We can no more 'deal with the effects of runaway global warming' than I could deal with the effects of being hit by a train. It's game over. We could cope with a warmer world, but certainly not with runaway climate change, global forest fires, an ocean anoxic event, toxic levels of H2S in the atmosphere, etc. Neither could the other 95% (or whatever) of species that died out in the 'Great Dying'. The 'best case' is that its only as bad as the Paleocene-eocene thermal maximum.
2009/1/25 dsw_s <[email protected]>: > > I think saving the arctic sea ice is a lost cause. Saving the > permafrost probably is too. We need to deal with the effects of > runaway global warming, not pin our hopes on stopping it. If that's > where we draw our Maginot Line, then we're still in the situation > where the least that might be necessary is far in excess of the most > that might be politically possible. Dealing with the effects -- > having a warmer world with more small hurricanes over ocean instead of > bigger stronger ones making landfall, having enough snowfall on the > ice sheets to more than offset the increased loss of ice, having > global patterns of precipitation that are compatible with agriculture, > limiting ocean acidification -- that's geoengineering too. > > On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
