Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

[Jim Lee]

Now on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6YgF_Sams

Enjoy =)

<3 u Clive

Jim Lee

http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html

[Michael Hayes]

Jim,

You left a comment on the video which states: "The Convention for Biological Diversity bans geoengineering". I'm fairly confident that the CBD has issued no such ban. If you can copy/paste/post the exact CBD language which establishes a 'ban on GE', I would be grateful for the information.

Best,

Michael 

[Mick West]

I believe Jim is referring to the following "invitation to consider guidance" from COP 10 (2010), frequently misinterpreted as a "ban". 

http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299

COP 10 Decision X/33

X/33.Biodiversity and climate change

The Conference of the Parties,

...

8.Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national circumstances and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation:

...

Reducing biodiversity impacts of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures

...

(w)Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities⁷⁶ that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;

...

76 Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. It is noted that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Michael Hayes]

Thanks Mick,

Yes, the "Ban" thing is becoming something of an urban legend. Here is how I would deconstruct the key thinking:   "in the absence of science based (science would not be absent), global (global what? Political, science, media talking heads, The Colbert Nation?), transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering (We currently have 'reasonable knowability' of the combined human affect on our large climate systems and BD. The AGU just confirmed this view. Thus, we are currently, actively and knowingly geoengineering the planet. Once 'reasonable knowability' is established, the word 'intentional' becomes legally, morally  and ethically moot...That truly is an "inconvenient truth"!), and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention (This is contradictory to Article 15 of the Rio Declaration), that no climate-related geo-engineering activities 76 that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;" Article 15 must take priority. Or, the mindless adherance to Article 14 becomes a suicide pact. No person, orginization or species should be subjected to such logic.

Any thoughts?

Michael

On Friday, August 9, 2013 8:31:44 AM UTC-7, Jim Lee wrote:

[Jim Lee]

As you could clearly see, my video comment was in response to a "low information voter" and I agree with Mick's response.

Geoengineering seeks to do globally what cloud seeders claim to do locally: control the weather.  We lack the knowledge/ability to control rain after 60 years of cloud seeding, no scientific body recognizes cloud seeding as solid science, and the geoengineering SRM gang seems to think that in a relatively short time they can master their art and deploy.  I can't see how.

Currently, many different countries are modifying their skies, and there is little accountability or transparency.  

When Meteo Systems Weathertec claimed to create rain in the Abu Dhabi desert using ion generators, the WMO's expert team on weather modification had a meeting and issued the following condemnation:

“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.”

The same is true for geoengineering SRM.  Too large, too many variables: treat with suspicion.

Nonetheless, weather modification using ionization methods continue:

Aquiess and Sciblue are claiming to move tropospheric rivers using "Weather Resonance Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems.  Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather.

How many other companies/countries have their hand in the cookie jar?

My stance:

ClimateViewer Position Statement, aka the “Clarity Clause”

We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate engineering.

1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1].
2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities.
3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses.

Jim Lee

~ Jim

http://climateviewer.com/

[eugg...@comcast.net]

The goal is not weather modification or anything to do with weather but to alter/control slightly the average, local, long term temperature i.e. local climate modification not weather control. Hence your comments on controlling weather offer no insight into a totally different issue. Limited control of solar transmission through the local atmosphere may be an adequate objective and may be viable on a local basis. In particular local governance replaces a universal solution and minimizes the politics.

---

From: "Jim Lee" <rez...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 10:21:27 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

[Jim Lee]

If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it as local climate?

Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather control or an unintended side-effect?

Do you consider creation of artificial clouds weather control or climate modification?

Those are just words.

Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable:

Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents: Hurricane Protection for Cash!

