied on meteorological data 
recorded between 1980 and 2000, including global wind speeds recorded by the 
European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. 

 

The data show that the hole in the ozone layer generated high-speed winds that 
caused sea salt to be swept up into the atmosphere to form moist clouds. The 
clouds reflect more of the sun’s powerful rays and help fend off warming in the 
Antarctic atmosphere, the scientists write.

The sea spray influx resulted in an increase in cloud droplet concentration of 
about 46 percent in some regions of the Southern Hemisphere, Dr. Carslaw said. 

 

But Judith Perlwitz, a University of Colorado professor and a research 
scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that 
although the paper’s data were sound, she questioned the conclusions. 

 

Even as the ozone layer recovers, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to 
expand, she said. She predicted that the rise in temperatures would cause wind 
speeds to increase over time and have the same cloud-forming effect that the 
ozone hole now has.

 

“The question is whether the wind is really going to slow down, and that I 
doubt,” she said. 

 

“The future is not just determined by the recovery of the ozone hole,” she 
said. “We’re also increasing our use of greenhouse gases, which increases the 
speed of the winds all year long.”

 

Dr. Perlwitz also pointed out that the ozone hole was not expected to fully 
recover to pre-1980 levels until at least 2060, according to the World 
Meteorological Organization’s most recent report on the issue. 

 
  
_
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

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

[geo] COP15 follow up summit invitation

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

As per COP15 is going, I think that aerosol is most likely to work due to its 
simplicity when capital investment and political factors are accounted over 
which methods are more likely be chosen. But like chemotherapy, its assistance 
is very limited and likely when people are desperate but by then the Arctic 
permafrost and ice free Arctic Ocean would be seeping out their own emissions 
undoing the effect. But I am otherwise a great fan of cloud whitening as a way 
of increasing cloud cover and sky brighteness to counter effect of reducing 
snow cover.

 

More efforts need to be done. I see this like a soccer match. Any geoengineer 
interested to be giving a good defense for our actions, or even act as a goal 
keeper would be welcome to join non-aligned countries, APC countries, and the 
First Nations summit. 

 

I would like to see a plenary on geoengineering and also perhaps a side event 
to explain various technologies of geoengineering. I do not think this summit 
is a good with attack players getting the funds, but if we can get wider 
acceptance to our activities and even act as a goal keeper to keep out the most 
stupid fears and accusations, we would be able to prepare the home side of the 
field when asking funds from the First World Nations who are much more capable 
than African, Asian, South American and Pacific countries to fund our 
experiments.

 

Our meeting on Wednesday was extended from one hour to 3 1/2 hours with the 
government officials as we poured over all the minutiae of the First Nations' 
view what will happen soon to Greenland's ice sheet based on their 
recollections (my role is to put supply geophysical framing of the ancient 
recollections and probe the unattended claims to UN General Assembly with 
various testable experiments).  

 

If you think you have opportunity to deliver presentation on geoengineering 
20-22 April 2010, plus few extra days aside for side events and travel, please 
get in touch with me.  I will not be able to do presentation on this matter as 
I am looking after the First Nations' complaints.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio


 

 


Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:43:09 +
From: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
To: john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk
CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; 
lat...@ucar.edu
Subject: [clim] Re: [geo] Polar Sea-Ice Maintenance


Hi John,

While I absolutely agree that a joint approach of stratospheric aerosols and 
marine cloud brightening would be ideal, I don't believe we have the luxury of 
time to wait until the latter is ready for deployment.

There is a very fundamental difference of view between people in this group as 
to the severity of the situation in the Arctic, and hence the balancing of 
geoengineering risks against the risks of not geoengineering.  I find myself at 
one end of the spectrum, believing that we are if anything verging on being too 
late to save catastrophe, with the sea ice imminent disappearance being a 
catalyst for the dual catastrophes of methane release and Greenland ice sheet 
disintegration.  I suspect others in this group, perhaps Alan Robock may be an 
example, are at the other end of the spectrum, believing that there is not 
significant risk of reaching a tipping point in the Arctic for many decades, 
and hence emissions reductions should be given a chance to work.  People at 
this end of the spectrum would consider the dangers of geoengineering are 
inevitably greater than those of not geoengineering.

However, as David Keith has observed, the more scientists look at the dangers 
arising from excess CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming, the more worried 
they become.  Many of us have been brought up to think of this world being 
created for our benefit, such that it will continue automatically to look after 
us, as a benign natural  system.  Interference with this system invites 
retribution - and geoengineering is seen as a dangerous interference.  However 
there is much evidence that our civilisation has developed over the past 8000 
years with the climate system precariously balanced between getting too hot 
(and sea level rising) and getting too cold (with sea level falling).  There is 
the Ruddiman hypothesis, that mankind has emitted just the amount of greenhouse 
gases over this period to maintain the precise balance to allow civilisation to 
develop.  Furthermore there have been no super-volcanoes (such as Toba) to 
upset this balance, although one or two are now overdue.  Thus it is entirely 
by luck that our society has been able to develop - with coal and oil at hand 
to fuel our growth to 6 billion people, globally trading.  There is absolutely 
no reason why this luck should continue.  And we have now upset the balance by 
injecting a colossal pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you start to look at geoengineering from this perspective, you see it as 
almost certainly the only way out of 

[geo] Global Solicitation for Alternative Schemes - Invitation to Join COP15 Follow-up Summit

[Veli Albert Kallio]

I would like to invite people to give presentations to the COP15 follow-up 
meeting at Copababamba. It is my understanding that travel will be fully 
covered for a limited number of delegates. If you are able to join us 
20-22.4.2010, let me know and I pass your details to my coordinator.

