Apologies to those who are not Dot Earth readers (and I *do* encourage everyone to have a look)...
But just to make it clear to all, I do 98 percent of the comment moderation on the blog (no easy task) and there is NO screening or censorship (to the consternation of some, who feel the blog has been taken over by "climate skeptics"). If a comment is on topic and constructive and polite, it gets published. There *have* been significant technical glitches with a transition to a new comment mechanism, so many comments have been lost (by folks of all stripes). I always recommend keeping a copy of text instead of writing the comment in the submission box. Then it can be emailed to me as a backstop. At 8:54 AM -0400 9/4/09, Eugene I. Gordon wrote: >Alvia: > >I too have been cut out of the Dot Earth comments and I have been >contributing for a few years. Andy asked me to e-mail him directly and I >expect I will have to start doing that if he is careful to suppress my full >name, but whoever is screening appears to be anti Geoengineering. > >You missed one key point. All the climate variations are superimposed on top >of an upward trend heading to 25 C even without CO2 increase. As you know >this has happened at least 5 times during the 540 million year history of >the Earth and is probably related to plate or land mass motion and how it >influences ocean currents. > >No matter what they think about the dangers or risks (pretty stupid to think >it would be implemented without risk assessment) geo will prove to be >essential to block the increase. It is not going to be either or. > >-gene > >-----Original Message----- >From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >[mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alvia Gaskill >Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 7:06 AM >To: anr...@nytimes.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com >Subject: [geo] Re: we're engineering the arctic now > > >I registered for Dot Earth, but for some reason, the message on this >particular one won't allow me to log in. So I ask for you to post it if you > >wish. > >Without human interference, the interglacial would still take at least >several thousand years to end and the ice sheets to return to cover the >northern hemisphere. With it, the interglacial continues. Most likely, the > >CO2 we have added to the atmosphere will have been removed by some form of >air capture in 100-200 years (sorry to disappoint David Archer et al.). >Thus, we will have had no impact on preventing the return of the Laurentide >Ice Sheet and related ones in Europe and Asia. UNLESS we take the lessons >learned from our inadvertent intervention into the climate system and use it > >to our benefit. > >One of the definitions of geoengineering that is often used is that of >"deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale to suit >human needs and promote habitability." The needs of the present are to stop > >the effects of global warming before the planet becomes uninhabitable for >humans. Geoengineering in this instance is the use of technologies that >stop global warming without reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse >gases. > >But once we can can control the CO2 level in the atmosphere, do we really >want it to return to the pre-industrial level? Probably so. That was the >level that allowed a stable climate and for human civilization to develop. >At some point, probably thousands of years from now, we will want to >counteract the natural cycle and prevent the interglacial from ending. By >then, we will have developed far more advanced technologies of all types >than today and adjusting the climate will be relatively simple. Assuming we > >survive our current experience with global warming, we will be able to build > >on it and develop the technologies to modify climate to our needs, back to >the first definition. > >Not surprisingly, there are those on the environmental left who would >welcome the return of the ice sheets. One poster at the geoengineering >group even said he thought we should allow the ice sheets to cover Canada >and the northern U.S. again because the glaciers would scrape up more >minerals that could be used. Like we are expecting a shortage of iron and >nickel in 8000 AD? > >He then went on to imagine that the survivors (NY Times won't be able to >publish under 2 miles of ice, sorry Andy, must change name of blog to Dot >Ice) could all go and live in the tropics, where, of course, food will still > >be limited due to changes in precipitation and in the subtropics, winds will > >howl most of the time. The ice age was no picnic, even in the southern U.S. > >How people come to view humans, their own species as the enemy beats me. >We've made some mistakes and they have cost us and other species. But at >least we are on the path to the 12 step recovery program by recognizing we >have a problem. Is the answer to alcoholism to shoot all the drunks? > >An even more extreme view shared by many, but voiced by few (for >understandable reasons) is that humans are an invasive species that should >be eliminated from the planet! Moi kudzu? Do I look like a zebra mussel to > >you? > >For this select crowd, I have come up with a suitable name. Cutterites. >After the character in the BBC TV series Primeval, Helen Cutter, who became >such a misanthrope she went back in time and tried to eliminate all the >early humans. I'm sure Helen would not be in favor of continuing the >interglacial either. And what happened to her experiment in preventative >extinction? She was crushed by a dinosaur that followed her through one of >her time portals. Gotta watch out for that technology. It'll get you when >you least expect it. > >Alvia Gaskill >Pro-Human Lobbyist > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Andrew Revkin" <anr...@nytimes.com> >To: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:40 PM >Subject: [geo] we're engineering the arctic now > > >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html >> >http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/humans-may-have-ended-long-arct >ic-chill/ >> >> we may be able to 'skip' the next ice age in fact. >> would love your thoughts in the comments section. >> >> -- >> Andrew C. Revkin >> The New York Times / Environment >> 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 >> Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 >> Fax: 509-357-0965 >> http://www.nytimes.com/revkin >> >> > > > > -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