• January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386 • Water alteration structure applications and methods
• January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404 • Water alteration structure and system
• January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090175685 • Water alteration structure movement method and system
• January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090177569 • Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods
• January 30, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173801 • Water alteration structure and system having below surface valves or wave reflectors
• February 6-7, 2008 • Department of Homeland Security's Hurricane Modification Workshop
• April 21, 2008 • Weather Modification Association Conference “New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications”
  • Atmospheric heating as a research tool
  • On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cotton
  • Reducing hurricane intensity using upwelling pumps
• May 29, 2009 • US Patent Application 20100300560 • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit
• May 29, 2009 • United States Patent 8348550 • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit
  
  • Assigned to: The Invention Science Fund I, LLC
  • 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)
  • Wattenburg, Willard H. (Walnut Creek, CA, US)
  • Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)
  • Wood, Victoria Y. H. (Livermore, CA, US)
• July 28, 2009 • US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing “Weathering the Storm: The Need for a National Hurricane Initiative”
• July 29, 2009 • NOAA Says No to DHS Hurricane Modification • NOAA Letter
• May 10, 2010 • Weather Modification Association Conference “Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP)”

Learn more on ClimateViewer's Weather Control Timeline

Also see: Weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB) – Silver Lining Project

I suppose a dual purpose sea-spraying sun-blocking hurricane-mitigating boat really blurs the lines between geoengineering and weather modification, wouldn't you say?

~ Jim Lee

http://climateviewer.com/

[John Latham]

Jim,

There is much that I agree with you about, and I find it frustrating that
what could perhaps be construed by some as shrillness on your part
produces an alienation which prohibits your receiving the support
that you deserve.

You say, for example:-

Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are
true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their
is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather.

I agree. In my opinion it is probably nonsense, and you are right to draw attention to this.

But you also seem to condemn studies of the possible weakening of hurricanes via marine
cloud brightening (MCB), by cooling the associated oceanic surface waters and thereby reducing
the strength of hurricanes developing in those regions?

Would it be a bad mistake to examine the possibility of cooling oceanic surface waters in such
regions via the downwelling idea, or via MCB?

Or preventing the bleaching of coral reefs?

The geo-engineers [terrible word] that I know ask only to be able to test possibly helpful ideas,
that hopefully would never have to be considered for deployment.

In my perverted view, there is little virtue in doing nothing and dying – with many others –
with a clear conscience. We have been engaging in geo-engineering for over 200 years now,
albeit inadvertently. The possible consequences are terrible. Isn’t it acceptable to try to
remedy, as far as possible, the damage that we have caused?

Best Wishes, John.



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: 11 August 2013 00:10
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: rez...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

If the intention is to reduce global temperature, why do you refer to it as local climate?

Do you consider reduced rainfall as a result of geoengineering SRM weather control or an unintended side-effect<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/ipdLpbnXHeU/tAXDtadrNR0J>?
Do you consider creation of artificial clouds<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> weather control or climate modification?
Those are just words<http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html>.

Geoengineering SRM and weather modification are interchangeable:

Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete>: Hurricane Protection for Cash!

* January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173386<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173386.html> • Water alteration structure applications and methods
* January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173404<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173404.html> • Water alteration structure and system
* January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090175685<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0175685.html> • Water alteration structure movement method and system
* January 3, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090177569<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> • Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods
* January 30, 2008 • US Patent Application 20090173801<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0173801.html> • Water alteration structure and system having below surface valves or wave reflectors
* February 6-7, 2008 • Department of Homeland Security's Hurricane Modification Workshop<http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/16/cloud-seeding-from-pluviculture-to-hurricane-hacking/>
* April 21, 2008 • Weather Modification Association Conference “New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications<https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm>”
* Atmospheric heating as a research tool<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTQj2qX1ZM>
* On Engineering Hurricanes - William Cotton<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIFvTdqcA4>
* Reducing hurricane intensity using upwelling pumps<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA>
* May 29, 2009 • US Patent Application 20100300560<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0300560.html> • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit
* May 29, 2009 • United States Patent 8348550<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8348550.html> • Water alteration structure and system having heat transfer conduit
[Bill Gates - Hurricane steering and protection patent]<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html>
* Assigned to: The Invention Science Fund I, LLC<http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan-myhrvold-net-worth/>
* Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US)
* Caldeira, Kenneth G.<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22Ken$20Caldeira%22> (Campbell, CA, US)
* Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US)
* Gates III, William H.<http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html> (Redmond, WA, US)
* Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US)
* Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US)
* Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US)
* Latham, John<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22John$20Latham%22> (Boulder, CO, US)
* Myhrvold, Nathan P.<http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/nathan-myhrvold-net-worth/> (Medina, WA, US)
* Salter, Stephen H.<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/geoengineering/authorname$3A%22Stephen$20Salter%22> (Edinburgh, GB)
* Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US)
* Wattenburg, Willard H. (Walnut Creek, CA, US)
* Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)
* Wood, Victoria Y. H. (Livermore, CA, US)
* July 28, 2009 • US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing “Weathering the Storm: The Need for a National Hurricane Initiative<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54496/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54496.pdf>”
* July 29, 2009 • NOAA Says No to DHS Hurricane Modification<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/08/noaa_officially_rebuffs_dhs_hu.html> • NOAA Letter<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf>
* May 10, 2010 • Weather Modification Association Conference “Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP)<https://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/session_24276.htm>”