 

I cannot guaratee, but I believe this meeting is one of the big ones and we 
need to be there in order to refute all rubbish some conservationists throw at 
us. 

 

I look at horror how environmental organisations are becoming distorted about 
Copenhagen's failure. Environmental charities are dependent on donations. The 
climate change earmarked donations are on the dry down. As a result, the 
marketing departments fighting for the campaigners jobs are now focused 
developing campaings like: nuclear-scare, GM-food scare, biofuel-scare and 
geoengineering-scare to raise donations.

 

I think this is a distortion and distraction of potential ways of addressing 
climate problems as all the blanket bans throw baby with bathwater.

 

I cannot stress enough that we need early dialoue to engage with those people 
groups and organisations that are otherwise prone to be mislead by this fund 
raising oriented climate-scare industry, such as Greenpeace, where it applies 
in particular.

 

Copababamba climate summit may also open doors to people from other cultures 
and regions such as the Persian Gulf that do not carry the same preconceptions 
and mind sets that apprear in the West. Who cares if the sources came from 
eccentric environmentalist from the Middle East or some other parts of the 
world if we can get something funded and closer to the realisation.

 

However, I would try us be present to give information about geoengineering so 
that people can make informed decisions what is worth to be funded without 
being first immersed in the misinformation disseminated by Greenpeace and the 
likes and some of the most outrageus claims can be dismissed on the spot 
provider we have a goal-keeper in this soccer game.

 

I will do my best to take geoengineers either under my own quota, or, get your 
institution represented, may be even as private individuals.

There might be as many as 150 sponsored delegates departing from London, and 
the same perhaps from the USA.

 

Please, if you can make time on that week for 20-22.4 summit. From London the 
departures are either 15.4. or 17.4. and returning London no later than 25.4. 
Shorter time periods may be possible. I will do my utmost in securing as many 
sponsored delegates / places as possible. 

 

 

A UK magazine specializing political gossips mentions a plan of a meeting on 
the Arctic Ocean, convening perhaps as early as next month (the marine buoys 
show now the weakness [thinness] of Arctic Ocean's sea ice much alike the story 
the visual images [area] from the satellites):

 

As the rapid disappearance of sea ice cover "a rapidly convened global summit 
concerning series of issues, including the law of the sea, control of fish 
stocks, limits to territorial waters and claims for control of th Arctic and 
Antarctic". The govenrment analysts' estimate that the Copenhagen style impasse 
is likely as "agreements reached now are unlikely to be long-lived". Foulsham, 
Ref: ISSN 0071-8084, p. 39, col. 3.  

 

If you have any idea who is, or has been planning for this conference, it would 
be interesting to know more about what is going on, or where this gossip 
originated that suggests "open-waters" sharing conference convening in March 
2010 - and if this converence is still on agenda.

 

This would again suggest me that there are at least some parties, may be, in 
the military that knows the sea ice conditions is even worse.

 

With kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio


 
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:22:26 -0800
> Subject: [geo] Re: Global Solicitation for Alternative Schemes
> From: m2des...@cablespeed.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> Thank you Ken for your response.
> 
> My main concern is that a formal solicitation and ranking of
> geoengineering schemes has not yet been done, but that I believe the
> scope and complexity of the problem absolutely warrants (and
> necessitates) doing this.
> 
> It wouldn't be a list that would stand the test of time, necessarily,
> but one that has been through a disciplined and transparent process,
> that we and others could look back against and have "best confidence"
> with at the time.
> 
> Though some ideas have been proposed through this site over the last
> few years, because a formal evaluation process hasn't been in place,
> and because there may be some very good ideas from those not yet
> connected with this site, important concepts may have been missed that
> could make a big difference in our future.
> 
> Finally, it seems like site participants have mainly been limit

RE: [geo] Methane - time for realism

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Further to Mike's comments:

 

When methane seeps into sea water and gets dissolved, it gets attacked by 
methanogenic bacteria that cosumes this to carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide 
then dissolves again into water. However, there are about 22,000 methane 
clathrate explosion craters in the Arctic. The largest methane escape crater on 
the sea floor measures over 750 km2 in area.

 

Royal Society's science book of the year award for 2008 was awarded to Mark 
Lynas' "The Six Degrees" which refers to the methane clatrate explosion sites 
in the Arctic sea beds. 

 

The off-shore methane craters have resulted from violent gas bursts of methane. 
As methane itself is soluble to a sea water in a limited degree, a gradual 
build up of carbon dioxide is often required to necessitate the nucleation of 
dissolved gases.

 

Carbon dioxide is dissolving in cold and deep waters sometimes 5 times of the 
volume of water or more, methane is dissolving considerably too, but not nearly 
as much as carbon dioxide. When outgassing event and methane clathrate 
explosions do occur, methane that has been converted to carbon dioxide acts as 
the active ingredient of gas nucleation.

 

Michel Halbwachs has successfully neutralised three deep water methane/carbon 
dioxide laden deepwater pockets that have been nucleating (or pose major risk 
of gas nucleation). He has three successful projects under management on 
controlled outgassing of highly dissolved deep water pockets that can cause 
fatalities if gas is not leaked out.

