The picture above is of internationally recognized geoengineer Ken Caldeira from Stanford University. A sidekick of geoengineer David Keith, Caldeira has two very distinct faces. The public face disputes and completely denies any notion that global geoengineering is a reality. Caldeira actually mocks any that attempt to disclose the climate engineering nightmare, so clearly visible in our skies day in and day out. But what sort of conversation does Ken have privately? Take the time to read the email exchange below, which occurred between Caldeira and some of his colleagues. Like Caldeira, the individuals in this exchange apparently feel it is their right to make life and death decisions for populations of the planet. They discuss how to control media in order to limit public awareness and concern over the geoengineering insanity, which is their stock and trade. The men in this exchange thought their conversation was private, but this time, that is not the case. If you are not OK with people like Ken Caldeira deciding your future and that of your children, let him know yourself on the email contact for Ken, which is in the exchange below. If you don’t think people like Caldeira and his colleagues have the right to completely contaminate your air, soils, and waters with the climate engineering fallout, tell them in a personal message. Though Ken Caldeira is just a public disinformation pawn in the overall climate engineering juggernaut of insanity, he is the epitome of the psychotic mentality behind this insanity. Its up to the public to hold people like Caldeira responsible for the crimes of which they are a part. Lets all do our best to expose Ken Caldeira and those like him for what they are.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

The Email Exchange

Ken Caldeira   8/5/14

Folks,

I am supposed to give a keynote talk at CEC14 in two weeks.  For this talk, I would like to try to develop a list of research problems in solar geoengineering and a list of suspect memes. For this email thread, I would like to ask

1a. What is an important tractable research problems in solar geoengineering?

1b. Why is this problem important?

1c. What can be done to address this problem?

Thoughtful responses would be most appreciated. If you want to start discussion about a research topic, please do so in a separate thread so that this thread can be easily used to develop a list.

Thanks,

Ken

_______________
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
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Dr D   8/5/14

Problem 1: Reducing disinformation and potential sabotage about active solar geoengineering projects

Importance: Given the controversy abut chemtrails, disinformation is very likely to occur regarding GE projects. Disinformation can lead to sabotage of GE projects that are widely distributed (e.g. MCB automated ships).

Possible solution: Monitor disinformation spread on social media and reduce the spread by strategic targeting of key network nodes (AKA “players”) using fact checking. Apply what we have learned about anti-vaccine efforts in developed and developing countries. Long-flight drone technology will be needed to monitor GE projects given their vulnerability to sabotage and vandalism.

Problem 2: Small particles of plastic in seawater clog MCB technology.

Importance: In the conventional MCB scheme, fleets of automated ships are to use seawater to modify the albedo of marine clouds. But the likely cruising grounds for these fleets in the Pacific and Atlantic probably overlaps with so-called marine plastic gyres.

Possible solution: Some kind of adaptive smart filtering technology that uses and provides feedback on what kind of plastic is in the water. From my layman’s perspective, that if these ships are to be truly automated it will require advancements in AI as well as nanotech…

 Stephen Salter   8/6/14

Ken

Thank you for your email about your CEC 14 proposal.  I am concerned about your use of the word ‘supposed’.

For marine cloud brightening we need an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function of all its effects.  It should take account of seasonal variations such as monsoons and sporadic ones such as the phase and amplitude of el Nino.  It should allow spray patterns to be varied in response to actual model predictions through the run.   Ben Parkes has shown (in a small part of one PhD thesis testing the coded modulation of spray patterns) that results have an acceptably low scatter.

The problem is important for avoiding spray at times and places with bad side effects and maybe getting nearly all good ones.

We need replication of the method with other computer models and the investigation of Boolean combinations of spray regions. I attach some suggestions for research protocols.  It had proved difficult to get anyone else to try the idea.

For stratospheric sulphur the problem is that several models are showing warming of the Arctic over the winter.  This may be because aerosol are reflecting back long wave radiation en route to deep space.

The problem is important because of the implications of ice loss and methane release.

We may be able to address the problem by doing the injections at lower altitudes.

I am also attaching a poster about collected objections to marine cloud brightening.

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 YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

Matthias Honegger   8/6/14

Dear Ken

at the Heidelberg summer school there was a two-part question of particular interest; picking apart “climate emergency” and viewing it as a subjective social construct (instead of an environmental tipping point). It’s something I have been thinking about in the context of limits of adaptation. I can send you more details if needed.

a) The problem:

b) The problem is important as the term “climate emergency” has never been properly clarified and is used inconsistently. Identifying national or multi-national levels of climate damage leading to declaration of “climate emergency” would allow to foresee abrupt changes in the political discourse (and possibly willingness to consider SRM deployment).

c) One could combine expert interviews with a literature assessment of climate impacts for particular constituencies. A principled approach to identify common criteria for the limits to dealing with these impacts is to be elaborated.

