To some extent the whole argument about whether global warming is anthropogenic is a distraction. Regardless of cause, understanding global warming enough to counter it is more important. We may need to rank possible solutions according to how fast and cheaply we can implement them. We may need a two or three tier approach, implementing the first tier to buy us enough time to do the next tier.
The vast changes in forest, ocean plants, combined with projected increases in new coal fired power plants present a daunting challenge. We will need to continuously work the problem and analysis at all levels. So far, I have not seen any combination of actions that bring warming under control. Shading the poles and deserts, making artificial snow at the poles, reducing carbon emissions in spite of political and economic pressures, Placing non-polluting power stations in orbit are all good ideas. Meanwhile, Australis seems to be burning to the ground. -----Original Message----- >From: dsw_s <[email protected]> >Sent: May 1, 2009 9:22 PM >To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate > > >> 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/ >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
