My 'gut feeling' is that the parctical mass flow rates and temperature differences so limit the potential thermal transfer that these methods (eg pumping water down mines) would make a negligible difference. Perhaps a simpler way of doing this would be to spray warm seawater into cold air. This would encourage cooling by radiation and conduction/convection, eventually leading to heat being lost into space. Further, some cloud-seeding may occur as a side effect.
In any event, I think these approaches are wholly impractical. A 2009/5/3 dsw_s <[email protected]> > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
