I personally feel that if we don't address BOTH geoengineering and
low-carbon economy satisfactorily at Copenhagen then we're at a
serious risk of entering 'game over' situations.

I think that a lot of work needs to be done to put forward a package
of research that should be backed by the summit to establish a
direction for geo-eng.  It is not going to be easy to build consensus
to support and fund this research, but it's the chance for the funding
we all need.  I personally am working where I can to push the 'green'
organisations to accept it as an essential part of the climate
solution mix.

A

2009/1/25 Stuart Strand <[email protected]>:
>
> The biosphere removes vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere yearly 
> reversing the year to year trend dramatically.  We control 10% of the 
> terrestrial biosphere.  We can use that control to significantly reduce the 
> lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Glad to hear that the national sovereignty problem has been disposed of.
>
>   = 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: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: Stuart Strand; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to