Dear Andrew,
My suggestion is that we pick up one delivery and crash it into the rocks as see the after effects. There are plenty of oil tanker crashes that produce immense oil slicks, so there is a ready area of study. But who really wants an oil slick on the sea? I suppose every oil slick is harmful to birds and acquatic life and the big slicks should show up the benefits, but there is none, quite the reverse. I also think ocean protection treaties ban boats dumping their old motor etc oil into the seas. Chances of any positive effect materialising from the oil trails of the ships or any spillage of oil do not exist that could nearly outweigh the damage done by the oil in water. If there were major effects, these would have been noticed in context of the big oil tanker crashes. In the Mexican gulf there were damaged oil well that leaked 500,000 barrels per day for two years. It did produce huge slick just like Saddam when he literally filled up the Persian Gulf basin by opening oil taps to create a huge oil slick in the Persian Gulf. But Saddam Hussein did geoengineer Kuwaiti weather as the dark smoke from the oil wells cooled surface to near freezing temperatures and someone recalled snow falling from the sky when he tried to camourflage ground troops under smoke from buring Kuwaiti Oil Wells. This just recalls me how difficult is climate change and fossil fuel emissions. People were horrified in 1992 during the First Gulf War the amount of pollution we were producing when they saw the amount of fuel Kuwaiti Oil Fields were constantly billowing out to tankers. Normally that would end up as an inconvenient truth of carbon dioxide, but on that time, as the oil wells burnt uncontrollably, burining of oil produced much more black carbon as usual. You should also recall the fire in Hemel Hampstead in north of London few years ago which quickly created an entire South England covering cloud of black smoke, and that oil was just 5% what we consume normally during one year in the UK. I am, therefore, very sceptical that stunts of Greenpeace or others will work as even these big warning signs have been ignored all but completely in the long run. This is also a fearful argument against geoengineering, people just don't care if it is the umpteenth generation who will reap consequences of our contemporary oil profligacy. I just hope the First Nations' presentation with President Clinton goes ahead and we get funds to investigate their concerns and fears based on old native recollections that warmed and wet Hudson Bay ice dome slid into sea suddenly, therefore, Greenland doing the same. May be this is the wake-up call to get people to all action to address climatic dangers now. Kind regards, Albert Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:39:26 +0100 Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] When a boat goes through the water, it often leaves a very fine oil slick behind. Has anyone ever tried to calculate whether these slicks have a positive or negative effect on global warming, but altering evaporation, DMS exchange, waves, SST, CO2 exchange, etc? This should be quite an easy effect to modify if the changes prove to be significant. It may even have geoengineering potential, as in my idea with hurricanes. A 2009/7/26 Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> >From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds with higher SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., less wind and less waves. The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of waves. If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get more water vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN. Better put some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your mission may have just been expanded. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Climate Intervention" <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback > > The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as > characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming > for 2xCO2 (DT2x). > > The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to > this -- although it is of interest in model validation. > > This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty. > My comment -- so what. > > Tom. > > +++++++++++++++++ > > Stephen Salter wrote: >> Hi All >> >> Science July 24 from >> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a >> something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud >> cover. I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation and so >> cloud cover but drying them out seems to win. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Stephen >> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