 

As methane clathrates dissolve in innumerable sites across deep Arctic lakes 
and coastal deep water pockets (that lack adequate water circulation), as the 
methane leaks out and gets converted to carbon dioxide, it builds up and 
eventually starts to sizzle out (like champagne) when there are disturbances in 
the vertical water column, or excess heating.

 

These can also be stirred and triggered by vessels traveling over and can be 
extremely dangerous due to density of nucleating water being much lower due to 
its high, nucleated, foamy gas content. When the carbon dioxide sizzles out, 
the methane comes out with it.

 

The high carbon dioxide content of water may also shut down some methanogenic 
bacteria, this effectively stopping further conversion of methane into carbon 
dioxide. Thus, the proportion of gas dissoleved will eventually consist high 
volumes of methane as well.

 

I have also been in touch with some scientists who believe that there were 
recently a huge methane explosion resulting from the conical deep water basin 
of Lake Cheko, where a sub lake bed may have collapsed due to melting of 
permafrost layer that was retaining a gas field. The lake and trespassing river 
may have fallen into the cavity of gas field triggering huge methane explosion 
3-5 miles above nearby Tunguska forest in spring 1908. This explosion killed 
and injured about half a dozen people due to its remoteness. Microdiamonds and 
molten rock materials have been discovered. The standard idea is that it was a 
meteorite impact (a bolide fire ball) rather than an on-shore methane explosion.

 

For the COP15/COP16 intermediate summit at Copababamba, I yesterday received 
petition to put forward from the First Nations' as some ancient first nations 
of the Americas recall seeing these immense fireballs, what they say, at the 
end of ice age, perhaps in Beringia when they were forced to move out as sea 
levels rose which area is near to the methane explosions and migrants came 
roughly via the same area (North East Coast of Siberia) as Mark Lynas', Euan 
Nisbet and others reported findings of sea floor methane escape craters. 

 

Back in July 2008 there were also huge explosion on the North West Passage, 
Nunavut, Canada, about ten days to two weeks after the NW passage cleared 
itself off sea ice, which was second consecutive summer when the area was sea 
ice free. The sound were heard hundreds of miles away and whales were spotted 
moving away from the area. 


Therefore, we need to keep in mind and search for the still deep water pockets 
or areas that may be excessively accummulating methane and carbon dioxide when 
permafrost soils and methane clathrated sea beds are melting.

 

If you know of any extremely carbon dioxide and methane laden sites (still deep 
water pockets) please contact Michel Halwachs who has been successfully 
contracted to defuse these. It would also make sense to controllably neutralise 
some of them and burn nucleating methane-carbon dioxide mixtures rather than 
letting them GHGs to go for birds.

 

Wint kind regards,

 

Veli Albert Kallio

 


Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:55:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Methane - time for realism
From: mmacc...@comcast.net
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: john.dav...@foe.co.uk

While I wholeheartedly agree that methane is a critical issue, it would sure be 
nice if they 

RE: [geo] Re: SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers?

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Paul, 

 

STRAND "How to Deal with the Losers".  I would like to reply briefly to your 
rhetorical question: What am I missing?


 

First of all, I think you are absolutely right that geoengineers would be 
accused of causing any unpleasant weather and if there were severe weather's 
like some town severely flooded, or unusual hurricane path or tornado, it would 
be the blame of the geoengineers.

 

This leads to a legitimate question, whether a hatred of geoengineers could 
develop into a life-threatening obsession by some crack pots.

Somebody loosing home or memorabilia for a flood or house burning into ashes 
due to forest fire by a perceived geoengieered draught.

 

Safety of geoengineers could become an issue, in some societies which have high 
endemic violence or social exclusion or high unemployment.

These are questions that few or if any geoengineers have ever thought. If the 
current climate change animosities are anything to go by, I am almost certain 
that some corners of the public could suddenly feel aggrieved enough to take a 
revenge against geoengineers.

 

However, this is nothing new: animal testing laboratories have been fire 
bombed, abortion clinics blown up, wasn't there a little Osama bin Laden so 
angered agaist the tax office mistake that he committed a suicide by flying his 
plane into the tax office in Texas the last week, setting the building ablaze, 
one person dead and twelve injured and all the tax records and account keeping 
going in a smoke to the sky.

 

We could see this kind of retaliatory measures from the people perceiving 
themselves as victims of geoengineering when the weather related events have 
inflicted them. In any case, you raised an excellent new aspect that few 
geoengineers have given thought about so far.

 

However, as per the climate change scepticism in the United States and also 
elsewhere. If a person is a hard core anthropogenic climate change denialist, 
then by definition he or she should also dismiss our (geoengineers) ability to 
influence changes in the weather patters. If so, I cannot see them being too 
much against geoengineering as they will think the whole concept is obvious 
nonsense.

 

I sternly disagree that the geoengineers will be causing more damage than good. 
The man is interfering the climate system by cutting the forests, releasing 
ozone destroying chemicals, even sea ice is demolished in some places to induce 
earlier spring, and then there is the much talked about emissions from the 
fossil fuels, farthing of the ruminants for ultimate human consumption as meat, 
milk or butter. It is nonsensical to claim that we do not effect changes to the 
climate both short and long term. We do lots of harm to the climate without 
geoengineering.

 

The purpose of geoengineering is to alleviate the negative impact from 
increasing and historic concentrations of greenhouse gases, not to aggrevate 
them. Many of the projects can be turned off with instant effect, if the doubts 
are growing of more damage than benefit. It is not too conceivable to see that 
a therapy would be described which can be seen detrimental to the overall 
health of our planet and is sustained.

