Stuart: I am not sure why you say it is overwrought. After all, we agree precisely on preventing ice melt and the importance of taking large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. I added reducing sunlight, also a possibility which you commented on but I missed your point. So again, why is it overwrought.
What you may have missed is the discussion of CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere. I have circulated material that shows pretty clearly that it is over 1000 years. No one took exception. If it is reducing CO2 emissions buys us nothing in the short term other than a reduction in use of fossil fuels, which is a valuable thing to do independent of CO2 emissions. The issue of other governments and what they desire has been addressed in these exchanges way back. I suspect that you are right that the Russians might prefer continued ice melt. I did not realize that the atmosphere had been nationalized. If it has not been nationalized then screw the Russians. -gene -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Strand [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:25 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering' Subject: RE: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? Seems a bit overwrought to me. Of course preventing arctic ice melt and its consequences is the number one geoengineering priority, but removing carbon from the atmosphere is a perfectly valid geoengineering topic. But please discuss the science and politics of albedo modification etc to your heart's desire. Here is a question that I haven't seen addressed: Do the governments of the arctic nations even want to prevent arctic ice melting? Russia? = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:32 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering' Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? Is there anyone in this group who does not agree that the primary urgency, virtually to the exclusion of all other geoengineering considerations, is reversing the Artic ice melt. And if you agree than do you agree that the issue is removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere quickly or reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic region. Can you add to that list? Priority 2 is how do we organize geoengineering into a valid professional activity that can promote geoengineering into a position wherein these overriding needs can be implemented? Once that is done it becomes a professional activity that offers a recognized and critical venue for the activity; and a vehicle for obtaining funding for a whole variety of activities. Why do we continue to discuss longterm methods for reducing the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere? You are fiddling while Rome burns. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:20 AM To: [email protected] Cc: John Nissen; greenhouse effect; geoengineering; geo-engineering Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? Sam Carana The power rating of a spray vessel is only 100 kW. They have to operate in mid ocean and migrate with the seasons so they have to generate their own energy as they move through the water rather than rely on supplies from wind turbines. Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 [email protected] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Sam Carana wrote: > Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such that > we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this. > > For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where > suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white > and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar > burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and > safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc. > > The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to > make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater > into the sky to change albedo above the sea. > > So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand. > One hand washes the other! > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
