Hi Eugene and everyone else. Do you mean funding for studying the greenhouse effect and geoengineering projects or funding for geoengineering projects themselves. Or funding for conventional projects like solar nergy and other renewable substitutes to replace oil and coal? I agree with Greg Benford that cowardice is a major reason that geonegineering has been given short shrift despite its importance.
Here's some ideas I've had that might be new or might not be. 1.) Instead of fertilizing parts of the ocean with low iron levels we can build pipelines form iron rich parts of the ocean and transport iron laden waters to surface of iron poor regions. A pipeline will provide a steady source of nutrients and it can be powered by wave enrgy or OTEC which will move water from lower depths to higher deaths. It will cost less also since iron mined on the land can run out and it will become increasing scarce. 2.) Collecting Sargasso sea seaweed and burning it in generator plants or converting it to ethanol, methanol etc and using it as a renewable resource is possible. The minerals in the seaweed can be recycled back into the Sargasso sea. 3.) Providing iron and nutrients to seaweed in the Sargasso sea might remove as much or more CO2 from the atmosphere than fertilizing iron poor parts of the ocean. Redistributing some of the iron laden water in the Sargasso sea to parts of the ocean near the Sargasso sea might cause more seaweed to grow if optimal concentrations of nutrients are provided. That is different than causing upwellings from the bottom of the ocean. vertical pipelines from nutrient laden waters under the kelp can transport water to parts near the seaweed to cause additional growth. Spreading the nutrients to surrounding water might cause more seaweed to grow. On Nov 13, 11:48 am, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eugene, > Money isn't the problem. Cowardice more like. > And Raymond Law is not missing the point. He has followed my chain of > reasoning, concerning the critical situation in the Arctic (and it's critical > in Antarctic also). This reasoning has been accepted by many of us in the > group - yet when the Royal Society produced its geoengineering report, and > when there was the subsequent Congressional hearing on geoengineering, the > need for geoengineering to cool the Arctic was not mentioned. I know for > certain it was deliberately ignored in the former case, and it could have > been deliberate in the latter. I suspect that the academics who want to be > seen as leading lights on geoengineering are scared to look too enthusiastic > about geoengineering, so suggest there may be enormous dangers. As Gregory > Benford said, in immediate response to my original posting: > "YET the dangers aren't studied, and in fact are probably small. Yes: > cowards. No other word for it." > Cowardice will get us nowhere. We need a bold plan to save civilisation, > such as Lester R Brown's "Plan B" [1], nicely explained here [2], or Oliver > Tickell's Kyoto2 [3]. But such a plan does need to include SRM > geoengineering for saving the Arctic sea ice. Can anybody argue with the > logic? > Cheers, > John > [1] Plan B, version > 4.0http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4/pb4_table_of_contents > [2] Scientific American, May > 2009:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages > [3] Kyoto2 leaflet. See attached > -- > Eugene I. Gordon wrote: > > Dear Mr. Law: > > > > > > > > I suggest you are missing the point. The various countries are giving lip > service to reversing the global warming problem by reducing CO2 emissions or > by carbon capture. Copenhagen will produce nothing of substance. Moreover, > nothing significant will happen in the next 25 years. I agree that re-icing > the poles is critical and that can be done best or may only be feasible by > geoengineering in the short term. This group has been giving this serious > consideration for a considerable time. You are preaching to the choir. It is > not the thinking that is lacking but funding. Moreover, even if anthropogenic > CO2 emissions were brought to zero and some reversal of CO2 concentration > were achieved, there is a reasonable argument that the planet will continue > to get warmer for other reasons. (That is an off topic discussion.) > > > > > > > > I would argue based on over 50 years of experience beyond my postdoc that the > experienced people, (or those with training and willing to shift focus) will > follow the money. The most critical need right now is to get a viable source > of long term funding, then attack the polar re-icing and let the politicians > deal with restructuring energy generation to reduce carbon emissions. > > > > > > > > Eugene I. Gordon > > > > (908) 233 4677 > > > > [email protected] > > > > www.germgardlighting.com > > > > > > > > > > > > From:Raymond Law [mailto:[email protected]]sent:Friday, November 13, 2009 > 6:45 > AMTo:[email protected]:[email protected];[email protected]; > Geoengineering; Oliver TickellSubject:Re: [geo] Rejected - a simple argument > for SRM geoengineering > > > > > > > > > > Mr. John Nissen's train of logical thinking should really deserve serious > consideration by those politicians like Al Gore that are relevant with > reversing global warming. It is logical to consider all options, short/quick > term or long/slow term solutions, main stream or alternate ones ---- as > long as they can do the job. > > > > > > > > > > > > Politicians and big businesses generally prefer the main streams probably it > is the path of least resistance in getting enormous fundings. But alternate > ones could also create huge fundings needs too ; and alternate > solutions could be more dispersed/localized, meaning that it is easier to > envisage the creation of technology-transferred localized businesses and > boosting localized jobs/economies --- anyone cares to identify more > opportunities for politicians to work on. Lets face it, you might not like > politicians, but you really need them to turn your ideas into reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your ' urgency ' direction is pointing to the one true and real need at > this juncture is to re-ice the poles. I think that we should pool our brains > together and give this direction serious thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > Raymond Law > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <p... > > read more » > > kyoto2_leaflet_inner.pdf > 295KViewDownload -- 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=.
