>From Wikipedia:

'Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a 
large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability".'

There are two main classes of geo-engineering: one dealing with radiation input 
to the Earth from the sun; the other dealing with radiation output, trapped by 
greenhouse gases.  The former class is sometimes called Solar Radiation 
Management, SRM, and involves reflecting the sun's radiation back into space.  
The latter class generally involves techniques to lower the level of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere.

It is worth noting that one of the almost certain consequences of global 
warming is the Arctic sea ice retreat, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage
This could be a tipping point for the whole Earth climate system, as further 
warming of the Arctic could lead to massive methane release from permafrost - 
sufficient methane to cause runaway global warming.

A common misapprehension is that greenhouse gas emissions reduction, if pursued 
vigorously enough, can prevent dangerous climate change.  This might be true, 
if it were not for tipping points like the Arctic sea ice with its domino 
effect on methane release.  The only way we may be able to prevent the 
disappearance of the Arctic sea ice is by cooling the Arctic region using SRM 
geoengineering.   SRM geoengineering cannot be guaranteed to work, but nobody 
has any alternative approach.  Emissions reduction cannot have an effect on the 
required timescale.

The good news is that there are two different SRM techniques, either or both of 
which could be used to cool the Arctic: one using stratospheric aerosols and 
one which involves the brightening of marine clouds.  If both are tried, with 
the greatest urgency, then we have a good chance to halt the decline of the 
Arctic sea ice.  Any delay reduces our chances considerably, since the sea ice 
could disappear at end of summer 2013, or even earlier according to some 
experts.

Cheers,

John


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]>
To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>; "geo-engineering" 
<[email protected]>; "greenhouse effect" 
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:37 AM
Subject: [geo] What is geo-engineering?


> 
> What is geo-engineering?
> 
> I was confronted with this question when reading two webpages:
> 1. a recent NASA recent news release; and
> 2. a submission to the Royal Society.
> 
> 
> 1. The NASA news release includes the following paragraph:
> 
> "The authors discredit the notion of "geo-engineering" solutions,
> noting that with present cost estimates the price of artificially
> removing 50 ppm of CO2 from the air would be about $20 trillion. They
> suggest instead that improved agricultural and forestry practices
> offer a more natural way to draw down CO2, noting that reforestation
> of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil
> carbon could draw down atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm.
> Additional significant CO2 reduction could be achieved by using
> carbon-negative biofuels to replace liquid fossil fuels and phasing
> out emissions from natural gas-fired power plants, according to the
> authors. They find that a combination of these approaches could bring
> CO2 back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century."
> 
> Source: Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208/
> 
> 
> 2. An organization called biofuelwatch argues in a submission to the
> Royal Society that:
> 
> "geo-engineering should not be pursued as a policy option", because of
> the "impact which those proposals would have on biodiversity". The
> submission focuses on "Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage
> (BECS) and biochar".
> 
> Source: Submission to Royal Society study on Climate Geo-engineering
> http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/RS_Geoengineering_Biofuelwatch.pdf
> 
> 
> While we can have many comments on each of the above, shouldn't we
> first clarifty what is geo-engineering? What appears to be called
> geo-engineering by one organization, is referred to by NASA as natural
> (as opposed to geo-engineering).
> 
> What is your view? What is geo-engineering?
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
> 
> > 
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to