I haven't attempted any calculations, but my guess is that to put heat into the ground we would have to spend a non-negligible amount of energy pumping it there. And the amounts of heat involved in changing the temperature of the atmosphere/ocean system are very large relative to the amount of energy we can bring to bear.
It will come as no surprise that I see more promise in using underground heat reservoirs seasonally, to influence weather so that the weather transports heat to space more readily. On May 2, 8:45 am, Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
