Please note that Dan's proposition cited below is fundamentally flawed and I like to draw attention to the reasons why:
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:43:43 -0800 Subject: [geo] Env Res Web: Saving Greenland's ice by geoengineering From: [email protected] To: [email protected] http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245 Dec 15, 2009 Saving Greenland's ice by geoengineering ... Current estimates suggest that it would be impossible to prevent the Greenland ice sheet from melting completely if atmospheric carbon dioxide is allowed to climb to four times pre-industrial levels (1120 ppmv) and remain around or above this concentration. With "business as usual" emissions we are predicted to reach this particular tipping point by 2150, jamming the Greenland ice sheet into melt mode and leading to complete melting within a few thousand years at most. Using a global-climate model coupled with an ice-sheet model, Irvine and colleagues assessed the impact of varying levels of solar-radiation management on a world with carbon dioxide levels four times those of pre-industrial times. 1) First of all, where we stand now? October 2009 the concentration of CO2 was 384.38 p.p.m. Table data source: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL 2) Second, allowing CO2 to raise 1,120 p.p.m.v. or four times our current use of athmosphere as a carbon sink? If CO2 emissions are allowed to raise to 1,120 p.p.m., we are already suffocating ourselves with the carbon dioxide poisoning, just please refer to the Workplace Health and Safety Authority table about safe CO2 in the workplace air. The windows are always opened for the breaks to allow the fresh air in to prevent the classroom air becoming putrified at 1,000 p.p.m. The workplace authorities define this phenomenon as follows: "1000 ppm 0.1% Prolonged exposure can affect powers of concentration." Can we imagine a world where we need air conditioning to pour out excess CO2 from our living space to outdoor carbon sink. This defies any intelligence and has not been adequately recognised by the meteorologists who have become too segregated in their study from a real world. Or may be, we need to re-write the whole story of evolution, perhaps the early stages were so slow, as the air was so putrified by CO2 that the whole globe, like the Neanderthals were just like an army of "walking zombies due to carbon dioxide poisoning" at 1,000 p.p.m. and above. I think these meteorologists should be locked up in their own study to sniff their own CO2 long enough that they loose their powers of concentrations to do these crazy propositions. I think they should sue the workplace health and education authorities' instructions for classroom ventilations that are there to prevent the kids getting their heads filled 1000 ppm CO2 poisoning "to lose powers of concentration". http://www.analox.net/site/content_HOSP_co2_dangers.php The Dangers of Carbon Dioxide Dangers of Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising levels of Carbon Dioxide affect the human body, but what level is dangerous and how do you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide poisoning? The box below shows how rising levels of Carbon Dioxide affect the human body and what side effects you may experience with Carbon Dioxide poisoning. The Dangers of Carbon Dioxide 1000ppm 0.1% Prolonged exposure can affect powers of concentration 5000 ppm 0.5% The normal international Safety Limit (HSE, OSHA) 10,000ppm 1% Your rate of breathing increases very slightly but you probably will not notice it. 15,000ppm 1.5% The normal Short Term Exposure Limit (HSE, OSHA) 20,000ppm 2% You start to breathe at about 50% above your normal rate. If you are exposed to this level over several hours you may feel tired and get a headache. 30,000ppm 3% You will be breathing at twice your normal rate. You may feel a bit dizzy at times, your heart rate and blood pressure increase and headaches are more frequent. Even your hearing can be impaired. 40,000-50,000ppm 4-5% Now the effects of CO2 really start to take over. Breathing is much faster - about four times the normal rate and after only 30 minutes exposure to this level you will show signs of poisoning and feel a choking sensation. 50,000-100,000ppm 5-10% You will start to smell carbon dioxide, a pungent but stimulating smell like fresh, carbonated water. You will become tired quickly with laboured breathing, headaches, tinnitus as well as impaired vision. You are likely to become confused in a few minutes, followed by unconsciousness. 100,000ppm-1,000,000ppm 10-100% Unconsciousness occurs more quickly, the higher the concentration. The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide, the quicker suffocation occurs. 