 

For God's sake the widespread climate change denialism has been largely nesting 
in the United States and some in England. There are sceptics to be found 
everywhere, but they are not very much organised resistance like those of the 
United States, Australia or even England.

 

Albert
 
 
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:38:35 -0800
> Subject: [geo] Re: SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers?
> From: ppcr...@gmail.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> STRAND "How to Deal with the Losers"
> In preparation for Asilomar I’ve been reading or re-reading some of
> the exchanges on this group. This strand's theme is ‘how to deal
> with the losers’. It seems to assume that the ‘we’ is obvious. It
> sure isn’t obvious to me. My reading of Fox news and the like, plus
> conversations with lots of ‘ordinary folk’, leads me to the conclusion
> that following intervention by ‘the experts’, virtually every weather
> anomaly they don’t like will be blamed on you geoengineers. Whether
> the blame is right or wrong; whether what’s going on is climate
> related or short-term weather related. Won’t matter. A big fraction
> of the US public doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming.
> Those folk will conclude – not necessarily incorrectly - that you
> experts are doing more harm than good.
> 
> What am I missing?
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> 
  
_

[geo] Geoengineering Event Approved for COP15/COP16 Intermediate Climate Change Summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi All,

 

RE: COP15/COP16 Intermediate Climate Change Summit in Cochabamba, Bolivia

 

Just as an update, I glad that we have got an approval for The Peoples’ World 
Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights from 20th to 22nd April 
2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia subsequent to my initial invitation from His 
Excellency Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia 
via the Permanent Delegation of Plurinational State of Bolivia to UNESCO in 
Paris. I subsequently had this followed up here in London with Her Excellency, 
Ambassador Maria Beatriz Souviron - Crespo whom I met on the 11th February 2010.


Please find enclosed an approval for the plenary discussion. If you still think 
you have something to pass us for presentation there in person or by proxy, 
please let me or Julius know urgently. We try to ensure that approppriate 
consideration for geoengineering will be presented there.

 

With kind regards,

 

Albert

 


From: jul...@justassociate.com
To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
CC: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: FW: Some necessary steps to save the 
planet...Geoengineering
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:05:46 +







Congratulations! John The event Geoengineering has been accepted. 
Attached is the logistics form that the organisers require completed.
We need to discuss this so as to define our requirements.
Let’s speak ASAP.
 
Kind regards
 
Julius Just
  




From: Selforganized Coordinator 
Sent: 26 March 2010 23:05
To: Julius Just
Subject: Re: FW: Some necessary steps to save the 
planet...Geoengineering
 

Dear Mr, Julius, 

 
Thank you for the information. 
 
We would like to inform you that your application for participating with a 
self-organized event in the People´s World Conference on Climate Change and 
Mother Earth Rights has been accepted. Attached is the form for general 
requirements that should be filled out and sent as fast as possible in order to 
inform you about the economical aspects (two excel versions). 
 
Best regards,
 
Karen García
Selforganized Events Committee
 
P.D. The assigned code number for your event is 127.  
  
_
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

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

[geo] Geoengineering and Role of Algae on CDR: Study at sea assesses ash impacts

[Veli Albert Kallio]

This major study is helpful in assessing geoengineering potential from the 
artificial algae booms

as a viable CDR method:

 

 

Study at sea assesses ash impacts


Scientists hope to gather ...


< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/science_and_environment/10091568.stm >
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now

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

RE: Mike MacCracken taking over as lead moderator of [geo]

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Dear Ken/Mike/Andrew,

 

On behalf of the group, I would like to express our gratitude as the running of 
these can take considerable effort and time from yourselves.
 


From: kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 19:29:28 +0200
Subject: Mike MacCracken taking over as lead moderator of [geo]
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com

Folks,

Mike MacCracken has agreed to take over as lead moderator for [geo].

Andrew Lockley is continuing in his role as lead moderator for [clim].

The idea is that informed or well-grounded comments focused on geoengineering 
that would be of interest to busy professionals should be sent to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geo].
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering

Comments that range more broadly or are of a more speculative nature should be 
directed to climateintervent...@googlegroups.com [clim].
http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention

The idea is that [geo] is tightly moderated whereas [clim] is lightly moderated.

I will continue to act as back-up moderator for both groups.

I thank Mike and Andrew for their help.

Best,

Ken___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now

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

RE: [geo] Hypothetical SRM Question

[Veli Albert Kallio]

If there were need to have a counteracting agent (that would not have long life 
span like CFC's), I would think that the carbon black could be used to trap 
heat. However, as an aerosol, it also acts as a condensing surface, creating 
cloud droplets, and if flushed to snow, darkening.

 

The toxicity could be an issue. Any ash can trap some extra heat, but it also 
acts as a shield cooling air below it. Its usefulness depends on altitude and 
whether a smog is an issue for the area where the counter-effect is sought. 
This just a brief thought what stuff I might deploy.

 

kr, Albert


 
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:56:14 -0700
> Subject: [geo] Hypothetical SRM Question
> From: joshuahorton...@gmail.com
> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
> Group members,
> 
> I need help answering a hypothetical question about SRM
> countermeasures. Specifically, if one country were to implement
> stratospheric aerosol injections on its own, do technical means exist
> for other states to counteract such a deployment? If so, what are
> these means? Which effects associated with stratospheric aerosol
> injections could be offset by such means?
> 
> Any insights you could provide would be much appreciated - thanks.
> 
> Josh Horton
> joshuahorton...@gmail.com
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> 
  
_
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/19780/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now

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

[geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD

[Veli Albert Kallio]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/1004.stm

 

 

Can painting a mountain restore a glacier?


Page last updated at 09:27 GMT, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:27 UK



By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Ayacucho
 

 

The team has nearly reached the peak of Chalon Sombrero 

 
Slowly but surely an extinct glacier in a remote corner of the Peruvian Andes 
is being returned to its former colour, not by falling snow or regenerated ice 
sheets, but by whitewash. 
 

It is the first experimental step in an innovative plan to recuperate Peru's 
disappearing Andean glaciers. 

 

But there is debate between those who dismiss the idea as just plain daft and 
those who think it could be a simple but brilliant solution, or at least one 
which should be put to the test. 

 

The World Bank clearly believes the idea - the brainchild of 55-year-old 
Peruvian inventor, Eduardo Gold - has merit as it was one of the 26 winners 
from around 1,700 submissions in the "100 Ideas to Save the Planet" competition 
at the end of 2009.

 

Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology, is enthused that the time has come to put his theory into practice. 




Eduardo Gold explains the whitewashing process
 

Although he is yet to receive the $200,000 (£135,000) awarded by the World 
Bank, his pilot project is already underway on the Chalon Sombrero peak, 4,756 
metres above sea level, in an area some 100km west of the regional capital of 
Ayacucho. 

 

The area has long been denuded of its snowy, white peaks. 

 

Four men from Licapa, the village which lies further down the valley, don 
boiler suits and mix the paint from three simple and environmentally-friendly 
ingredients: lime, industrial egg white and water. 

 

The mixture which has been used since Peru's colonial times. 

 

There are no paint brushes, the workers use jugs to splash the whitewash onto 
the loose rocks around the summit. 

 

It is a laborious process but they have whitewashed two hectares in two weeks. 

 

They plan is to paint the whole summit, then in due course, two other peaks 
totalling overall some 70 hectares. 

 

 

'Cold generates cold' 

 

Mr Gold may not be a scientist but his idea is based on the simple scientific 
principle that when sunlight is reflected off a white or light-coloured 
surface, solar energy passes back through the atmosphere and out into space, 
rather than warming the Earth's surface. 

 

The US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has endorsed a similar idea using white 
roofs in the United States - possibly more pragmatic than painting mountains. 

 

Changing the albedo (a measure of how strongly an object reflects light) of the 
rock surface, would bring about a cooling of the peak's surface, says Mr Gold, 
which in turn would generate a cold micro-climate around the peak. 

 Real snow on Chalon Sombrero - not paint 

 

"Cold generates more cold, just as heat generates more heat," says Mr Gold. 

 

"I am hopeful that we could re-grow a glacier here because we would be 
recreating all the climatic conditions necessary for a glacier to form." 

 

The 900-strong population of Licapa, the village which depends on Chalon 
Sombrero for its water supply, did not think twice about accepting Mr Gold's 
proposal and the funding it would bring. 

 

"When I was around 15-20 years old, Chalon Sombrero was a big glacier, all 
white, then little by little it started to melt," says 65-year-old Pablo Parco, 
who is one of the project's supporters. 

 

"Forty years on and the river's never been lower, the nights are very cold and 
the days are unbearably hot. It wasn't like this when I was growing up... it 
was always bearable. 

 

"So we're happy to see this project to paint the mountain. I can tell you this 
morning there was snow on the ground, something we rarely see. 

 

"Up here we live from our animals, up here there's no work, there's no crops, 
when there's less water, there's less pasture and that means less livestock." 

Finding solutions 

 

In Peru, home to more than 70% of the world's tropical glaciers, global warming 
has already melted away 22% of them in the last 30 years, according to a World 
Bank report of 2009. 

 Pablo Parco remembers when there was a glacier where he's sitting 

 

The remaining glaciers could disappear in 20 years if measures are not taken to 
mitigate climate change, it adds. 

 

The impact would go way beyond Andean communities, with dramatic consequences 
for the water supply on Peru's populous coast and hydroelectric power. 

 

In May, Peru's environment minister, Antonio Brack, said Peru would need $400m 
a year to mitigate climate change. 

 

He is one of the sceptics who is not prepared to give Mr Gold's idea the 
benefit of the doubt. 

 

"I think there are much more interesting projects which would have more impact 
in mitigating climate change and that's where this money should be invested," 
he told the BBC. 

 

But the ministry's cli

[geo] DARK SURFACES DO GET WARMER, ENHANCING GLACIER MELT

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi Alvin,

 

I am born and from an Arctic region and can refute your comments outright.

 

It is just like your car bonnet, the rocks get hot when they are dark and 
exposed to sun, the dark rock surfaces can become really hot in sunshine, 
turning them white keeps cool.

 

The cooler rocks melt less, also the dark wetted surface turns even darker.

 

We all sometimes throw "babies with bathwater", but your comments on this 
occasion were quite misplaced. I also disagree, the bankers throw money in the 
wind unreasonably.

 

It all comes from an experience: My sister-in-law jumped into huge wave 
thinking its safe. 
 

Kr, Albert

 


From: agask...@nc.rr.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:33:56 -0400




"Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology..."
 
 
1. Making surfaces more reflective doesn't make it rain or snow on such a small 
scale.  There are other more important factors.
 
2. If it did rain because of this (not likely, see 1), the coating would be 
washed away.
 
3. Good to see that the World Bank has its act together.  Can't wait to hear 
about the other 25 "winners."

- Original Message - 
From: Veli Albert Kallio 
To: Geoengineering FIPC 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:59
Subject: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/1004.stm
 
 
Can painting a mountain restore a glacier?


Page last updated at 09:27 GMT, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:27 UK 

By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Ayacucho 
 
The team has nearly reached the peak of Chalon Sombrero 

 
Slowly but surely an extinct glacier in a remote corner of the Peruvian Andes 
is being returned to its former colour, not by falling snow or regenerated ice 
sheets, but by whitewash.  
It is the first experimental step in an innovative plan to recuperate Peru's 
disappearing Andean glaciers. 
 
But there is debate between those who dismiss the idea as just plain daft and 
those who think it could be a simple but brilliant solution, or at least one 
which should be put to the test. 
 
The World Bank clearly believes the idea - the brainchild of 55-year-old 
Peruvian inventor, Eduardo Gold - has merit as it was one of the 26 winners 
from around 1,700 submissions in the "100 Ideas to Save the Planet" competition 
at the end of 2009.
 
Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology, is enthused that the time has come to put his theory into practice. 



Eduardo Gold explains the whitewashing process 
Although he is yet to receive the $200,000 (£135,000) awarded by the World 
Bank, his pilot project is already underway on the Chalon Sombrero peak, 4,756 
metres above sea level, in an area some 100km west of the regional capital of 
Ayacucho. 
 
The area has long been denuded of its snowy, white peaks. 
 
Four men from Licapa, the village which lies further down the valley, don 
boiler suits and mix the paint from three simple and environmentally-friendly 
ingredients: lime, industrial egg white and water. 
 
The mixture which has been used since Peru's colonial times. 
 
There are no paint brushes, the workers use jugs to splash the whitewash onto 
the loose rocks around the summit. 
 
It is a laborious process but they have whitewashed two hectares in two weeks. 
 
They plan is to paint the whole summit, then in due course, two other peaks 
totalling overall some 70 hectares. 
 
 
'Cold generates cold' 
 
Mr Gold may not be a scientist but his idea is based on the simple scientific 
principle that when sunlight is reflected off a white or light-coloured 
surface, solar energy passes back through the atmosphere and out into space, 
rather than warming the Earth's surface. 
 
The US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has endorsed a similar idea using white 
roofs in the United States - possibly more pragmatic than painting mountains. 
 
Changing the albedo (a measure of how strongly an object reflects light) of the 
rock surface, would bring about a cooling of the peak's surface, says Mr Gold, 
which in turn would generate a cold micro-climate around the peak. 
 Real snow on Chalon Sombrero - not paint 
 
"Cold generates more cold, just as heat generates more heat," says Mr Gold. 
 
"I am hopeful that we could re-grow a glacier here because we would be 
recreating all the climatic conditions necessary for a glacier to form." 
 
The 900-strong population of Licapa, the village which depends on Chalon 
Sombrero for its water supply, did not think twice about accepting Mr Gold's 
proposal and the funding it would bring. 
 
"When I was around 15-20 years old, Chalon Sombrero was a big glacier, all 
white, th

RE: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD

[Veli Albert Kallio]

One aspect of mountain top painting is aesthetics and people like the look of a 
snow-topped mountain sceneries like Mt. Kilimanjaro whose snows act like a 
tourist magnet.

 

The emphasis on creating glaciers is quite secondary. People just like their 
mountain tops white. If one really wanted to create snow like in the pistas, 
then snow cannons could do the job much better when there is a cold weather. 
However, for Peru this is expensive. 

 

In my view, the white painting only prolongs slightly a snow fall in sunlight 
conditions and nobody suggested that it could re-create lost glaciers. But if 
it brings tourists to the villages to see white mountains, it may be good 
enough even if the snow was just 1 centimeter thick, or if it was just titanium 
oxide brushed into the rocks...

 

kr, Albert

 


From: agask...@nc.rr.com
To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
CC: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:33:56 -0400




"Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology..."
 
 
1. Making surfaces more reflective doesn't make it rain or snow on such a small 
scale.  There are other more important factors.
 
2. If it did rain because of this (not likely, see 1), the coating would be 
washed away.
 
3. Good to see that the World Bank has its act together.  Can't wait to hear 
about the other 25 "winners."

- Original Message - 
From: Veli Albert Kallio 
To: Geoengineering FIPC 
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:59
Subject: [geo] THE WORLD BANK FUNDED MOUNTAIN WHITENING PROJECT GOES AHEAD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/latin_america/1004.stm
 
 
Can painting a mountain restore a glacier?


Page last updated at 09:27 GMT, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:27 UK 

By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Ayacucho 
 
The team has nearly reached the peak of Chalon Sombrero 

 
Slowly but surely an extinct glacier in a remote corner of the Peruvian Andes 
is being returned to its former colour, not by falling snow or regenerated ice 
sheets, but by whitewash.  
It is the first experimental step in an innovative plan to recuperate Peru's 
disappearing Andean glaciers. 
 
But there is debate between those who dismiss the idea as just plain daft and 
those who think it could be a simple but brilliant solution, or at least one 
which should be put to the test. 
 
The World Bank clearly believes the idea - the brainchild of 55-year-old 
Peruvian inventor, Eduardo Gold - has merit as it was one of the 26 winners 
from around 1,700 submissions in the "100 Ideas to Save the Planet" competition 
at the end of 2009.
 
Mr Gold, who has no scientific qualifications but has studiously read up on 
glaciology, is enthused that the time has come to put his theory into practice. 



Eduardo Gold explains the whitewashing process 
Although he is yet to receive the $200,000 (£135,000) awarded by the World 
Bank, his pilot project is already underway on the Chalon Sombrero peak, 4,756 
metres above sea level, in an area some 100km west of the regional capital of 
Ayacucho. 
 
The area has long been denuded of its snowy, white peaks. 
 
Four men from Licapa, the village which lies further down the valley, don 
boiler suits and mix the paint from three simple and environmentally-friendly 
ingredients: lime, industrial egg white and water. 
 
The mixture which has been used since Peru's colonial times. 
 
There are no paint brushes, the workers use jugs to splash the whitewash onto 
the loose rocks around the summit. 
 
It is a laborious process but they have whitewashed two hectares in two weeks. 
 
They plan is to paint the whole summit, then in due course, two other peaks 
totalling overall some 70 hectares. 
 
 
'Cold generates cold' 
 
Mr Gold may not be a scientist but his idea is based on the simple scientific 
principle that when sunlight is reflected off a white or light-coloured 
surface, solar energy passes back through the atmosphere and out into space, 
rather than warming the Earth's surface. 
 
The US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has endorsed a similar idea using white 
roofs in the United States - possibly more pragmatic than painting mountains. 
 
Changing the albedo (a measure of how strongly an object reflects light) of the 
rock surface, would bring about a cooling of the peak's surface, says Mr Gold, 
which in turn would generate a cold micro-climate around the peak. 
 Real snow on Chalon Sombrero - not paint 
 
"Cold generates more cold, just as heat generates more heat," says Mr Gold. 
 
"I am hopeful that we could re-grow a glacier here because we would be 
recreating all the climatic conditions necessary for a glacier to form." 
 
The 900-strong population of Licapa, the village which depends on Chalon 
Sombrero for its water supply, did not think twice about

RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi John,

 

Again here I note same issue as in the first letter that it overstates, "might 
possibly" could be more prudent as per Tom's response. It is not a scientific 
statement or factual. However, to hear latest you might refer to people like 
Euan Nisbet on the condition of methane clathrates (but I believe these be in 
good order this year as the Arctic Ocean has been thowing its ice largely 
around its perimeter while the near areas of the North Pole have seen sea ice 
cove has broaken up and sea ice pushed south against the perimeter. The ice 
cover has been 3/4-4/5 or 70-80% on the North Pole while much of perimeter near 
100%).


I do believe that there are major climate problems brewing. In addition, I have 
been offered US$150,000 to stop talking about global warming (with a massive 
expendability options rising to millions of US dollars). As per LLU Geoscience 
institute (in the past) offering me a field trip research grant of a generous 
US$2,000, these sums offered by the academic reseach people including RGS don't 
make any economic sense to realise any research. Should I just go to see polar 
bears in Greenland, or join a tourist entertaining expedition to Antarctica 
(and pay the other half of the bill out of my own pocket.)? 

 

It seems business has lots of money, interest, and somehow it has now 
enlightend to me that there will always be some odd scientist making claims on 
contrary to mainline of man-made global warming thinking. After I sign the 
contract, I must stop talking about any global warming and climate change for 
the native americans. 

 

Anyone else willing to throw us some funds in millions to spade through 
Greenland's ice dome to prove or disapprove the native americans claim to the 
United Nations' General Assembly that "we came first, then came the ice, then 
then ice melted, and after that the present age came". As the native americans 
want to get a short life cosmogenic carbon-14 run on a mass spectrometer from a 
pre-glaciation era biomaterials from beneath Greenland Ice Dome (in order to 
prove their native recollections that the ice age resulted from mass 
vapurisation of ocean due to some the runaway lava floods around Icealand) and 
the ice therefore came and went quickly for them to recollect it. 

 

As I have not other funds promised to this undertaking, I better to take what 
is given and leave other academics to delibrate years and orbits of the solar 
system and ice. They seem to offer guarantee to install the perimeter 
monitoring equipment, but reserve right to disseminate information at times 
suitable for them (whatever that then may mean?).

 

As per my own position, after quarter of million dollars gone in the native 
americans stuff, I am in no position to continue sponsoring any expeditions, 
promos or delegations anymore and largely given up and therefore accepting the 
questionnable money from the oil people.

 

I suggest, that you consult seabed and permafrost experts in case they have any 
news. I have noted Yakutia has been extremely warm all summer meaning that the 
permafrost must have been melting all the way to the coast. There must be 
someone working in that area.

 

Kind regards,


Albert

 

 
> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:57:34 -0600
> From: wig...@ucar.edu
> To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk
> CC: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; 
> albert_kal...@hotmail.com; sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; 
> zh...@apl.washington.edu; lind...@apl.washington.edu; 
> serr...@kryos.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
> 
> John,
> 
> You say ...
> 
> "we can expect permafrost to release large quantities of methane, from 
> as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead inexorably to runaway 
> greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change."
> 
> This is guesswork, not science.
> 
> I do not want to sign this letter.
> 
> Tom.
> 
> +
> 
> John Nissen wrote:
> > 
> > In view of the situation in the Arctic, I would be grateful for support 
> > for an open letter to John Holdren, along the following lines. Please 
> > let me know whether you agree with this text and whether you'd be happy 
> > for me to add your name at the bottom.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > To John P Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
> > Policy
> > 
> > Dear Dr Holdren,
> > 
> > The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into 
> > space and cool the Earth. The sea ice has been retreating far faster 
> > than the IPCC predicted only three years ago [1]. But, after the record 
> > retreat in September 2007, many scientists revised their predictions for 
> > the date of a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean from beyond the end of 
> > century to beyond 2030. Only a few scientists predicted this event for 
> > the coming decade, and they were ridiculed.
> > 
> > In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recov

RE: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to Arctic Council

[Veli Albert Kallio]

When I was press-spokesman to Arctic Mirror of Life symposium (convened by HE 
Kofi Annan and HE Jose Manuel Barroso) with Robert (Bob) Correl, he was the 
lead author of the Arctic impact report of the Arctic Council. (J. Lubachenko 
was our third spokesman.)

 

Bob Correl is extremely concerned of the huge increases of moulins and 
crevasses in Greenland over his long career observing them to increase 
massively in numbers. So, he will support anything reasonable put to him. I 
know he agrees the risks are understated.

 

Last Autumn I also sponsored to the UN General Assembly some Sami members of 
the Arctic Council from Lapland (Finland) when the North American indians 
invited me over to New York to discuss their climate worries (emanating from 
thier perceived ancient native memories). When President Evo Morales visited 
Helsinki in April 2010 I met them last time. Sami and Inuit will give the 
maximum support on issues vital for them, i.e. the sea ice.

 

The Arctic Council could be a good place for propositions or letter. The inuit 
people risk their lives on weak sea ice. They do worry a lot about the 
deteriorating sea ice and would not mind overstating this, provided things are 
approximately right and try to capture essense of their problems and they will 
give all support they can do.

 

I think it is necessary to await until Autumn. Usually some methane expedition 
reports also come in from the seasons' expeditions to study feedback CH4 
emissions.

 

In my view too Manhattan Project analogy is off-the-mark. CERN is a far more 
positive collaborative venue whitout negative or national connotations like the 
Manhattan Project. Manhattan Project is also now in far distance timewise. 
International Space Station (ISS) could also be a much more positive project to 
refer as an example.

 

Kind regards,

 

Albert


 


Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:49:24 -0700
Subject: Re: [geo] SEA ICE LOSS STUNS SCIENTISTS - open letter to John Holdren
From: xbenf...@gmail.com
To: dwschn...@gmail.com
CC: wig...@ucar.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 
p...@cam.ac.uk; gorm...@waitrose.com; albert_kal...@hotmail.com; 
sam.car...@gmail.com; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; zh...@apl.washington.edu; 
lind...@apl.washington.edu; serr...@kryos.colorado.edu

I agree with David that we should wait for the September data. 


But on the Manhattan Project analogy: 



The Manhattan project went through just this. (I know this history well; I was 
a postdoc of Ed Teller, knew Szilard, & my father in law invented centrifugal U 
isotope separation with Harold Urey in 1939.) The project in its early phase 
lost more than a year of mother-may-I before getting real support, and so could 
not stop the war in 1944. That's about 12 million lives...


There are plenty of well thought through ideas, but they don't get funded--just 
as in the Manhattan example. (They spent a year and all their money 1938-39 
checking the German results, against Fermi's advice; he thought they were 
obviously true.) 


I was a postdoc with Holdren and suggest he's open to an increased funding 
argument, and maybe setting up a group to coordinate Arctic observations, 
geoengineering ideas, and even some diplomatic approaches to the Arctic Council 
downstream (2011) -- but yes, we need a sound argument. This is not the same as 
another government panel agreeing to insert lines in a report!


Gregory Benford


For all his admirable qualities, you seem to be a process guy, not an outcome 
guy.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David Schnare  wrote:

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







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


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


d.





On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tom Wigley  wrote:

John,

You say ...


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

This is guesswork, not science.

I do not want to sign this letter.

Tom.

+




John Nissen wrote:


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

Cheers,

John

---

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

Dear Dr Holdren,

The Arctic sea ice acts as a giant mirror to reflect sunlight back into space 
and cool the Earth. The sea i

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

[Veli Albert Kallio]

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

 

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

 

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

Kr, Albert

 


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

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







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


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


d.


On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Tom Wigley  wrote:

John,

You say ...


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

This is guesswork, not science.

I do not want to sign this letter.

Tom.

+




John Nissen wrote:


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

Cheers,

John

---

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

Dear Dr Holdren,

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

In 2008 and 2009 there was only a slight recovery in end-summer sea ice extent, 
and it appears that the minimum 2010 extent will be close to a new record [2].  
However the evidence from PIOMAS is that there has been a very sharp decline in 
volume [3], which is very worrying.

The Arctic warming is now accelerating, and we can expect permafrost to release 
large quantities of methane, from as early as 2011 onwards, which will lead 
inexorably to runaway greenhouse warming and abrupt climate change.  All this 
could become apparent if the sea ice retreats further than ever before this 
summer.  We could be approaching a point of no return unless emergency action 
is taken.

We suggest that the current situation should be treated as a warning for us 
all. The world community must rethink its attitude to fighting global warming 
by cutting greenhouse gas emissions sharply. Howev