I wonder if any of you might comment on the effects of dumping as much as 240 million tons of water a year into the high atmosphere might have? Big eruptions seem to put up that much and more, but not pure water.
Reason I ask is that hauling enough power satellites up to displace fossil fuels at two TW/year would dump that much water plus create an uncertain amount of oxides of nitrogen from both going into orbit and coming back. (Anyone have the figures for a space shuttle reentry?) Don't want to go down this path to ending fossil fuel use if the consequences are really bad. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsWDlYQmJfNjVMaHJZRE5PS2xSclA3TFNmcGF3/edit?usp=sharing Keith On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:10 AM, David Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > Radiation caused skin cancer isn't the only or even the main concern. Skin > cancer was the selling point used by environmentalists to get the attention > of the public to drive political action to conserve ozone. > > From "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010": "An important > remaining scientific challenge is to project future ozone abundances based > on an understanding of the complex linkages between ozone and climate > change" > > Eg. Joellen Russel had/has a theory that Antarctic ozone loss coupled with > heating in the tropics has increased in the temperature gradient between the > two regions, increasing the power and position of the Southern Westerlies > thus driving a stronger Antarctic Circumpolar Current which affects/will > affect gas and heat exchange at the ocean surface with global effect. > > And then there is the history, where modelling that indicated not much > should be happening caused NASA to not see the ozone hole, for years, as it > developed because the unheard of until then low readings were discarded from > analysis because an assumption was built in dismissing any reading that low > as instrument error, dictates caution in this area. NASA looking down from > satellite couldn't "see" the ozone loss until Farman on the ground looking > up reported it. Further delay resulted because Farman took years to get up > the gumption to report because he knew NASA was looking down above him and > was not reporting. > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:25:22 PM UTC-8, kcaldeira wrote: >> >> ("The increase in UV-B radiation at the surface due to ozone depletion is >> offset by the screening due to the aerosols in the tropics and >> mid-latitudes, while in polar regions the UV-B radiation is increased by 5% >> on average, with 12% peak increases during springtime." >> >> To put some of these UV-B results in context , it is useful to look at a >> map of UV exposure: >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
