Re: [geo] How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?

313 views
Skip to first unread message

Ken Caldeira

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 10:53:28 AM12/27/12
to rez...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Jim,

You seem to be arguing against a straw man.  

--

First:  Of course, if climate is modified, weather is also modified. Nobody is rebranding anything.

There are two ends of a spectrum: one end in which people would try  to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here.

--

Second: You say "weather modification is unproven science".  Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements.  Scientists work only on the unproven.

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science 


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> 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 stating clearly that weather modification is an unproven science and that large scale experiments should be limited to modelling, the geoengineering community pushes ahead with their rebranded weather modification techniques:

"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

"It should be realised 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)

In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an independent evaluation of previous efforts (12).
In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically evaluate the project’s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National Academy had already concluded doesn’t work.
The Edwards Aquifer – Cloud Seeding

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are further blurred here:




Bill Gates, the Hurricane Tamer? | Link
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes | Link
It's the ultimate man vs. nature face-off.  Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earth's most fearsome forces: the hurricane.
The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres | Link
British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms
United States Patent Application 20090177569 | Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods | Link
Inventors:
Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US)
Caldeira, Kenneth G. (Campbell, CA, US)
Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US)
Gates III, William H. (Redmond, WA, US)
Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US)
Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US)
Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US)
Latham, John (Boulder, CO, US)
Myhrvold, Nathan P. (Medina, WA, US)
Salter, Stephen H. (Edinburgh, GB)
Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US)
Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)




Reducing hurricane intensity using arrays of Atmocean Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps | Video Link
17th Joint Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting (20-25 April 2008)
New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm
Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm
Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis
Most climate scientists now agree that global warming will increase the intensity of tropical cyclones. It is natural to ask if any technology is able to weaken these increasingly powerful storms before landfall. Given that hurricane tracking forecasts are accurate only a few days ahead, could the technology be correctly positioned soon enough? Would the storm veer off, hitting a different region? What are the unintended environmental consequences? Is any approach technically feasible and make sense from an economics perspective?
Hurricane intensity is strongly linked to upper ocean heat content. Mathematical models show that arrays of Atmocean's wave-driven upwelling pumps could cool the upper ocean by up to several degrees C., reducing the evaporative energy to the hurricane, and lowering peak winds by 5% to 20%. Since hurricane wind damages are proportional to the cube of windspeed, this reduction in peak wind suggests that losses caused by high winds could be reduced up to 50%. Additional savings could accrue if the storm surge is lessened, thereby reducing losses caused by flooding.
By relying on wave kinetic energy as the power source, the Atmocean wave-driven upwelling pumps naturally self-calibrate due to the much larger waves generated by a storm.
Atmocean's upwelling arrays would be positioned beginning at 250 meters depth along the Gulf and East coast, and extend seaward in a band about 150 km wide.
If Atmocean arrays had been in position ten years ago, our storm track analysis shows they could have intercepted and quite likely reduced the intensity of 84% of US-landfalling hurricanes.

Here we have several well known names inventing a "storm protection system" that sells protection to investors.  This is also relevant due to the following comments from NOAA on modifying hurricanes:
Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.
In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.
“While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.
He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).
NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.
Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA’s participation.

Even NOAA has learned from history.  NOAA, the AMS, WMO, and NRC are all saying the same thing, there are too many unknown variables, and large scale experimentation should not be done.  

Bill Gates and company are making pumps for the gulf of Mexico to mitigate hurricanes even though NOAA wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.  The Weather Modification Association operates cloud seeding/hail mitigation operations daily all over the USA.  The Chinese and Russians also have a long history of controlling their weather.  Yet I would argue the butterfly effect of so many hands in the cookie jar nets an even more uncontrollable system.  When Texas seeded clouds meet a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico above the aforementioned upwelling pumps, and Bob payed Bill Gates inc to protect his oil fields, will that hurricane now hit Tom?  Will the hurricane become stonger or weaker.  Since there is no way to know, will Tom be able to sue Bill for making a hurricane change course?