3) Physiological constraints to humans, indoor and sporting activities, and other biological organisms It also sounds plausible that of 2,500,000 biological organisms many might be far more sensitive to CO2 than "our powers of concentration" at 1,000 p.p.m. There are many fish for whom tap water is toxic due to its chlorine content and they die immediately. On marine organisms, the exoskeleton building organisms like corals ocean acidification by carbonic acid is problematic already now. Let alone 1,000 p.p.m. birds or reptiles might find it impossible to breath anymore. How about the poor or even schools who would not have air purification system to pour CO2 outside from room air and would start to accummulate CO2 from 1,000 p.p.m. to 2,000 p.p.m. or more indoors instead. All the sporting events, churches, rock concerts etc densely-packed gatherings would rise much higher CO2 were it to start from above the safe 1,000 p.p.m. Therefore, we can conclude this topic whoever presented it (and where-ever) as a no-goer and ready for the next Iq Nobels' nominations for its stupidity. I think my nomination of this will sink very well in the judges. This sounds an excellent candidate for that dubious Iq honour. Sometimes not so impressed of ideas what the climate researchers and meteorologists can come up with. (Not to mean that Dan should be reprimanded particularly over this non-intelligent time-wasteage.) Regards, Albert > > To bring the average global temperature down to pre-industrial levels > in this scenario they found the amount of sunlight reaching the top of > the atmosphere had to be reduced by 4.2%. "To achieve this reduction > in sunlight you would need to inject millions of tonnes of sulphur > into the stratosphere per year," Irvine told environmentalresearchweb. > > However, the modified climate would have some important differences to > the pre-industrial one. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere > would have an insulating effect at the poles, making them a little > warmer than in pre-industrial times. Meanwhile, the tropics would > become a little cooler because of the reduction in direct sunlight. > > Because of regional effects for Greenland, including increased > precipitation as a result of the geoengineering, the researchers > estimate that a 2.5% reduction in sunlight – 60% of the amount > required to obtain pre-industrial temperatures – would be sufficient > to prevent the Greenland ice sheet from melting in a four times pre- > industrial carbon dioxide world. This would equate to 60% of the > sulphur required in the stratosphere for full geoengineering. > Alternatively the same effect could be achieved by placing a bank of > satellites between the Earth and the Sun, to act like a giant > sunshade. But the model doesn't include the Antarctic ice sheet, > glaciers or thermal expansion of the ocean, so it is still unclear > what impact solar-radiation management would have on these potential > causes of sea-level rise. > > Nonetheless, the new study, which is published in Environmental > Research Letters, indicates that the degree of solar geoengineering > required to mitigate the worst effects of global warming, such as sea- > level rise, need not be as extensive as previously assumed. > > But solar geoengineering can't prevent all of the unwelcome impacts > that come with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Ocean acidity > would continue to rise, destroying corals and making life exceedingly > difficult for shelled organisms. And some parts of the world might get > a raw deal out of a geoengineered climate. "A solar-radiation > management-geoengineered world would be drier on average and the > climate would differ from its natural (pre-industrial) state," said > Irvine. In addition, we could come to rely on solar geoengineering, > leaving us vulnerable to attacks on the solar shield; something akin > to the threat of nuclear war. > > Irvine and his colleagues stress that reducing carbon dioxide > emissions now is likely to be an easier and cheaper option. "If we > spend less on carbon dioxide cuts now, then we may rely more heavily > on solar-radiation management in future," said Irvine. "If we spend > more on cuts now then we will not have to rely so heavily or at all on > solar-radiation management." > > Will the world's governments decide to rely on the solar > geoengineering "sticking plaster" or are they going to "swallow the > medicine now", drastically cutting emissions and curing the problem? > Either way, the decision will have to be made within the next decade > or so. > About the author > > Kate Ravilious is a contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb. > > -- > > 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. > > _________________________________________________________________ Add your Gmail and Yahoo! Mail email accounts into Hotmail - it's easy http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/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.
