Re: [geo] The "You don't have all the variables" argument
153 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Salter
Dec 18, 2012, 6:17:04 AM12/18/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Jim Lee
You are concerned about the effect of a reduction in sunlight on the growth of vegetation. The extra heat retained by the earth since preindustrial times is about 1.6 watts per square metre. The mean annual 24 input is about 440 watts per square metre at the equator, 240 at the latitude of Patagonia and about 340 overall . To offset 340 watts a square metre would mean a reduction of only 0.47%.
I sent you some information about how cloud albedo control an be used to increase or reduce precipitation in the Amazon by the choice of where the spray is released. Have you had time to look at it? Of course I cannot be sure that the computer model is correct but by using suitable patterns on ON and OFF spraying we can learn.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 17/12/2012 19:11, Jim Lee wrote:
You are concerned about the effect of a reduction in sunlight on the growth of vegetation. The extra heat retained by the earth since preindustrial times is about 1.6 watts per square metre. The mean annual 24 input is about 440 watts per square metre at the equator, 240 at the latitude of Patagonia and about 340 overall . To offset 340 watts a square metre would mean a reduction of only 0.47%.
I sent you some information about how cloud albedo control an be used to increase or reduce precipitation in the Amazon by the choice of where the spray is released. Have you had time to look at it? Of course I cannot be sure that the computer model is correct but by using suitable patterns on ON and OFF spraying we can learn.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 17/12/2012 19:11, Jim Lee wrote:
Despite the American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, and the National Research Council's National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate statements that weather modification is a completely unproven science, members of this community are advocating studies to modify the weather globally. Geoengineering using SRM is weather modification, any attempt to sever the two is ridiculous.
There is no computer model that can calculate what will happen when a layer of SRM coats our skies. There is no man smart enough to come up with all the variables to put into the aforementioned computer model, let alone be able to accurately predict who the winners and losers will be in the "targeted spraying" campaigns.
- "Although 40 years have passed since the first NAS report on weather modification, this Committee finds itself very much in concurrence with the findings of that assessment...
We conclude that the initiation of large-scale operational weather modification programs would be premature. Many fundamental problems must be answered first. It is unlikely that these problems will be solved by the expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a posteriori evaluation of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe the patient investigation of the atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the technological applications may eventually lead to useful weather modification, but we emphasize that the time-scale required for success may be measured in decades."
National Science Foundation - Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research (2003)- "It was concluded that tests conducted so far have not yet provided either the statistical or physical evidence required to establish that the seeding concepts have been scientifically proven."
American Meteorological Society - Critical Assessment of Hygroscopic Seeding of Convective Clouds for Rainfall Enhancement (mirror)- "It should be realized that the energy involved in weather systems is so large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion"
"Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation."
World Meteorological Society - Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification (mirror)
However, let's say for the sake of argument that you do manage to predict everything, and the SRM campaigns are underway. You can now congratulate yourselves on helping the US military with its goal to create cirrus cover for defense from space based directed energy weapons and spy optics. Link & Link You'll probably all get jobs working for the Air Force to make tornadoes and hurricanes: Link & Link
The baby steps you gentlemen take today, ensure controlled weather in the future. I oppose this. If would much rather see iron fertilization, tree bombs, or carbon sequestration than SRM. The global backlash from your successful SRM campaign will brand you a villian in the public eye, mark my words. Don't believe me, google "chemtrails" if you haven't already. People are bordering on hysteria over alleged geoengineering covering their skies, just wait till they see the real thing.
And if for no other reason consider this, the entire planet needs sunlight to grow. Why would you even consider blocking the sun? As stated by David Keith, the Amazon showed extremely low river levels during Pinatubo's eruption; so is the plan to dry that bad boy up?SRM is a dangerous plan, you men are not gods, and your choices will affect us all, which is why you are to be feared and watched carefully.
I intend to shed light on your decisions, and those of the corporate owned public representatives you seek approval from. I also would like to extend an offer to discuss the pros/cons of SRM with any of you, in any format you like.
Geoengineering Exposed:
#FICER--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/snAO0UEwcSgJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Stephen Salter
Dec 20, 2012, 6:37:50 AM12/20/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Jim Lee
Observatories do not operate when there are clouds. We are not making new clouds, just brightening existing ones.� Most observatories are on land.
