Too little thoughts have been put onto what is under our feet. Think about these facts:
In Finland the temperature of rocks have been measured upto 800 metres into bedrock. The bedrock down to 800 metres has warmed up +2C over 100 years. 800 m is a massive amount of heat taken up by the rocks, Finland and cold artic bedrocks has become a big sauna stove to mop up heat the rest of world is dumping at. In Siberia the soils are effectively mopping up heat from rain and melt water, in course reducing the heat that escapes into air, but at the expense of warming soils and rock. As the snow falls on ever warmer grounds (and also more microbially active as well) the spells of warmth in the spring means that there is no "cold panel" protection from frozen (or previously more cold ground). The snow disappear faster on warmer soils. Rapidly disintegarating ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula decrease salinity, cool sea water and increase sea ice formation as colder and less saline water freezes easily, then forming the sunlight reflecting layer of sea ice. The mining community should be invited to give suggestions if old mines in cold regions could be used as a way to pump warm water in and letting cold water to come out of the other end of tube. Does our group have any mining or extractive industry contacts who could look at if we could pump more heat onto grounds where they are cold to take away heat from rivers. Say for example near Norilsk region, where there are large used mines. To the comments below: Nadir Heat Sink v. Zenith Sink - Nadir heat sinks limited reservoir of cold that can run out. I agree "reservoir" sounds better as we can better picture it as something limited, to be taken care of, sparingly untilised. Sink sounds like a drain or a black hole with infinite capacity, a regenerating or infinite resource. Whereas the nadir sinks under our feet will all be cosumed up as the deep rocks get hotter and hotter, they are one-off heat sinks. The rate of inward thermal conductivity depends on the following factors: 1) porosity of soil and rocks that allows melt water to penetrate it with heat 2) fractures and fissures and other cavities (partly as above) 3) ground elevation differential between rainfall catchment and ultimate disposal determines the intensity of heat removal (voulume of water captured by mountains and then sinking towards the sea, the more elevational difference, the faster ground water cycles) Artificial routing of meltwater or rainwater through porous cold rocks could be used as heat pump to remove heat from rain water or melt water and then resurface for cooling, irrigation 4) inward thermal conductivity of rocks and soils (rate of heat removal) 5) amount of ice available from collapsing ice shelves (could be induced to change salinity or to reduce temperature or sea water to decrease salinity to help ice growht) 6) amount of meltwater penetration and heat removal into ice sheet basins 7) termal inertia of the rocks, soils, ice and water (how much energy it takes to heat substances up to higher temperature) > Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:22:23 -0700 > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > > There are also another much less studied sink under our feet: the cold > > soils and > > bedrocks, warming ice on glaciers and ice sheets, melting of marine and > > terrestrial > > ice. The ever increasing break-up of ever larger and ever more frequent ice > > shelves > > into sea water also mops up huge amounts of heat. > > I would call those reservoirs, rather than sinks. It lets the point > be summed up with a contrast of just two words. > > On May 1, 5:01 am, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Eugen (?), > > > > "While a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase > > average surface temperature through what is improperly called the > > greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be increasing in > > any case independent of anthropogenic emissions." > > > > I totally repudiate this statement that it is "improper" to call CO2 as > > greenhouse effectant. If carbon dioxide did not produce heat trapping our > > planet would be just a cold snowball. > > > > If there are a natural climatic forcing from chemicals called greenhouse > > gases that trap the heat, surely there will be also for the anthropogenic > > sources that have been added into air. > > > > This seems argument similar to Holocaust deniers. If greenhouse gases are > > added, more climatic warming forcing is added, if greenhouse gases are > > deducted climatic forcing reduces. What one might debate, is how much is > > the underlying forcing in relation to variability. Even this question > > setting is highly dubious due to risen GHG concentrations and the added > > heat flows into the polar regions being absorved by melting ice and cold > > grounds. > > > > All too often the meteorologists look to the sky and space beyond as the > > sink of the heat. There are also another much less studied sink under our > > feet: the cold soils and bedrocks, warming ice on glaciers and ice sheets, > > melting of marine and terrestrial ice. The ever increasing break-up of ever > > larger and ever more frequent ice shelves into sea water also mops up huge > > amounts of heat. > > > > Let us only await when the Antarctic Penisular ice shelve breakups extend > > to Ronne and Ross and once these have their spectacular break-ups, we see a > > sudden the "latest Dryas" in parts of the world where these ice masses > > dissolve and melt into sea water. > > > > I am also surprised of the surface temperature increasing over long-term > > context, could you please explain this as most people think the opposite > > that it is decreasing as without addition of greenhouse gas effectants the > > Milankovits' orbital forcing tends towards cooling. > > > > I am here assuming the prevailing assumption that the orbital changes > > originated the ice age(s) rather then my own thesis of geothermal > > fluctuations from the Mid-Atlantic ridge inducing large scale warming of > > the North Atlantic Ocean leading to percipitations that rapidly built up > > the Laurentide Ice sheet on the north of the North American continent as > > the complainant nations behind UNGA 101292 say to the United Nations > > General Assembly. If you take Milutin Milankovits away, then you are free > > to say anything you like. But I just can't take geothermal heat > > fluctuations and large scale volcanic seabed eruptions around Icelandic > > seas to take away any argument for us from constraining from CO2 emissions. > > > > So where you get your idea that we are heading towards warming, do you mean > > sun is turning now into supergiant phase, that heat output increas will > > occur over billions of years, not even during millions of years this is yet > > to be seen and well below solar radiation variability. In fact, the sun is > > now cooling down rather than hotting up and lacks sunspots. > > > > With kind regards, > > > > Veli Albert Kallio > > > > The climatic > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > CC: [email protected] > > > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > > > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:16:52 -0400 > > > > > I keep saying it but you all seem to either disagree, but say nothing, or > > > do > > > not understand. While a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere > > > should > > > increase average surface temperature through what is improperly called the > > > greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be increasing in > > > any case independent of anthropogenic emissions. It is what the Earth has > > > done many times in the past and is doing again quite independent of AGW. > > > So > > > even if we stopped all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, > > > the > > > Earth would continue to warm; albeit more slowly and not monotonically; > > > but > > > warm it will. Ultimately geoengineering will be needed independent of > > > whether we cease the AGW component or not. Don't view geoengineering as a > > > stopgap until we can get out act together. It will prove to be essential. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:15 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: geoengineering > > > Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > > > > > Are you crazy? This is not the question. No-one on the geoeng "side" > > > is suggesting we give up on mitigation. We MUST MUST MUST do this. > > > Geoeng will (in my view) probably needed as well. > > > > > Please see my paper on Combined Mitigation and Geoeng in Science a couple > > > of > > > years ago. > > > > > Tom. > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a televised > > > > debate on geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house > > > > believes we should give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate > > > > instead on finding a technofix". > > > > > > Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be > > > > interested in sponsoring such a debate? > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > > > Gus > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – > > Free.http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/ > > _________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
