'greenhouse effect' OK for "superimposed temperature fluctuations" and "changes in ocean currents" but nobody speak about origin of those new, unexpected and hard temperature fluctuations (short but very cold or very hot unexpected periods, hurricanes stronger than usual, etc.) In my opinion, this origin is the rapid melting of ice. That means that, for the moment, the greenhouse effect is reduced by a quicker velocity of ice melting which cool the oceans. That means also that, when all Arctic and Antarctic ice shall disappear, we probably shall have a temperature increase much higher.
It could be interesting to know your comments about that opinion. Cheers! François MAUGIS http://assee.free.fr ============================================================================ ======================== -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Eugene I. Gordon Envoyé : lundi 26 janvier 2009 11:41 À : [email protected]; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'; 'greenhouse effect' Objet : [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? The global temperature is slowly increasing with superimposed temperature fluctuations. I am not exactly sure why the planet goes through these periods but I suspect it is partly related to changes in ocean currents and motions of land or sea bottoms. However, there is every reason to believe the global temperature will reproduce the extremes of the past. It is headed to 24 C according to geological data. Sure there is ample time before the temperature peaks out. If needed we will have thermonuclear reactors to produce unlimited energy, and we can live in domed or underground cities and carry personal A/C. Man will survive even if all the ice melts and many forms of life disappear. It will be a very different world with far fewer people. Alternately, we can maintain it as it is by controlling the temperature changes. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Carana Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:33 PM To: geoengineering; geo-engineering; greenhouse effect Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? One way to define a runaway greenhouse effect is in terms of geoengineering, i.e. a runaway greenhouse effect would require geoengineering to mitigate. Another definition of a runaway greenhouse effect is that the primary cause is no longer human activity, but that it feeds on itself. Higher temperatures turn soils and oceans into net emitters, rather than sinks. Yet another way to define a runaway greenhouse effect is in terms of risk, which is an important consideration, as the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect will for many be the very reason to go ahead with geoengineering. A runaway greenhouse effect would come with a rise in greenhouse gases that takes place with such speed that many species will go extinct, unable to adjust to such rapid changes. The decrease in biodiversity would be unacceptable and thus justify geoengineering. Moreover, human beings as a species will face the risk of total extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that humans depend on will disappear. Cheers! Sam Carana On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, dsw_s <[email protected]> wrote: > > We're apparently using the phrase "runaway global warming" > differently. As I understand it, there are a set of oscillations and > negative feedback loops keeping the state of the climate within a > certain subset of its possible states; if various exogenous variables > (insolation, CO2, position of continents, etc.) go beyond a certain > range, a positive feedback loop takes over until the state of the > climate reaches another such set of oscillations and negative feedback > loops. The positions of the continents are still essentially as they > have been for the past few million years: in particular there's a > Tibetan Plateau and there's an Isthmus of Panama. So the new regime > after this episode of positive feedback is likely to be drawn from the > repertoire of ice ages and interglacial periods that we've seen in > geologically recent time. > > If "runaway global warming" means going all the way back to a climate > pattern like those that prevailed through most of geologic time, even > though we still have the oddity of an Atlantic/Pacific separation that > extends from the antarctic to the arctic, then I think we probably > have time to prevent it, if it's even in the cards at all. And there > are probably a completely new set of possibilities that come with > interventions like putting a few terawatts of wind turbines in the > westerly winds above the trade winds. > > On Jan 25, 10:46 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: >> How many of you are familiar with thewww.scotese.comwebsite? If not >> take a few minutes; it is a mind-boggling experience. Christopher >> Scotese is a well known and highly respected geologist. He has one >> page for global average temperature going back 540 million years. The >> data is derived from proxy studies. It is a science that is evolving >> and the data values have migrated a bit over the years. For example, >> he now shows 24 C as the maximum global average whereas some years >> back it was 22 C. The minima has changed from 12 C to 10 C except >> for the current period wherein it bottomed out at 12 C and an earlier >> period when it turned upward in midstream. Some special short lived >> (million year) peaks (delta +2 degrees C above the maximum) occurred >> as a result of major asteroid hits and those destroyed most life on Earth. >> >> [Man almost certainly evolved because of the latest increase to about >> 15 C from an ice age minimum of 12 C.] >> >> The global average has never started up and turned around before >> reaching the maximum. Clearly there is a positive feedback mechanism >> in global temperature change and once on the way up there has been no >> reversal. The changes are most likely related to motion of >> continents, so the changes survive over many millions of years. >> >> If we do nothing the Earth is certainly headed for 22-24 C >> independent of AGW. AGW only changes the upward slope. >> >> In my view only geoengineering can intervene and I have no doubt that >> eventually it will be implemented. There will be no catastrophic >> runaway to >> 24 C. My interest is in earlier rather than later implementation. It >> is in the best interests of my great grandchildren. I am too old for >> it to make any difference for me. >> >> -gene >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of dsw_s >> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:27 AM >> To: geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