Learn more on ClimateViewer's Weather Control Timeline<http://climateviewer.com/weather-control.html>

Also see: Weakening of hurricanes via marine cloud brightening (MCB) – Silver Lining Project<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Hurricanes/Hurricane%20reduction%20by%20cloud.pdf>

I suppose a dual purpose sea-spraying sun-blocking hurricane-mitigating boat really blurs the lines between geoengineering and weather modification, wouldn't you say?

~ Jim Lee
http://climateviewer.com/


On Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:18:02 AM UTC-4, Gene wrote:
The goal is not weather modification or anything to do with weather but to alter/control slightly the average, local, long term temperature i.e. local climate modification not weather control. Hence your comments on controlling weather offer no insight into a totally different issue. Limited control of solar transmission through the local atmosphere may be an adequate objective and may be viable on a local basis. In particular local governance replaces a universal solution and minimizes the politics.

________________________________
From: "Jim Lee" <rez...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 10:21:27 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

As you could clearly see, my video comment was in response to a "low information voter" and I agree with Mick's response.

Geoengineering seeks to do globally what cloud seeders claim to do locally: control the weather. We lack the knowledge/ability to control rain after 60 years of cloud seeding, no scientific body recognizes cloud seeding as solid science, and the geoengineering SRM gang seems to think that in a relatively short time they can master their art and deploy. I can't see how.

Currently, many different countries are modifying their skies, and there is little accountability or transparency.

When Meteo Systems Weathertec claimed to create rain in the Abu Dhabi desert using ion generators<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-discovered-create-downpours-desert.html>, the WMO's expert team on weather modification<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf> had a meeting and issued the following condemnation:

“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.”

The same is true for geoengineering SRM. Too large, too many variables: treat with suspicion.

Nonetheless, weather modification using ionization methods continue:

[X]<http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aquiess-sciblue-april-july-2012-cloud-ionizers-end-texas-drought.png>

Aquiess and Sciblue are claiming to move tropospheric rivers using "Weather Resonance Technology" and control the direction of cloud systems. Whether their claims are true or not, the claim alone should be enough to turn some heads, yet few believe their is a credible interaction between electromagnetic energy and weather.

How many other companies/countries have their hand in the cookie jar?

My stance:

ClimateViewer Position Statement, aka the “Clarity Clause”

We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate engineering.

[Terraforming Incorporated, How do you like your weather?]

1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1]<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/10011310.htm>.
2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities.
3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses.

Jim Lee<http://www.facebook.com/rezn8d>

~ Jim
http://climateviewer.com/


On Friday, August 9, 2013 5:12:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Hayes wrote:
Thanks Mick,

Yes, the "Ban" thing is becoming something of an urban legend. Here is how I would deconstruct the key thinking: "in the absence of science based (science would not be absent), global (global what? Political, science, media talking heads, The Colbert Nation?), transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering (We currently have 'reasonable knowability' of the combined human affect on our large climate systems and BD. The AGU just confirmed this view. Thus, we are currently, actively and knowingly geoengineering the planet. Once 'reasonable knowability' is established, the word 'intentional' becomes legally, morally and ethically moot...That truly is an "inconvenient truth"!), and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention (This is contradictory to Article 15 of the Rio Declaration<http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-7.html>), that no climate-related geo-engineering activities 76<http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12299#cop-10-dec-33-fn76> that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;" Article 15 must take priority. Or, the mindless adherance to Article 14 becomes a suicide pact. No person, orginization or species should be subjected to such logic.