Best, Matthias

andrewjlockley   8/6/14

As my previous (slightly ranty) list was well received, here’s a list in response to this request.

What’s the carrying capacity of CDR reservoirs?
What’s the albedo impact of biochar?
Does condensation onto existing particles set a practical upper limit on max forcing from SO2 injection?
Does direct injection of SO3 plume actually result in the particle size distribution expected?
Do MCB ships just cause a short lived bank of cold wet fog, as some models suggest?
What’s the effect of large scale afforestation on : VOCs, albedo, water, clouds
Why has nobody tested brightwater?
What effect on forcing does the switch to low sulphur marine bunker fuels have?
Does pollution control in Asian industry and cooking stoves result in large forcing changes?
What effect does SRM-induced thermal change in the boundary layer have on water and methane transport into the Stratosphere, and subsequent wetting?
Is moral hazard real, or is negative moral hazard more likely?

I might add to this as I think of more stuff.

A

Stephen Salter   8/6/14

Andrew

MCB ships will indeed produce a short-lived bank of cold, wet fog.  The key words are ‘short-lived’.  Heat will absorbed from the sea below the fog bank so the drops will evaporate and the salt residues moved by turbulence.  We want to give a low dose to a large area so a delay of a day is probably desirable.

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 YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

cushngonzo   8/8/14

Dear Prof there are several uncertainties that geoengineers need to think of now: (1) what is the object of CE? To control solar radiation (SRM) and CO2 (CDR) or of the whole climate system (CE)?  (2) Is it a good idea to control solar radiation, while it is really needed for the development and survival of all biological systems? (3) Even so, How long will it take the scientific community to master the climate system? (4) How long will it take Geo-Engineers to fix the climate system? (5) How often will different initiatives be deployed and where? (6) Where and when shall they be deployed to enable a positive response in all the parts of the globe? (7) What clear impacts are expected from the deployment of each technology? (8) What unintended impacts may be projected from the deployment of each technology? (9) When will this debate about reach the whole global community to enable consensus about the types of technologies to be “acceptable”? (10) Will there really be consensus among world leaders about CE? (11) If this does not happen soon, will super powers use CE as a nuclear weapon to control some parts of the globe?

Thanks.

Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD)
Lecturer
Department of Geography, Office G2B
Kenyatta University
Main Campus, Thika Road
P.O. Box 43844 – 00100
Nairobi

Stephen Salter   8/9/14

Dear Dr Luwesi

What a lot of questions.

1.      I hope that we will be able to offset the more unpleasant changes which are already happening to the climate system and which may get much worse.  Full control of the whole climate system would be extremely ambitious.

2.      Reducing  solar radiation in the right places at the right times would be part of several ways to help all biological system. Reducing all greenhouse gases, not just CO2, would be better but, so far, politically impossible.

3.      Marine cloud brightening could start to make a contribution within 5 years of getting the right amount of money.  It could be a bit less if we started during the northern summer with land-based plant from the Faeroe and Aleutian islands to reduce the loss of Arctic ice.

4.      The words ‘master’ and ‘fix’ are too strong.

5.      Marine cloud brightening would have to be deployed continuously until the greenhouse gas concentrations were reduced or people decided that a warmer world was good after all. The places and times are likely to depend on the monsoon season and the phase of el Nino and we do not know them yet.  The effects can be far from the spray source.

6.      We do not know about when and where yet but we might be able to find out by using coded modulation of the settings for the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei in climate models.  The first attempt to do this looked promising but, so far, the climate modellers seem very reluctant to do any replication.

7.      The initial impact of marine cloud brightening is reducing sea surface temperatures.  This will reduce the extra evaporation from a warmer sea but also increase the strength of monsoons to move more water vapour ashore.  A larger number of smaller cloud drops will reduce rain over the sea which will leave more to get ashore.  The effects seem to balance one another quite closely. A study by Bala, which you can download from   DOI 10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1,  shows very slightly less precipitation on land combined with lower land evaporation leading to usefully more river runoff.

8.      I do not know about unintended impacts but I hope that these will be revealed and avoided by the coded modulation work.

9.      No answer.  I am just an engineer.

10.   I think that there will be no consensus among world leaders until things get much worse.  I would like to have all the hardware ready for instant use when this happens but our leaders do not share this view.

11.   The American Popeye campaign in Viet Nam was not very effective and do not believe that we can confine the effects of marine cloud brightening accurately enough to use it as a weapon.  A possible exception is space mirrors but they would be more expensive than many of the other nasty weapons available.  Preventing the worst effects of climate change would reduce the chance of wars.

Stephen Salter

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland S.Sa…@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change