The Good News and the Bad News of Climate Change! by Johnnie Buttram

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Global Climate Action Plan contest, and for the time you spent in creating your entry.

The Judges have strongly considered your proposal, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.

We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change at a global level.

We encourage you to keep developing your work and to submit it into future contests and very much hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on other proposals on the platform and vote for the Global proposal you think is the most promising one.

Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.

All the best,
2015 Climate CoLab Judges

Additional comments from the Judges:

This is an interesting proposal, but we are not yet convinced it is viable, and needs to have its hypothesis tested in a science lab or institution. Perhaps this is already being undertaken?

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings

•	Novelty:
•	Feasibility:
•	Impact:
•	Presentation:

Judges'' comments

Congratulations! Your proposal, The Good News and the Bad News of Climate Change!, in the Global Climate Action Plan contest, has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.

You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from now until November 4, 2015, at 11:59pm midnight Eastern Time. We’ve also included feedback that will be posted under the Evaluation tab of your proposal. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions. As you make revisions, we recommend you save an offline copy as a backup.

At the revision deadline mentioned above, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round.

Finalists will be eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award. The Winners will be recognized and widely publicized by the Climate CoLab. Global climate action plans include ideas from all the people who contributed to the sub-proposals, not just those who created the integrated proposal itself. To recognize all these contributions, a winning integrated proposal receives CoLab Points that are distributed among all these people. The top point-getters will receive shares of a cash prize of $10,000. For more details on CoLab Points, please visit: http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Climate+CoLab+Points

Thank you for your great work and good luck!

All the best,
2015 Climate CoLab Judges

Additional comments from the Judges:
- More a theory that need to be tested in the lab; the idea needs to be developed further on the feasibility of idea.

Additional comments from the Fellows:
- The main proposal contains similar ideas with its selected sub-proposals, i.e. suggesting that artificial clouds, created by spraying seawater on the volcanic lava flows just before they engage the sea, will have the potential to reflect the incident Sun's rays back out into space and help cooling the planet. It is lack of details of how it will be implemented. While the idea of artificial giant clouds is unique, the feasibility of spraying water to the volcanoes is questionable, mostly from the safety aspect. In order to be strongly considered, the subproposals should address how the adaptation efforts would specifically be implemented in and impact the different regions.

4comments

Share conversation:

Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 07:21 Member 1 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Regarding the Judges' Ratings as a Semi-Finalist Evaluation: It is my understanding the Climate Global Action Plan was specifically designed where each region of our planet becomes positive forms of continuity to eventually become a cohesive global solution. This reasoning prompted me to write a proposal for each of the six regional contests, plus a related proposal for the geoengineering contest site. These submissions were all written to purposely overlap and highlight that water and heat as a confounding theory is sometimes difficult to understand and articulate to others. Another reason I wrote these sub-proposals was because that so much emphasis is placed on collaboration among Co Lab members that I found it extremely difficult to find anyone inside the membership who has contributed submissions regarding (SRM) and volcanic interaction. Throughout life , I have observed that discussions and discourse are easier to assimilate when everyone addresses situations they find more comfortable. This setting may be good for dinner table conversation . .but extremely less impactful for solving the complex problems associated with saving millions of lives. . . To be continued .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 09:39 Member 2 \| Share via:	Proposal creator An added factor of difficulty also occurred when the impact values of the six regional proposals submitted were not posted due to a still unknown reason as to why? Fortunately , I found on the internet pertinent information authored by Climate Co Lab member, Dr. Susan Solomon, that small volcanic blasts could be responsible for the planet not heating up as much as predicted. The only other Co Lab member I found and highlighted that had submitted anything that would reinforce the (CDR) aspect of my Hybrid Climate Intervention (SRM) (CDR) geoengineering solution was the submission authored by Dr. Greg Rau that seawater and crushed limestone interaction will turn CO2 into bicarbonate. I have been unable to post to the POINTS SITE of my proposal Dr. Susan Solomon or Dr. Greg Rau who may be qualified to receive the 2.0% of any points that I may receive if any points are awarded to this submission. (If you can post either one or both of these, I would appreciate your help.) Judges' Ratings of 2.5 for Novelty: If this 2.5 for Novelty is based on the simple premise that 'Cloud Whitening' due to the interaction of seawater and magma has been a natural phenomenon for perhaps millions of years . . I totally agree. However, if the 2.5 Novelty rating is a cavalier measurement that is to only be viewed and not regarded as a major (SRM) factor to increase (regional) 'Cloud Whitening' applications to justify what is needed to help neutralize the (global) climate change situation . . I believe everyone needs to step back and take a look at the major think tanks and universities who have spent several years climbing the slippery slope of just basic (SRM) and are still unable to find traction. . . To be continued . .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 10:50 Member 3 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Also, if the 2.5 Novelty rating summarily discounts the (CDR) opportunity to transition atmospheric CO2 into bicarbonate by adding crushed limestone to the equation within the same application . . I beg to differ. With millions of lives on the line, how will history judge the results of a major global conclusion that Novelty (SRM) + Novelty (CDR) = a 2.5 of a possible 5.0? Additional comments from the Judges: More a theory that needs to be tested in the lab, the idea needs to be developed further on the feasibility of idea. From the very beginning, over 7 years ago, I have noted to everyone that the interaction of seawater and magma to make clouds has been around for perhaps millions of years! I am very thankful and have duly highlighted throughout my 7 proposals surrounding this Global Climate Action Plan proposal that Dr. Susan Solomon and others have recently found that small volcanic interactions have reduced the global warming factor . . which highly indicates that Cloudtec (SRM) is workable. Cloudtec theory was founded on comparing simple satellite weather observations centered around the Hawaii Island Chain. This gives me pause to ask those tens of thousands of scientists with sophisticated technological and computer software advances at your disposal (with so many lives at stake) why have you failed to address the 'cloud whitening' effectiveness or ineffectiveness of cloudtec (SRM) and where are your findings? . . To be continued . .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 01:46 Member 4 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Addressing Cloudtec (CDR): Although Cloudtec (CDR) has qualifying factors of feasibility, I totally agree that if funds are not available for real time testing, Cloudtec (CDR) rational may be more feasible using economical lab conditions. *** * * * * Additional comments from the Fellows: In response to your comment . . In order to be strongly considered, the proposals should address how the adaptation efforts would specifically be implemented in and impact the different regions. To comply . . please note that I have rewritten the . . How do the regional and cross-sectoral plans fit together?** * * * * * In Closing: The original 42 solutions submitted to the Global Climate Action Plan were designed to effectively impact a warming planet of 2.0 degrees C . . (3.6degrees F) by the end of the century. We have now been told by Climate Interactive that a 6.3 to 8.1 degree F rise in temperature is possible by the end of the century. This will be a pradox of biblical proportions. Cloudtec has the ability to start, speedup, slowdown, or stop upon command millions of tons of water vapor and thousands of cubed miles of white cloud albedo that dissipates naturally and leaves no footprint. I personally believe every solution on the table of discussion and discourse that does not contain the factors and variables to rapidly adjust to unintended consequences should not be a serious candidate to help buffer Planet Earth if Climate Interactive is correct. Please see . . . . Climate Scoreboard

Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 07:21 Member 1 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Regarding the Judges' Ratings as a Semi-Finalist Evaluation: It is my understanding the Climate Global Action Plan was specifically designed where each region of our planet becomes positive forms of continuity to eventually become a cohesive global solution. This reasoning prompted me to write a proposal for each of the six regional contests, plus a related proposal for the geoengineering contest site. These submissions were all written to purposely overlap and highlight that water and heat as a confounding theory is sometimes difficult to understand and articulate to others. Another reason I wrote these sub-proposals was because that so much emphasis is placed on collaboration among Co Lab members that I found it extremely difficult to find anyone inside the membership who has contributed submissions regarding (SRM) and volcanic interaction. Throughout life , I have observed that discussions and discourse are easier to assimilate when everyone addresses situations they find more comfortable. This setting may be good for dinner table conversation . .but extremely less impactful for solving the complex problems associated with saving millions of lives. . . To be continued .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 09:39 Member 2 \| Share via:	Proposal creator An added factor of difficulty also occurred when the impact values of the six regional proposals submitted were not posted due to a still unknown reason as to why? Fortunately , I found on the internet pertinent information authored by Climate Co Lab member, Dr. Susan Solomon, that small volcanic blasts could be responsible for the planet not heating up as much as predicted. The only other Co Lab member I found and highlighted that had submitted anything that would reinforce the (CDR) aspect of my Hybrid Climate Intervention (SRM) (CDR) geoengineering solution was the submission authored by Dr. Greg Rau that seawater and crushed limestone interaction will turn CO2 into bicarbonate. I have been unable to post to the POINTS SITE of my proposal Dr. Susan Solomon or Dr. Greg Rau who may be qualified to receive the 2.0% of any points that I may receive if any points are awarded to this submission. (If you can post either one or both of these, I would appreciate your help.) Judges' Ratings of 2.5 for Novelty: If this 2.5 for Novelty is based on the simple premise that 'Cloud Whitening' due to the interaction of seawater and magma has been a natural phenomenon for perhaps millions of years . . I totally agree. However, if the 2.5 Novelty rating is a cavalier measurement that is to only be viewed and not regarded as a major (SRM) factor to increase (regional) 'Cloud Whitening' applications to justify what is needed to help neutralize the (global) climate change situation . . I believe everyone needs to step back and take a look at the major think tanks and universities who have spent several years climbing the slippery slope of just basic (SRM) and are still unable to find traction. . . To be continued . .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 10:50 Member 3 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Also, if the 2.5 Novelty rating summarily discounts the (CDR) opportunity to transition atmospheric CO2 into bicarbonate by adding crushed limestone to the equation within the same application . . I beg to differ. With millions of lives on the line, how will history judge the results of a major global conclusion that Novelty (SRM) + Novelty (CDR) = a 2.5 of a possible 5.0? Additional comments from the Judges: More a theory that needs to be tested in the lab, the idea needs to be developed further on the feasibility of idea. From the very beginning, over 7 years ago, I have noted to everyone that the interaction of seawater and magma to make clouds has been around for perhaps millions of years! I am very thankful and have duly highlighted throughout my 7 proposals surrounding this Global Climate Action Plan proposal that Dr. Susan Solomon and others have recently found that small volcanic interactions have reduced the global warming factor . . which highly indicates that Cloudtec (SRM) is workable. Cloudtec theory was founded on comparing simple satellite weather observations centered around the Hawaii Island Chain. This gives me pause to ask those tens of thousands of scientists with sophisticated technological and computer software advances at your disposal (with so many lives at stake) why have you failed to address the 'cloud whitening' effectiveness or ineffectiveness of cloudtec (SRM) and where are your findings? . . To be continued . .
Johnnie Buttram Nov 2, 2015 01:46 Member 4 \| Share via:	Proposal creator Addressing Cloudtec (CDR): Although Cloudtec (CDR) has qualifying factors of feasibility, I totally agree that if funds are not available for real time testing, Cloudtec (CDR) rational may be more feasible using economical lab conditions. *** * * * * Additional comments from the Fellows: In response to your comment . . In order to be strongly considered, the proposals should address how the adaptation efforts would specifically be implemented in and impact the different regions. To comply . . please note that I have rewritten the . . How do the regional and cross-sectoral plans fit together?** * * * * * In Closing: The original 42 solutions submitted to the Global Climate Action Plan were designed to effectively impact a warming planet of 2.0 degrees C . . (3.6degrees F) by the end of the century. We have now been told by Climate Interactive that a 6.3 to 8.1 degree F rise in temperature is possible by the end of the century. This will be a pradox of biblical proportions. Cloudtec has the ability to start, speedup, slowdown, or stop upon command millions of tons of water vapor and thousands of cubed miles of white cloud albedo that dissipates naturally and leaves no footprint. I personally believe every solution on the table of discussion and discourse that does not contain the factors and variables to rapidly adjust to unintended consequences should not be a serious candidate to help buffer Planet Earth if Climate Interactive is correct. Please see . . . . Climate Scoreboard