[Ken Caldeira]

Jim,

What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the heading:

Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents: Hurricane Protection for Cash!

1. Is your implication that Bill Gates sees geoengineering as an easy way to pick up a little extra cash, and that he is acting out of self interest?  Do you really believe this?

2. A headline like this implicitly questions motivations. Is there a chance that Bill Gates is consistent in trying to explore ways to reduce suffering and improve well-being, especially among the poorest in the world and that this might be a primary motivation for his work in this area? 

3. Exactly who are you referring to as "world's top Geoengineers"? As far as I know it, nobody in the world is engaged in geoengineering. Would you say "the worlds top tennis players" if nobody ever played tennis? There could still be tennis researchers, but a tennis researcher is a far cry from a tennis player.

4. When you send out a post with a headline like this, what are your motivations?  I see two main possibilities:  

(i) Your intent is to give people false impressions, so as to advance a political position you hold; 

(ii) Your intent is to give people accurate impressions; you actually believe that the headline gives an accurate impression of both Bill Gates's motivations and the character of the people he has worked with, and that the false impression given is thus a consequence of your false beliefs. 

So the question is: Are misleading intentionally, or are you misleading inadvertently?

Best,

Ken

[Jim Lee]

I stand by the heading for the following reasons:

1. The title is loosely based on this title from TechDirt: Bill Gates' New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold? and this on from The Guardian: The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres "British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms" 
   
2. Geoengineer refers to those who study and/or advocate geoengineering SRM (I have little concern for biochar, sequestration, oif, etc). I too hate the term, what should I refer to men of your craft as?
3. Protection for Cash refers to these lines from United States Patent Application 20090177569 :

15. A method of ecological alteration, comprising: receiving money from at least one government entity; and funding at least one of purchase, operation, or maintenance of ecological alteration equipment at least partially through the money collected from the at least one government entity, wherein the ecological alteration equipment includes wave driven water property alteration equipment. 

22. The method of claim 15, further comprising: creating different risk or reward zones based on a known placement of the ecological alteration equipment; and developing different payment amounts based on location relative to the risk zones. 
23. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different payment amounts based on at least one of potential property risk or potential change in property valuation. 
24. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different payment amounts based on location. 

 

In yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating ecological alteration equipment. The method also includes receiving at least one payment from at least one interested party. Further, the method includes receiving a request from the interested party to provide ecological alteration. Further still, the method includes causing changes in the operation of ecological alteration equipment in an attempt to cause ecological alteration.

In still yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating storm suppression equipment in response to a request to attempt to alter at least one storm. The method also includes alerting at least one interested party as to the potential for storm damage. Further, the method includes providing information to the at least one interested party of the cost and likelihood of reducing damage for the at least one interested party. Further still, the method includes receiving at least one payment from the at least one interested party and receiving a request from the interested party to provide storm protection.

In yet still another aspect, a method of managing risk includes selling an interest regarding areas to be protected by ecological alteration equipment to a group of members. The method also includes funding at least one of purchase, operation, or maintenance if the ecological alteration equipment at least partially through payments collected from the selling. Further, the method includes determining the amount of ecological alteration in a predefined situation. Further still, the method includes paying the members of the group an amount dependent on the amount of ecological alteration.

This returns us to Mr. Gordon's statement above for a moment: "local climate modification not weather control"
In the above quoted patent, IT is referred to as "ecological alteration" which I must say is catchy.

So which is it?

• geoengineering
• weather modification
• weather control
• climate modification
• ecological alteration
• climate engineering

These are terms that are loosely defined, and from a public awareness standpoint, are synonymous if not ethereal. In my daily discussions with the average Joe, I say "Did you know they can make it rain, and have been altering the skies for over fifty years?" 95% of the time they refuse to believe it is possible, even after I show them my website full of documented facts. Therefore you gentlemen operate in a vacuum, as the entire weather modification industry has for years. I wouldn't doubt that many of the failings of Senator Hutchinson's weather modification bills were due to other Senators not believing a word she was saying -- that can't be real.

My intention of the title is to tell it like it is, no fluff. 

Let me clarify my position:

1. I believe that cloud-seeding can be a good thing: like the Moscow/Chernobyl rainmaking, Rocky Mountain snowpack augmentation.  Hopefully cloud-seeding was deployed after Fukushima.
2. I think that Mr. Latham's boat will be more effective than silver iodide in creating clouds and subsequent rainfall.  I also think it is safer. =)
3. I believe our climate is in a bad state, and I too do not see polluting corporations changing without stiff regulation, which will not come as they control the puppets in Congress.
4. I believe the technologies you gentlemen are creating will probably be necessary given the current state of methane release.
5. I believe there is a long history of men altering the skies, bad things happen, and nobody wants to take responsibility.
6. I fear military interests in creating cloud cover to defend against surveillance and space-based directed-energy weapons (mostly lasers) coincides with your goals to create cloud cover to reflect sunlight.
7. I think that much like Frankenstein and the Ford factory lines, sometimes we create things that become uncontrollable.  I think this is exemplified by all the "Playing God" title references.
8. I do not think any of the "geoengineers" are nefarious

In my imagination, the group listed on the patent met at one of Myhrvold's parties similar to the one mentioned in the TechDirt article.  Based on the date of the first application, I assume it was a New Years Day party. I also assume that after the first filings, some careful nudging occurred to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to just into the steering hurricane business.  Next came the discussions at the AMS Weather Modification Conference, appropriately titled: New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications. Then came more revisions to the patent app, a Congressional hearing, NOAA tells DHS they're crazy, and DHS plows ahead with HAMP.  Of course I don't state that on my website, that's speculation.

However, inquiring minds want to know...

1. What is the origin and intent of the patent
2. Is the DHS currently using/deploying any of this technology?
3. Is/has any other entity (Intellectual Ventures, Atmocean) deploying/testing this technology on active storms?

Thanks to Mr. Salter and Mr. Latham for being so helpful, respectful, and forthright with their research. I appreciate what you do Ken, as well as your colleagues. I find this topic fascinating, frightening, and promising all at once.  I hope I was able to clarify my position, and hope you will clarify this hurricane mitigation patent technology's current status. 

~ Jim Lee

http://climateviewer.com/

[Chris Vivian]

Michael,

Your deconstruction of CBD Decision X/33 8(w) doesn’t make sense:

1. The decision is clearly aimed at deliberate geoengineering activities designed to mitigate climate change not climate change caused by emissions from activities such as power generation.

 

2. The phrase "in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering" has to be read as one and not piece by piece. It then makes entire sense. On the marine side, this is what the Parties to the London Convention and London Protocol are currently working towards.

 

3. Why is "in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention" contradictory to Article 15 of the Rio Declaration? The "precautionary approach" and Article 15 are one and the same thing. Article 14 of the CBD simply requires environmental impact assessment of proposed projects likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity and the avoidance or minimization of such effects.

Chris.

[John Latham]

Jim 7 all,

Thank you for below, in response to which I add some further information
which may be helpful.

The idea behind Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is to enhance the reflectivity of low-level
very thin, all-water "marine stratocumulus" clouds by seeding them with large quantities
of seawater droplets of somewhat less than a micrometre in size. These pasticles will
be created by sprayers carried on small wind-powered ships sailing underneath the clouds.
A good fraction of these will be carried by turbulence into the clouds, thereby producing
additional cloud droplets. This causes the reflectivity of the clouds to increase (more sunlight
bounced back into space), which produces a cooling which can become global. If most of these
clouds are seeded the cooling could balance the warming from fossil-fuel burning for the next
few decades. The associated increase in cloud reflectivity is around 10%.

The only raw materials are seawater and wind.

We have still to resolve some technological problems related to the sprayers.

We do not intend the create new clouds (that would be impossible) or extend existing ones.

This idea (like the stratospheric sulphur one) is simply a stop-gap, to be switched off
when a new, clean form of energy has been developed globally.

MCB would never be utilised if significant adverse consequences were identified.

Its deployment would need to be internationally approved.

Silver iodide seeding relates to ice formation in higher-level clouds, with
concomitant (hoped for) increase in precipitation. We have no involvement
with this topic.

Our principle objective of MCB is to maintain the global average surface temperature,
and the polar ice coverage.

It may also be useful in (1) preserving coral reefs, by cooling the surface waters in their
vicinity, and (2) reducing hurricane energy (producing less damage) again by cooling
propitiously located oceanic surface waters.

The downwelling surface water cooling technique for hurricane weakening, suggested
by Stephen Salter and developed further with Nathan Myhrvold & colleagues has the
same objectives as the MCB one.

I attach a recently published detailed account of our MCB work.

I hope all this is helpful.

All Best, John.

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: Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 August 2013 05:38
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: John Latham; rez...@gmail.com; kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

I stand by the heading for the following reasons:

1. The title is loosely based on this title from TechDirt: Bill Gates' New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold?<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete> and this on from The Guardian: The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres<http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy> "British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms"
2. Geoengineer refers to those who study and/or advocate geoengineering SRM (I have little concern for biochar, sequestration, oif, etc). I too hate the term, what should I refer to men of your craft as?
3. Protection for Cash refers to these lines from United States Patent Application 20090177569<http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> :

15. A method of ecological alteration, comprising: receiving money from at least one government entity; and funding at least one of purchase, operation, or maintenance of ecological alteration equipment at least partially through the money collected from the at least one government entity, wherein the ecological alteration equipment includes wave driven water property alteration equipment.

22. The method of claim 15, further comprising: creating different risk or reward zones based on a known placement of the ecological alteration equipment; and developing different payment amounts based on location relative to the risk zones.
23. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different payment amounts based on at least one of potential property risk or potential change in property valuation.
24. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different payment amounts based on location.


In yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating ecological alteration equipment. The method also includes receiving at least one payment from at least one interested party. Further, the method includes receiving a request from the interested party to provide ecological alteration. Further still, the method includes causing changes in the operation of ecological alteration equipment in an attempt to cause ecological alteration.

In still yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating storm suppression equipment in response to a request to attempt to alter at least one storm. The method also includes alerting at least one interested party as to the potential for storm damage. Further, the method includes providing information to the at least one interested party of the cost and likelihood of reducing damage for the at least one interested party. Further still, the method includes receiving at least one payment from the at least one interested party and receiving a request from the interested party to provide storm protection.

In yet still another aspect, a method of managing risk includes selling an interest regarding areas to be protected by ecological alteration equipment to a group of members. The method also includes funding at least one of purchase, operation, or maintenance if the ecological alteration equipment at least partially through payments collected from the selling. Further, the method includes determining the amount of ecological alteration in a predefined situation. Further still, the method includes paying the members of the group an amount dependent on the amount of ecological alteration.

This returns us to Mr. Gordon's statement above for a moment: "local climate modification not weather control"
In the above quoted patent, IT is referred to as "ecological alteration" which I must say is catchy.

So which is it?

* geoengineering
* weather modification
* weather control
* climate modification
* ecological alteration
* climate engineering

These are terms that are loosely defined<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2aazcmk2E&list=PLF928FDE0FD764621>, and from a public awareness<http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html> standpoint, are synonymous if not ethereal. In my daily discussions with the average Joe, I say "Did you know they can make it rain, and have been altering the skies for over fifty years?" 95% of the time they refuse to believe it is possible, even after I show them my website full of documented facts. Therefore you gentlemen operate in a vacuum, as the entire weather modification industry has for years. I wouldn't doubt that many of the failings of Senator Hutchinson's weather modification bills were due to other Senators not believing a word she was saying -- that can't be real.

My intention of the title is to tell it like it is, no fluff.