I am merely an observer in all this.  I do not understand all of the why for's and how to's but I do see a pattern emerging which worries me, and I don't think the public would approve of any of this.  It is commonly argued this way:

Geoengineering the Climate | Link

“So, there is indeed a history of asking whether “the local inhabitants would be in favor of such schemes,” despite Fleming’s argument, and the answer, to my reading of the thin literature, is “Yes.” The simple persistence today of literally hundreds of cloud seeding projects in the U.S. and elsewhere suggests that despite anecdote and wary cloud seeders, no implacable opposition has emerged.”

I would argue that most people would vehemently disapprove of men controlling weather.  Even Donald Duck and the Smurfs understood that weather control might be a bad idea.
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, GEOENGINEERING -ed.) and should be treated with suspicion" ~WMO
 
The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are imaginary ones. Therefore I ask you: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?

--
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/-/amVJ-V1vXQEJ.
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

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 2:18:57 PM12/27/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Jim� Lee

I agree with Ken and you about transparency.� Unless there is a very strong reason I put all my information on a website at www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

If you go to the /hurricanes folder you will see papers about the down-welling wave sink to reduce severity.

If you go to a drop box� at� https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c852tpue32fr5iy/nQDRPbSO_p�� you will be able to see a test on a tank model.

There are many examples of august bodies making forecasts which later turn out to be foolish.� In the late 1940's a Royal Society / IEE committee with the very best brains in the land was set up to see if the electronic brains that had been used to break German codes would have any commercial or scientific value.� They decided NO because some of the proposed designs would need 1000 bits of memory and this would make them hopelessly unreliable.

When this was shown to be wrong a similar committee was asked how many machines would be needed.� The answer was 5.

None of the committees you mention have asked me for details of what I am trying to do.

Take a look at�� http://www.weathermodification.org/ascepub.php�� and have a talk with Roelof Bruintjes.

Stephen


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 27/12/2012 16:36, Jim Lee wrote:
When I asked Stephen Salter this:
6. 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).

He replied:
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.

Which seems to be a non-answer.

You however acknowledge the obvious, that geoengineering techniques that affect the climate are forms of weather modification.
There are thousands of videos discussing weather modification, followed by comments like "you can't control the weather idiot", therefore I would argue that most people are completely uninformed of the practice.
I understand it is common to use silver iodide, CO2, sodium chloride, and fertilizer in cloud seeding, should NOAA add sulfur and ocean spray to the list?

I believe you to be honorable men with good intentions, and my concern is only for transparency. �The world of weather modification is filled with non-disclosure, and when tampering with mother nature, I believe that public awareness is key. �I intend to push for greater transparency in the world of cloud seeding, and would hope to see public disclosure of all geoengineering SRM programs before they're attempted. �Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for the response Ken, and I fully agree with your comments.

Without transparency, how can you model an environment that is being modified by so many unseen hands?
Would you be opposed to public disclosure of all atmospheric testing and experimentation?

Jim Lee


On Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:53:28 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Jim,

You seem to be arguing against a straw man. �

--

First: �Of course, if climate is modified, weather is also modified. Nobody is rebranding anything.

There are two ends of a spectrum: one end in which people would try �to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here.

--

Second: You say "weather modification is unproven science". �Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. �Scientists work�only�on the unproven.

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science�
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> 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 stating clearly that weather modification is an unproven science and that large scale experiments should be limited to modelling, the geoengineering community pushes ahead with their rebranded weather modification techniques:

"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

"It should be realised 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)
In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an independent evaluation of previous efforts (12).
In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically evaluate the project�s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National Academy had already concluded doesn�t work.
The Edwards Aquifer � Cloud Seeding

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are further blurred here:




Bill Gates, the Hurricane Tamer? | Link
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes | Link
It's the ultimate man vs. nature face-off. �Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earth's most fearsome forces: the hurricane.
The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres | Link
British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms
United States Patent Application 20090177569 | Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods | Link
Inventors:
Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US)
Caldeira, Kenneth G. (Campbell, CA, US)
Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US)
Gates III, William H. (Redmond, WA, US)
Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US)
Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US)
Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US)
Latham, John (Boulder, CO, US)
Myhrvold, Nathan P. (Medina, WA, US)
Salter, Stephen H. (Edinburgh, GB)
Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US)
Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)




Reducing hurricane intensity using arrays of Atmocean Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps |�Video Link
17th Joint Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting (20-25 April 2008)
New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm
Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm
Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis
Most climate scientists now agree that global warming will increase the intensity of tropical cyclones. It is natural to ask if any technology is able to weaken these increasingly powerful storms before landfall. Given that hurricane tracking forecasts are accurate only a few days ahead, could the technology be correctly positioned soon enough? Would the storm veer off, hitting a different region? What are the unintended environmental consequences? Is any approach technically feasible and make sense from an economics perspective?
Hurricane intensity is strongly linked to upper ocean heat content. Mathematical models show that arrays of Atmocean's wave-driven upwelling pumps could cool the upper ocean by up to several degrees C., reducing the evaporative energy to the hurricane, and lowering peak winds by 5% to 20%. Since hurricane wind damages are proportional to the cube of windspeed, this reduction in peak wind suggests that losses caused by high winds could be reduced up to 50%. Additional savings could accrue if the storm surge is lessened, thereby reducing losses caused by flooding.
By relying on wave kinetic energy as the power source, the Atmocean wave-driven upwelling pumps naturally self-calibrate due to the much larger waves generated by a storm.
Atmocean's upwelling arrays would be positioned beginning at 250 meters depth along the Gulf and East coast, and extend seaward in a band about 150 km wide.
If Atmocean arrays had been in position ten years ago, our storm track analysis shows they could have intercepted and quite likely reduced the intensity of 84% of US-landfalling hurricanes.

Here we have several well known names inventing a "storm protection system" that sells protection to investors. �This is also relevant due to the following comments from NOAA on modifying hurricanes:
Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts �to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.� HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.
In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration�s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum�regarding OAR�s review of a �Statement for Work� for HAMP.
�While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,� Spinrad wrote.
He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature�s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA�s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).
NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA�s satellite program, the heart of the organization�s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.
Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA�s participation.

Even NOAA has learned from history. �NOAA, the AMS, WMO, and NRC are all saying the same thing, there are too many unknown variables, and large scale experimentation should not be done. �

Bill Gates and company are making pumps for the gulf of Mexico to mitigate hurricanes even though NOAA wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. �The Weather Modification Association operates cloud seeding/hail mitigation operations daily all over the USA. �The Chinese and Russians also have a long history of controlling their weather. �Yet I would argue the butterfly effect of so many hands in the cookie jar nets an even more uncontrollable system. �When Texas seeded clouds meet a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico above the aforementioned upwelling pumps, and Bob payed Bill Gates inc to protect his oil fields, will that hurricane now hit Tom? �Will the hurricane become stonger or weaker. �Since there is no way to know, will Tom be able to sue Bill for making a hurricane change course?

I am merely an observer in all this. �I do not understand all of the why for's and how to's but I do see a pattern emerging which worries me, and I don't think the public would approve of any of this. �It is commonly argued this way:

Geoengineering the Climate | Link

�So, there is indeed a history of asking whether �the local inhabitants would be in favor of such schemes,� despite Fleming�s argument, and the answer, to my reading of the thin literature, is �Yes.� The simple persistence today of literally hundreds of cloud seeding projects in the U.S. and elsewhere suggests that despite anecdote and wary cloud seeders, no implacable opposition has emerged.�

I would argue that most people would vehemently disapprove of men controlling weather. �Even Donald Duck and the Smurfs understood that�weather control might be a bad idea.
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, GEOENGINEERING -ed.) and should be treated with suspicion" ~WMO
�
The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are imaginary ones. Therefore I ask you: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?
--
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/-/amVJ-V1vXQEJ.
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups....
Show original
--
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/-/UXKurSZy_rAJ.

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.


--

John Latham

unread,
Dec 27, 2012, 2:30:43 PM12/27/12
to rez...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
Hello Jim,

In the case of Marine Cloud Brightening, the sprayed material to enhance cloud albedo
is seawater. The energy for spraying, guiding the spray-ships etc comes from the
wind.

