> I also think ocean protection treaties ban boats dumping their old motor etc > oil into the seas.
The dumping ban came up in connection with OIF experiments, iirc On Jul 31, 4:59 am, Veli Albert Kallio <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
