As long as you asked I think 'polar cities' is a silly idea. I guess your intention is to eliminate most of the Earth's population and squeeze the remainder into the underground living spaces. Who is eliminated first? Hopefully the politicians and lawyers.
We would do much better if necessary to complete development of thermonuclear fusion electric power generators and build glass roofed cities with cooling all over the hot globe that remains above water. Food can be grown outside the cities and on the roofs of the buildings as is already being done. C'mon. Man is much better than you give credit for. If needed do you really think there will not be a good geoengineering solution to global warming? Much better to work on that than plan global cities. I guess I have been around too many really smart people and have too much faith in technology and engineers. -gene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:00 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Lovelock's Upbeat Forecast Lovelopck is right. We need to listen to him. But since it might be already too late, then we will need polar cities, why is everyone so afraid to even talk about polar cities? We will need a fire exit. and polar cities are key, also dubbed Lovelock Retreats. He has seen my blueprints and approved them. Why the silence here? Polar cities, my friends, get ready for them.... DANY BLOM http://pcillu101.blogspot.com On Sep 1, 6:36 am, "John Nissen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If Lovelock cannot spell out the problem clearly, who will? Or is it just the Daily Telegraph at fault - I wouldn't put it past them to distort the message? > > I believe that Lovelock does know that geoengineering is going to be the only possible way out, with the speed of Arctic sea ice disappearing and open water just recorded at the North Pole. In private correspondence he agreed with me that we should be having experimental trials of stratospheric aerosols without delay. He said that the medicine should be tested before we take a strong dose - but now he appears to believe that even the medicine could cause very bad problems. But using a medicine with a good chance of success, is surely better than letting the patient die. > > As the Arctic sea ice disappears, we have accelerated regional warming, and with it the meltdown of permafrost, releasing a vast quantity of greenhouse gases. That would inevitably lead to runaway global warming, with no escape for the human race. So letting nature "take its course" is not an option. > > If Lovelock can't, who else can spell out the truth of the matter, and make people listen? > > John > > Chiswick, London W4 > > P.S. Do we have anybody from Australia or New Zealand on this list? Please email in private. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alvia Gaskill > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 9:22 PM > Subject: [geo] Lovelock's Upbeat Forecast > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eac... > > Rapid climate change needs a global solution, says scientist > > By Sarah Knapton > Last Updated: 8:01pm BST 31/08/2008 > > Global warming is happening faster than expected and planet-wide engineering projects may be needed to buy humans more time, a leading scientist has warned. > > James Lovelock of Oxford University says schemes to reflect sunlight from the atmosphere or increase the uptake of the greenhouse gas CO2 by the oceans should be considered to hold back disastrous climate change. > > But the scientist also warned that such projects may do more harm than good and argues the best option could be to let nature take its course. > > advertisement > Writing for the Royal Society, Prof Lovelock warned even with geo-engineering, any course was "likely to lead to death on a scale that makes all wars, famines and disasters small". > > Yet Prof Lovelock also said carrying on with "business as usual" would probably kill most of us this century. Methods proposed for artificially altering climate range from using trillions of space craft as a sunshade to "seeding" the oceans with iron particles to stimulate algae which absorb CO2. > > Prof Lovelock last year proposed a system of tubes in the ocean to bring cooler, nutrient rich water to the surface to encourage algal blooms and carbon dioxide uptake. > > He even suggested the algae could also provide biofuels and food. But he said that geo-engineering schemes could create new problems which would require a new fix – trapping the Earth into a cycle problem and solution from which there was no escape. > > Another idea mooted is to send sea spray into the air to make existing clouds whiter in order to enable them to reflect more sunlight, in a bid to offset the heat trapped by increasing levels of greenhouse gases. > > Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of > Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium > without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright- Hide > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