Cheers, John (Latham)


John Latham
Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.l...@manchester.ac.uk
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 December 2012 16:36
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: rez...@gmail.com; kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
Subject: Re: [geo] How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?

When I asked Stephen Salter this<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/9pEK5_Np16E/_jdf983Raw4J>:
6. 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).

He replied<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/9pEK5_Np16E/oUuIoXwnpzEJ>:
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.

Which seems to be a non-answer.

You however acknowledge the obvious, that geoengineering techniques that affect the climate are forms of weather modification.
There are thousands of videos discussing weather modification, followed by comments like "you can't control the weather idiot", therefore I would argue that most people are completely uninformed of the practice.
I understand it is common to use silver iodide, CO2, sodium chloride, and fertilizer<http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~noaaforms/eforms/nf17-4a.pdf> in cloud seeding, should NOAA add sulfur and ocean spray to the list?

I believe you to be honorable men with good intentions, and my concern is only for transparency. The world of weather modification is filled with non-disclosure, and when tampering with mother nature, I believe that public awareness is key. I intend to push for greater transparency in the world of cloud seeding, and would hope to see public disclosure of all geoengineering SRM programs before they're attempted. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for the response Ken, and I fully agree with your comments.

Without transparency, how can you model an environment that is being modified by so many unseen hands?
Would you be opposed to public disclosure of all atmospheric testing and experimentation?

Jim Lee
http://climateviewer.com/


On Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:53:28 AM UTC-5, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Jim,

You seem to be arguing against a straw man.

--

First: Of course, if climate is modified, weather is also modified. Nobody is rebranding anything.

There are two ends of a spectrum: one end in which people would try to influence specific weather events and the other end in which people would try to influence weather statistics (i.e., climate). There is no rebranding here.

--

Second: You say "weather modification is unproven science". Science does not try to prove nouns. Scientists try to falsify statements. Scientists work only on the unproven.

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

Our YouTube videos
The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI>
Special AGU lecture: Ocean Aciditication: Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfz2l29aX9c>
More videos<http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos>


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jim Lee <rez...@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite the American Meteorological Society<https://ams.confex.com/ams/>, World Meteorological Organization<http://www.wmo.int/>, and the National Research Council's<http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/> National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate<http://dels.nas.edu/basc> stating clearly that weather modification is an unproven science and that large scale experiments should be limited to modelling, the geoengineering community pushes ahead with their rebranded weather modification techniques<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-projects.html>:

"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)<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10829&page=67>

"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<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1219>

"It should be realised 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<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf> (mirror<http://rezn8d.com/images/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf>)

In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an independent evaluation of previous efforts (12).
In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically evaluate the project’s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National Academy had already concluded doesn’t work.
The Edwards Aquifer – Cloud Seeding<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf>

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are further blurred here<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-projects.html>:


[X]

Bill Gates, the Hurricane Tamer? | Link<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Science/story?id=8055781&page=1#.UL7SMoPAd8E>
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes | Link<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566898/Scientists-a-step-closer-to-steering-hurricanes.html>
It's the ultimate man vs. nature face-off. Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earth's most fearsome forces: the hurricane.
The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres | Link<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy>
British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/wxmod-patents.html#gatez> to prevent huge storms
United States Patent Application 20090177569 | Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods | Link<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html>
Inventors:
Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US)
Caldeira, Kenneth G. (Campbell, CA, US)
Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US)
Gates III, William H. (Redmond, WA, US)
Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US)
Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US)
Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US)
Latham, John (Boulder, CO, US)
Myhrvold, Nathan P. (Medina, WA, US)
Salter, Stephen H. (Edinburgh, GB)
Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US)
Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)


[X]