Let me clarify my position:

1. I believe that cloud-seeding can be a good thing: like the Moscow/Chernobyl rainmaking<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html>, Rocky Mountain snowpack augmentation<http://youtu.be/MpCk7yHj0Qw?t=3m43s>. Hopefully cloud-seeding was deployed after Fukushima.
2. I think that Mr. Latham's boat will be more effective than silver iodide in creating clouds and subsequent rainfall. I also think it is safer. =)
3. I believe our climate is in a bad state, and I too do not see polluting corporations changing without stiff regulation, which will not come as they control the puppets in Congress.
4. I believe the technologies you gentlemen are creating will probably be necessary given the current state of methane release<http://climateviewer.com/pollution-map.html#methane-release>.
5. I believe there is a long history<http://climateviewer.com/weather-control.html> of men altering the skies, bad things happen, and nobody wants to take responsibility.
6. I fear military interests<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> in creating cloud cover<http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/31/us-army-test-technology-symposium-weather-modification-1997/> to defend against surveillance and space-based directed-energy weapons<http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> (mostly lasers) coincides with your goals to create cloud cover to reflect sunlight.
7. I think that much like Frankenstein and the Ford factory lines, sometimes we create things that become uncontrollable. I think this is exemplified by all the "Playing God" title references.
8. I do not think any of the "geoengineers" are nefarious

In my imagination, the group listed on the patent met at one of Myhrvold's parties similar to the one mentioned in the TechDirt article. Based on the date of the first application, I assume it was a New Years Day party. I also assume that after the first filings, some careful nudging occurred to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to just into the steering hurricane business. Next came the discussions at the AMS Weather Modification Conference, appropriately titled: New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications. Then came more revisions to the patent app, a Congressional hearing, NOAA tells DHS they're crazy, and DHS plows ahead with HAMP. Of course I don't state that on my website, that's speculation.

However, inquiring minds want to know...

1. What is the origin and intent of the patent
2. Is the DHS currently using/deploying any of this technology?
3. Is/has any other entity (Intellectual Ventures, Atmocean) deploying/testing this technology on active storms?

Thanks to Mr. Salter and Mr. Latham for being so helpful, respectful, and forthright with their research. I appreciate what you do Ken, as well as your colleagues. I find this topic fascinating, frightening, and promising all at once. I hope I was able to clarify my position, and hope you will clarify this hurricane mitigation patent technology's current status.

~ Jim Lee
http://climateviewer.com/


On Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Jim,

What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the heading:

Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents<http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete>: Hurricane Protection for Cash!

[Andrew Lockley]

Seems a bit sloppy to say that MCB can be switched off when the energy system has been decarbonized. The CO2 levels will be elevated for centuries, and without the aerosols we'll be hotter still. We're in for the long haul.

Incidentally, simulations shown at the geoengineering summer school show the droplets cool and sink to the water surface. They don't whoosh out of the top of ships as typically shown.
A

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

It would be courteous of the person who showed a simulation of seawater drops at the summer school to send me a copy. 

You write that drops sink to the water surface.  I agree that this is what happens initially but some readers might think that they sink INTO the sea. and here I disagree.  My analysis of the process is as follows:

Spray will be blown up through the rotor by an air flow of 9 metres per second, just less than the Weber coalescence velocity  and emerge at a height of 25 metres.  It will be entrained with surrounding air and the mixture will rise to a height of about 5 rotor diameters above the rotor top. 

The relative humidity very close to the water surface will be nearly 100% but his falls to typically 60% at a few metres  and then rises slowly to 100% at the cloud base.  The very large surface area of the spray means that evaporation of the spray plume up to 100% relative humidity will be very fast leaving large numbers of liquid drops.  The upward velocity through the rotor will fall rapidly above 35 metres.  For drop sizes of 800 nanometres we have to increase the Stokes prediction for the still air falling velocity from 19.8 microns a second to 23.8 microns a second [ ].  However this is very small compared with the turbulent velocities in the marine boundary layer, which are an appreciable fraction of the local wind speed, which act in all directions but with a vertical component clipped at the water surface. 