I will try to answer the numbered questions at the end of your email:
1.� Cloud albedo control intercepts heat from the tropics on its way to the poles and so we can cool the poles wherever we do it.� However we must be careful not to do it near the poles in winter because it works the wrong way round, like a blanket returning heat radiated out from the poles to deep space.�� Restoring the Arcti ice would prevent a very large increase in the rate of global warming and reduce the risk of methane release which could be much more dangerous than CO2.� We could do this from land-based sources on the eastern side of Iceland, the Faroe Islands, northern Norway and the Aleutian islands
2. My preferred choice for an experiment with ships would be a ziz-zag cruise across the Pacific starting from Equador going down to the edge of Antarctica, back to the equator, down to Antarctic again about six times unit we get to Australia.� Places where the technique does not work, or even works in the wrong way, will be just as interesting as where it works well.� The change in cloud contrast needed to offset global warming is so small that we have to be clever to detect it at all.� One way might be to take hundreds of satellite images, rotate them to align the local wind direction and add them in a computer.� I attach an example of superimposed real cloud images with mathematically altered cloud contrast.
3. The drop generating method would be wrecked by any plastic particulates.� The sea water has to be filtered to pharmaceutical purity with back flushed filters and will be far cleaner than drops thrown up now from breaking waves.� The filters were originally developed for getting polio viruses out of drinking water and should stop anything bigger than 10 nanometres
4. The pressure drop across a filter and the back-flush frequency is a good measure of biological content of water and we can transmit data on this and many other parameters back to marine biologists.� Terrorists would prefer to release their stuff closer to large population centres.
5. Quite a lot of salt is already being transported from the sea to the land mainly from waves breaking on beaches.� This gets washed back by rivers and so the total ocean salinity has been amazing steady.� If cloud albedo control was used to offset double CO2 we would have to add about 1%.� However we want to work in mid ocean and so almost all of this would fall back into the sea.
6. The work of Sean Twomey has a sound scientific basis and is widely respected. �� You can show a neat pocket demonstration of the optical principle with jars of glass balls of different sizes. A photograph is attached.� The fact that some ideas do not work does not tell us anything about quite different ones.�
We do NOT want to make dramatic reductions to the temperature of the planet.� We want stop dramatic increases.�� There is evidence in the thesis which I mentioned in my previous email than we can also vary precipitation on both directions by choosing when and where to spray.
Observatories do not operate when there are clouds. We are not making new clouds, just brightening existing ones.� Most observatories are on land.
I will try to answer the numbered questions at the end of your email:
1.� Cloud albedo control intercepts heat from the tropics on its way to the poles and so we can cool the poles wherever we do it.� However we must be careful not to do it near the poles in winter because it works the wrong way round, like a blanket returning heat radiated out from the poles to deep space.�� Restoring the Arcti ice would prevent a very large increase in the rate of global warming and reduce the risk of methane release which could be much more dangerous than CO2.� We could do this from land-based sources on the eastern side of Iceland, the Faroe Islands, northern Norway and the Aleutian islands
2. My preferred choice for an experiment with ships would be a ziz-zag cruise across the Pacific starting from Equador going down to the edge of Antarctica, back to the equator, down to Antarctic again about six times unit we get to Australia.� Places where the technique does not work, or even works in the wrong way, will be just as interesting as where it works well.� The change in cloud contrast needed to offset global warming is so small that we have to be clever to detect it at all.� One way might be to take hundreds of satellite images, rotate them to align the local wind direction and add them in a computer.� I attach an example of superimposed real cloud images with mathematically altered cloud contrast.
3. The drop generating method would be wrecked by any plastic particulates.� The sea water has to be filtered to pharmaceutical purity with back flushed filters and will be far cleaner than drops thrown up now from breaking waves.� The filters were originally developed for getting polio viruses out of drinking water and should stop anything bigger than 10 nanometres
4. The pressure drop across a filter and the back-flush frequency is a good measure of biological content of water and we can transmit data on this and many other parameters back to marine biologists.� Terrorists would prefer to release their stuff closer to large population centres.
5. Quite a lot of salt is already being transported from the sea to the land mainly from waves breaking on beaches.� This gets washed back by rivers and so the total ocean salinity has been amazing steady.� If cloud albedo control was used to offset double CO2 we would have to add about 1%.� However we want to work in mid ocean and so almost all of this would fall back into the sea.