Reducing hurricane intensity using arrays of Atmocean Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps | Video Link<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA>
17th Joint Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting (20-25 April 2008)
New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm
Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm
Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis
Most climate scientists now agree that global warming will increase the intensity of tropical cyclones. It is natural to ask if any technology is able to weaken these increasingly powerful storms before landfall. Given that hurricane tracking forecasts are accurate only a few days ahead, could the technology be correctly positioned soon enough? Would the storm veer off, hitting a different region? What are the unintended environmental consequences? Is any approach technically feasible and make sense from an economics perspective?
Hurricane intensity is strongly linked to upper ocean heat content. Mathematical models show that arrays of Atmocean's wave-driven upwelling pumps could cool the upper ocean by up to several degrees C., reducing the evaporative energy to the hurricane, and lowering peak winds by 5% to 20%. Since hurricane wind damages are proportional to the cube of windspeed, this reduction in peak wind suggests that losses caused by high winds could be reduced up to 50%. Additional savings could accrue if the storm surge is lessened, thereby reducing losses caused by flooding.
By relying on wave kinetic energy as the power source, the Atmocean wave-driven upwelling pumps naturally self-calibrate due to the much larger waves generated by a storm.
Atmocean's upwelling arrays would be positioned beginning at 250 meters depth along the Gulf and East coast, and extend seaward in a band about 150 km wide.
If Atmocean arrays had been in position ten years ago, our storm track analysis shows they could have intercepted and quite likely reduced the intensity of 84% of US-landfalling hurricanes.

Here we have several well known names inventing a "storm protection system" that sells protection to investors. This is also relevant due to the following comments from NOAA<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf> on modifying hurricanes:
Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP<https://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/session_24276.htm>) worked with Project Stormfury<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_stormfury> veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.
In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf> regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.
“While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.
He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).
NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million<http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/lifestyles/opinion/budget-cuts-may-ground-noaa-weather-satellite-prog/nRFLR/>.
Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead<http://weathermodification.org/Park%20City%20Presentations/DC%20Program%20Review.pdf> with their research without NOAA’s participation.

Even NOAA has learned from history. NOAA, the AMS, WMO, and NRC are all saying the same thing, there are too many unknown variables, and large scale experimentation should not be done.

Bill Gates and company are making pumps for the gulf of Mexico to mitigate hurricanes even though NOAA wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. The Weather Modification Association operates cloud seeding/hail mitigation operations<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/cloud-seeding.html> daily all over the USA. The Chinese<http://www.disclose.tv/forum/playing-for-god-s-weather-modification-in-china-50-years-t19855.html> and Russians<http://www.infowars.com/russia-attacks-clouds-to-clear-sky-for-city-day-celebration/> also have a long history of controlling their weather<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html>. Yet I would argue the butterfly effect of so many hands in the cookie jar <http://goo.gl/maps/iZy2S> nets an even more uncontrollable system. When Texas seeded clouds meet a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico above the aforementioned upwelling pumps, and Bob payed Bill Gates inc to protect his oil fields, will that hurricane now hit Tom? Will the hurricane become stonger or weaker. Since there is no way to know, will Tom be able to sue Bill for making a hurricane change course?

I am merely an observer in all this. I do not understand all of the why for's and how to's but I do see a pattern emerging which worries me, and I don't think the public would approve of any of this. It is commonly argued this way:

Geoengineering the Climate | Link<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-the-climate.html>

“So, there is indeed a history of asking whether “the local inhabitants would be in favor of such schemes,” despite Fleming’s argument, and the answer, to my reading of the thin literature, is “Yes.” The simple persistence today of literally hundreds of cloud seeding projects in the U.S. and elsewhere suggests that despite anecdote and wary cloud seeders, no implacable opposition has emerged.”

I would argue that most people would vehemently disapprove of men controlling weather. Even Donald Duck<http://www.slidefinder.net/1/11_12_donald_duck/32113700> and the Smurfs understood that<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Dz2ZJVrU0> weather control might be a bad idea.
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, GEOENGINEERING -ed.) and should be treated with suspicion" ~WMO

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are imaginary ones. Therefore I ask you: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?

--
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/-/amVJ-V1vXQEJ.
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups....
Show original<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/92604d87741d5e59?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect>

--
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/-/UXKurSZy_rAJ.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages