Thanks for sharing the image and details about your project, François.
Such a vortex tower could indeed achieve multiple goals, i.e.
generating electricity, producing cooler air locally and mitigating
global warming by sending hot air up into the sky, some of which will
dissipate into space.
Furthermore, there's the possibility that I'm studying of using such a
vortex tower to spray seawater into the sky, with the aim of producing
clouds that reflect more sunlight back into space. Of course, such a
vortex towers works best in the desert where it's hard to get hold of
any water, but on the other hand much desert edges onto the sea.
Let me know your thoughts on this and please keep me informed about
progress with your project.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
2009/4/3 f.m.maugis <f.m.m...@wanadoo.fr>:
> I completely agree with you.
> The reason I speak of decreasing temperature in Africa is that I know a
> trial to be done only in hot countries (non chemical solution): The
> atmospheric Vortex Tower.(Have a look to the photo attached).As far as you
> send a great quantity of hot air in the upper atmosphere, you cool the
> global atmosphere with the "cold" space. The natural work is already done by
> natural huge hurricanes but with this astonishing tower, human can probably
> help nature.
> I plan to do this trial as soon as possible within a scientific programm
> (for instance with project AMMA (Multidisciplinary Analyse of the African
> Monsoon - managed by the French IRD Institut de Recherche pour le
> Développement - Thierr...@hmg.inpg.fr - to which I send a copy of this
> mail).
>
> Cheers,
>
> François MAUGIS
>
> ============================================================================
> =======================================
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Sam Carana
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 avril 2009 06:01
> À : Geoengineering
> Objet : [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?
>
>
>
--~------~--~---
Taking into account Stephen's comments on the body language of Dr
Pachauri, it may be wise to make a very brief statement, such as the
following:
===== OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ==========
Participants,
We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a
strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that
the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems
confirmed by the name of the Forum.
Whilst we acknowledge that the politics of energy are vitally
important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to global
warming is appropriate, which would include the following three parts:
Part A: Emissions reduction
Part B: Carbon stock management
Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management
We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no
funding for research and testing regarding part C.
Signatories:
John Nissen, ...
Sam Carana
etc.
========= END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER =====================
I invite others to make changes, but suggest that leaving the Open
Letter short could make more members of this group willing to sign,
while we could always each elaborate in separate articles as to what
we each individually propose. Please all make comments and changes as
you see fit, but do add your name and just let's try and get more
names under the Open Letter this time!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
PS: I'll add details about the Forum below:
President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on
Energy and Climate
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Launch-of-the-Major-Economies-Forum-on-Energy-and-Climate/
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release March 28, 2009
President Obama Announces Launch of the Major Economies Forum on
Energy and Climate
The President is pleased to announce today the launch of the Major
Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.
The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among key
developed and developing countries, help generate the political
leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate
change negotiations that will convene this December in Copenhagen, and
advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures
that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.
President Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies and the
Secretary General of the United Nations to designate representatives
to participate in a preparatory session at the Department of State on
April 27-28 in Washington, D.C. The preparatory sessions will
culminate in a Major Economies Forum Leaders’ meeting, which Prime
Minister Berlusconi has agreed to host in La Maddalena, Italy, in July
2009.
The 17 major economies are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the
European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan,
Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the
United States. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the
December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to
participate in this dialogue.
Thus why miles per gallon on cars not miles?
Why miles not gallons?
Why one user of gallons (cars) rather than another user (home and office
heating)?
Who is to make decisions between sectors where the information is
lacking? We already have the crazy debacle of ethanol. When Archer
Daniels Midland was outside the house of representatives in about 1980 I
was asked about it in a congressional hearing inside. We already knew
then it was a bad idea, and I said so firmly. The superior numbers we
have now confirm it. This is not the only problem oreated by or
accepted by politicians, and unfortunately some academic scientists
caving in to special interests All to many political proposals are for
special interests.
I do not trust politicians to make sensible choices
I do not trust environmental groups and in particular their lawyers to
make sensible choices
I do not trust starry eyed academics either
Why is coal, without sequestration, supported in the recent budget?