6. The work of Sean Twomey has a sound scientific basis and is widely respected. �� You can show a neat pocket demonstration of the optical principle with jars of glass balls of different sizes. A photograph is attached.� The fact that some ideas do not work does not tell us anything about quite different ones.�
We do NOT want to make dramatic reductions to the temperature of the planet.� We want stop dramatic increases.�� There is evidence in the thesis which I mentioned in my previous email than we can also vary precipitation on both directions by choosing when and where to spray.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 19/12/2012 14:10, Jim Lee wrote:
Mr Salter, I have this interesting video on my YouTube channel describing your Silver Lining project:
�The Silver Lining Project is a not-for-profit international scientific research collaboration to study the effects of particles (aerosols) on clouds, and the influence of these cloud effects on climate systems.
Research objectives:� Fill important gaps in the understanding of cloud dynamics and systems to improve climate models� Advance understanding of the climate effects of pollution in clouds� Research basic processes associated with adding natural aerosols to clouds to impact climate (e.g. Marine Cloud Brightening)� Understand the principles behind technologies for adding natural aerosols to cloud systems
This research is currently undertaken by distinguished scientists and engineers at: Manchester University, Leeds University, NCAR, Pacific Northwest National Labs, Purdue University, University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh.
Every Silver Lining Has A CloudThe machines, developed by a San Francisco-based research group called Silver Lining, turn seawater into tiny particles that can be shot up over 3,000 feet in the air. The particles increase the density of clouds by increasing the amount of nuclei contained within. Silver Lining's floating machines can suck up ten tons of water per second.
Bill Gates Backs Geoengineering Cloud Project
91st American Meteorological Society Annual MeetingThursday, 27 January 2011
Joint Session 1: Modification of Marine and Supercooled Stratocumulus
(Invited Speaker) A process-modeling study of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in response to controlled seawater spray in marine boundary layer605/610 (Washington State Convention Center)Hailong Wang, PNNL, Richland, WA; and P. Rasch and G. Feingold
Vast areas of the oceanic surface are covered by stratocumulus (Sc) clouds. They significantly enhance the reflection of incoming solar radiation back to space, leading to a considerable cooling of the Earth-atmosphere system. It has been argued that a 4% increase in the areal coverage or a 0.06 increase in cloud albedo of Sc clouds can offset the warming by atmospheric CO2 doubling (Randall et al. 1984; Latham et al. 2008). Acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), aerosol particles can modify cloud albedo, cloud longevity and precipitation efficiency. Recent observational and modeling studies have suggested that aerosol, through its effect on precipitation, can alter cloud cellular structures in marine Sc region, representing a powerful modification of clouds by aerosol.The possibility of mitigating global warming by spraying sea-salt particles into marine boundary layer to brighten Sc clouds was raised by Latham (1990). The idea has been evaluated by several global climate model studies but their inability to represent cloud-scale dynamics and microphysics raises questions about the validity of the results. Using a high-resolution version of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, we investigate the impact of seawater spray on the formation and evolution of marine Sc through aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions and dynamical feedback. We will demonstrate how injected aerosol particles are transported from the ocean surface into clouds and affect cloud microphysics and macrophysics under various meteorological conditions. We will also use simulation results to explore whether the influx of sea-salt aerosols always enhances cloud albedo and how the performance depends on the distribution of sprayers.
Why did you guys delete the website?
~ Jim
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:36:34 PM UTC-5, Jim Lee wrote:Mr. Salter, I did read your attachments, thank you.I am of mixed opinion on the silver lining solution.�I imagine the observatories will be outraged if you block their view, and that is the tip of a very large iceberg.�Though I�concede�I would prefer cloud whitening to stratospheric sulfur releases, I would have to question the long term viability of this process. �I have a few questions:
- Can cloud albedo modification occur in the polar regions, or will it only work in equatorial waters? �Seems to me your boats could cover the poles in ice, giant snow blowers...
- Where would you consider your target locations for studies?
- With all the talk of the Pacific gyre (Link & Link) and plastic particulates in the ocean, would these and/or other unknown particles be carried aloft by your boats?
- Will there be detection systems on your boats to stop pumps if radiation/biological contaminants are detected at the suction intakes? �A terrorist could pull alongside your boat and spike the juice, just sayin.
- What will the long term effects of increased salinity in precipitation have on agriculture?�
- How will you address the AMS, WMO, and NRC's statements that: "Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion" �
Geoengineering makes the claim that it can dramatically reduce the temperature of the planet, and many scientists in the field acknowledge that these actions will modify the weather drastically. �More specifically, geoengineering methods that intend to modify weather by artificially blocking the sun are forms of weather modification, and subject to all applicable laws/regulations and international agreements (which I'm sure you already knew).
Thank you for your responses, I appreciate your input.
~ Jim"A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it will live to regret his steps." -�Carlos Castaned
Please respond to these concerns.
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:17:04 AM UTC-5, Stephen Salter wrote:
Jim Lee
You are concerned about the effect of a reduction in sunlight on the growth of vegetation.� The extra heat retained by the earth since preindustrial times� is about 1.6 watts per square metre.� The mean annual 24 input is about 440 watts per square metre at the equator, 240 at the latitude of Patagonia and about 340 overall . To offset 340 watts a square metre would mean a reduction� of only 0.47%.�
I sent you some information about how cloud albedo control an be used to increase or reduce precipitation in the Amazon by the choice of where the spray is released.� Have you had time to look at it?� Of course I cannot be sure that the computer model is correct but by using suitable patterns on ON and OFF spraying we can learn.
Stephen Salter
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 17/12/2012 19:11, Jim Lee wrote:
Despite the�American Meteorological Society,�World Meteorological Organization, and the�National Research Council's�National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate�statements that weather modification is a completely unproven science, members of this community are advocating studies to modify the weather globally. �Geoengineering using SRM is weather modification, any attempt to sever the two is ridiculous.
- "Although 40 years have passed since the first NAS report on weather modification, this Committee finds itself very much in concurrence with the findings of that assessment...
We conclude that the initiation of large-scale operational weather modification programs would be premature. Many fundamental problems must be answered first. It is unlikely that these problems will be solved by the expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a posteriori evaluation of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe the patient investigation of the atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the technological applications may eventually lead to useful weather modification, but we emphasize that the time-scale required for success may be measured in decades."
National Science Foundation - Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research (2003)
- "It was concluded that tests conducted so far have not yet provided either the statistical or physical evidence required to establish that the seeding concepts have been scientifically proven."
- American Meteorological Society - Critical Assessment of Hygroscopic Seeding of Convective Clouds for Rainfall Enhancement�(mirror)
- "It should be�realized�that the energy involved in weather systems is so large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion"
"Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation."
There is no computer model that can calculate what will happen when a layer of SRM coats our skies. �There is no man smart enough to come up with all the variables to put into the aforementioned computer model, let alone be able to accurately predict who the winners and losers will be in the "targeted spraying" campaigns. �
- World Meteorological Society - Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification�(mirror)
However, let's say for the sake of argument that you do manage to predict everything, and the SRM campaigns are underway. �You can now congratulate yourselves on helping the US military with its goal to create cirrus cover for defense from space based directed energy weapons and spy optics. Link�& Link You'll probably all get jobs working for the Air Force to make tornadoes and hurricanes: Link�& Link
The baby steps you gentlemen take today, ensure controlled weather in the future. �I oppose this. �If would much rather see iron fertilization, tree bombs, or carbon sequestration than SRM. �The global backlash from your successful SRM campaign will brand you a villian in the public eye, mark my words. �Don't believe me, google "chemtrails" if you haven't already. �People are bordering on hysteria over alleged geoengineering covering their skies, just wait till they see the real thing.
And if for no other reason consider this, the entire planet needs sunlight to grow. �Why would you even consider blocking the sun? �As stated by David Keith, the Amazon showed extremely low river levels during Pinatubo's eruption; so is the plan to dry that bad boy up?
SRM is a dangerous plan, you men are not gods, and your choices will affect us all, which is why you are to be feared and watched carefully.
I intend to shed light on your decisions, and those of the corporate owned public representatives you seek approval from. �I also would like to extend an offer to discuss the pros/cons of SRM with any of you, in any format you like.
Geoengineering Exposed:
#FICER--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/snAO0UEwcSgJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/7c4qJLGWDycJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages