No doubt cooling the Arctic without cooling elsewhere is a useful trick if it can be done. Pray tell how many terawatts do you believe will have to be eliminated to cool the Arctic enough to slow glacial melting. How long will it take. Who will have to agree? Then tell how credible you think the predictions are. What experiments have been done? Who will come up with the trillion US$ or so needed to implement the scheme and how certain are the numbers? You have some mighty 'mights'
Eugene Gordon -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Neil Farbstein Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:56 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] $2 billion per terrawatt sounds pretty good If that $2 billion were spent to slow glacial melting of Greenland it might lower the predicted rise of ocean levels. Keeping the Arctic cooler without affecting the rest of the world might be advisable since we can prevent melting of arctic permafrost that will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect by emitting methane and CO2 by the gigaton. I've had some other ideas about keeping the arctic cool but i wont tell them to the group since I plan to apply for grant funding to support my efforts. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