(I admit here to bias or at least to specialized knowledge. I was born
near a large coal fired power plant. I went to school in the London
fog when I could not see across the street and the bus conductor got out
and walked th bus across intersections. My grandmother in Halifax
scrubbed her front door step clean twice a day. I shoveled coal into
the coal scuttle and from the coal scuttle to the (open) fireplace for
much of my early life. It was better when I was in control. I then
shoveled it into an "efficient" closed stove)
Why does the Naughty N world (nuiclear) never escape these days from a
politician's mouth?
We now talk about cap and trade with a soft cap. What does that mean?
All small users, you and me, will have rigid controls. But the big
emitters of CO@ , the coal burners are politically powerful enough to
get the cap moved!
The World Federation of Scientists in a statement from Erice in August
2007 addressed this and suggested control at well head, oil mine, gas
field or port of entry. Preferably with no grandfathering or special
concessions. That does not seem to be on the table or even in any NY
Times or Wall St Journal article or letter that they are willing to
publish. It should be. It has wide support among scientists and
people to whom I have explained it. Steve Koonin about to be deputy
secretary of energy. I discussed it 35 years ago with Roger Revelle
and if I remember his comments aright, we both thought it was and is
obvious. Because it was obvious we never wrote it down. I did 10
years ago (with Klais Lackner). Alas not all Roger's students
understood what he was saying in his "gut" course at Harvard!
Not all my students understood what I was saying in my "gut" course at
the same time on "economics of energy" which I taught with AJMeyer who
in AUB had taught half the oil ministers in the Arab World.
Colloquially our course was called "oil Wells".
How does Geoengineering shape up under this type of criticism that I
make about emissions control?
In principle I prefer the directness of the geoengineering approach to
emissions control.
It addresses CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere not CO2 emissions,.
It addresses carbon in the atmosphere not carbon remaining in mines or
sequestered in sea or rocks. Control of the latter is only to
achieve the desired concentration in the former.
It might even be more direct than control of carbon leaving subsurface
reservoirs.
If we try to get this across will politicians find a way of making the
special interests rich?
I dont know but it is worth a try.
But let us all get these things clear in our minds before we let the
politicians run too hard with it!
I, like Bill Fulkerson, am probably willing to sign the suggested
letter. The WFS in August 2007 came out in favor of research on
geoengineering and on adaptation as well as on upstream carbon control.
. The more I see the irrelevant mucking around in Washington the more
I feel that these two deserve more thought than previously given.
Dick wilson
I still prefer an Open Letter that is as short as possible. We can
always refer to other documents (either jointly or individually) to
further elaborate on specific aspects, but I believe that keeping
things short is the best way to ensure that we get the main message
across and get as many signatories to support this. I suggest that we
give the Open Letter one more round of discussion before releasing it.
We can always add further names later, even after its release.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
================= begin draft =============================
OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE
Forum Participants,
We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a
strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that
the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems
confirmed by the name of the Forum.
Whilst we acknowledge that the politics of energy are vitally
important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to climate
change is appropriate, which would include the following four parts:
Part A: Emissions reduction
Part B: Carbon stock management
Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management
Part D: Adaptation
We note that there is little or no funding for research and testing of
geoengineering methods that we believe should be urgently considered
as part of a comprehensive approach to climate change.
Signatories:
John Nissen
Andrew Lockley
John Gorman
Bill Fulkerson
Tom Wigley
Dan Wylie-Sears
Eugene I. Gordon
Sam Carana
======================== end draft =====================
We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people
sharing a strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that
the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems confirmed by
the name of the Forum.
We believe that the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the approach to the climate change problem should be as broadly based as possible. As such, this should include the following four parts:
Part A: Emissions
reduction
Part B: Carbon stock management
Part C: Heat transfer and
radiation management
Part D: Adaptation
We note that there is little
or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering methods (in Part B and
Part C). These should be urgently considered as part of a comprehensive approach
to climate change.
Signatories:
John Nissen
Peter
Read
Oliver Wingenter (OK?)
Stephen Salter (OK?)
John Latham (OK?)
Andrew Lockley
John Gorman
Colin Forrest
(OK?)
John B Davis (OK?)
Gregory Benford (OK?)
Roger Angel (OK?)
Bill Fulkerson
Tom Wigley
Dan Wylie-Sears
Eugene
I. Gordon
Sam Carana
Brian Launder (OK?)
Ken Caldeira (OK? see below)
----
John Nissen
Email: j...@cloudworld.co.uk for correspondence
Stephen Salter
Professor of Engineering, University of Edinburgh