Latent heat for evaporation will initially come from the surrounding air of the expanding plume.  We can use psychrometric charts to get the temperature drop. For an input humidity of 60% and a dry bulb temperature of 15C the temperature drop in the wake will be about 3 K.  The resulting density increase will mean that the cooled plume will fall rapidly and spread out over the sea surface taking heat from the water below for any further evaporation.  The air above the plume will cool at night but the water below will stay at the same temperature causing most of the subsequent rise. The Twomey effect will take place after sunrise the next day.

For drops of 0.8 microns diameter surface tension and viscosity are extremely strong.  Think of sand in treacle.  The drops are glued to the air around them.  If air cannot get through the water surface few of the drops will.  Indeed if a drop did hit the surface it could sit there like a floating ball for a long period.  If it is not raining he main loss mechanism will be from plunging breakers.

I have tested pond foggers which make much larger drops than we will use and the cloud sits over the surface of a tank for ages.  With fresh water the the main loss is evaporation.

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

[John Latham]

Andrew,

Sloppy sentence. Yes, I have to plead guilty.

Cheers, John.

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: Andrew Lockley [andrew....@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 August 2013 17:17
To: John Latham
Cc: geoengineering; Stephen Salter; lat...@ucar.edu; rez...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & Politics of Geoengineering

Seems a bit sloppy to say that MCB can be switched off when the energy system has been decarbonized. The CO2 levels will be elevated for centuries, and without the aerosols we'll be hotter still. We're in for the long haul.

Incidentally, simulations shown at the geoengineering summer school show the droplets cool and sink to the water surface. They don't whoosh out of the top of ships as typically shown.
A

Email: lat...@ucar.edu<mailto:lat...@ucar.edu> or john.l...@manchester.ac.uk<mailto:john.l...@manchester.ac.uk>
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182<tel:303-497-8182> or (US-Home) 303-444-2429<tel:303-444-2429>
or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724<tel:303-882-0724> or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
________________________________________
From: Jim Lee [rez...@gmail.com<mailto:rez...@gmail.com>]

Sent: 12 August 2013 05:38

To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: John Latham; rez...@gmail.com<mailto:rez...@gmail.com>; kcal...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

[Andrew Lockley]

Stephen

You make confident claims about the fate and flow of droplets emitted from your ships. I am unclear on several aspects :

How are droplets which have fallen onto the sea surface supposed to get off again?

How windy will it need to be before breakers extinguish low or contacted droplets before they can be lofted again?

Have you done detailed CFD modelling of microscopic flows? I'm particularly interested to see whether the droplets can settle overnight then rise the following day on thermals , as you describe.

Have you modelled performance of the fans by CFD? I imagine that getting the drops to loft with fans will be more difficult in rough seas with turbulent winds around the chimneys than it seems on paper. An alternative design would be to use a greenhouse type structure to heat the droplet containing air, before or after spraying.

How will you keep your ships free of mould, algae, etc.? The chimneys will be wet and well lit. Won't they end up clogged with greenery fairly quickly ?

A

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Stephen Salter]

Andrew

Drops which actually hit the sea surface will be lost but I argue that viscosity will limit the numbers, just like sand in treacle.

Movement away from the surface will be because of turbulence.  This is what gets rid of fog, not by settlement of the drops.

You can get plunging as opposed to spilling breakers in a wide range of wind speeds.  It is the rate of increase of wind speed which produces them.

I have not been able to to do CFD modelling yet but 'settle' is not the right word.  A first experiment might be to put some cream into coffee in a transparent container and stir. The cream has a lower density than the coffee but still gets evenly mixed. 

The fans have to deliver a pressure high enough to account for the extra density of drops plus air.  The rotation speed is set a s a multiple of wind speed so we adjust the solidity of the fan blades to get enough lifting force.  This is all inside the rotors so outside wind does not affect things.  The more outside turbulence the better.

Greenhouses do not work very well at night and any process requiring heat will need too much energy.

The insides of the chimneys will be dark and can be treated with anit-fouling paint.  There will also be 2 parts per million of Chlorine put into the water before filtration.  This is level used to treat municipal water supplies and we can make it at sea by electrolysis.

The outside of the hulls will be affected by fouling like any other ship.  However fouling is faster if ships are stationary in harbour and spray vessels will spend most of their time in mid ocean.

Stephen