RE: [geo] Re: Dr Evil
For the equivalent of doubling the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, you'd need ~120 Mt of SF6. That is about 1/4 of the U.S. annual commodity chemical production (500 Mt in 2000). -Josh From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:10 AM To: David Lewis Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil But to get an equivalent amount of warming with CFCs or similar would actually be quite practical, I think. It could potentially be weaponised quite easily. It would probably be quite easy to conceal the necessary volumes of SF6 or similar, eg in old salt mines. It would even possibly be within our technology horizon to make a spaceship that could crawl slowly to another planet and crash land that kind of volume of chemicals into their atmosphere. Basically a crude geoengineering version of the death star. A On 28 Sep 2014 17:22, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.commailto:jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Goldblatt said in 2013: our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. boil the oceans away. He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.alhttp://et.al. Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climateshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html paper published at that time. He was quotedhttp://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/runaway-greenhouse-easier-trigger-earth-thought-study-says-f6C10761164 in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely. Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil? The man had a base on the Moon. Is ISIS just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon import program? On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth? -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil
I think your estimates do not include the changes in the global warming potentials as the atmospheric windows will decrease sharply with higher atmospheric concentrations of SF6 and other gases. Oliver On 9/29/2014 10:51 AM, Stolaroff, Joshuah K wrote: For the equivalent of doubling the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, you'd need ~120 Mt of SF6. That is about 1/4 of the U.S. annual commodity chemical production (500 Mt in 2000). -Josh *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:10 AM *To:* David Lewis *Cc:* geoengineering *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil But to get an equivalent amount of warming with CFCs or similar would actually be quite practical, I think. It could potentially be weaponised quite easily. It would probably be quite easy to conceal the necessary volumes of SF6 or similar, eg in old salt mines. It would even possibly be within our technology horizon to make a spaceship that could crawl slowly to another planet and crash land that kind of volume of chemicals into their atmosphere. Basically a crude geoengineering version of the death star. A On 28 Sep 2014 17:22, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com mailto:jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Goldblatt said in 2013: our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. boil the oceans away. He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.al http://et.al. Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html paper published at that time. He was quoted http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/runaway-greenhouse-easier-trigger-earth-thought-study-says-f6C10761164 in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely. Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil? The man had a base on the Moon. Is *ISIS* just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon import program? On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth? -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Oliver Wingenter Assoc. Professor Department of Chemistry Research Scientist Geophysical Research Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM 87801 USA --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d
Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil
Those of you who met me in Berlin know this well by now, but this is exactly the kind of conversation I find fascinating. It's also exactly the kind of conversation which, taken out of context, could result in all sorts of unpleasant accusations flying. I'm not saying that it needs to stop. I actually think this is a very interesting and useful line of thinking. I am, however, saying that you should recognize that there are people out there -- and possibly even on this list -- who would love to use something like this to delegitimize the research. sorry Jamais Cascio On Sep 29, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote: I think your estimates do not include the changes in the global warming potentials as the atmospheric windows will decrease sharply with higher atmospheric concentrations of SF6 and other gases. Oliver On 9/29/2014 10:51 AM, Stolaroff, Joshuah K wrote: For the equivalent of doubling the current atmospheric CO2 concentration, you'd need ~120 Mt of SF6. That is about 1/4 of the U.S. annual commodity chemical production (500 Mt in 2000). -Josh From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:10 AM To: David Lewis Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil But to get an equivalent amount of warming with CFCs or similar would actually be quite practical, I think. It could potentially be weaponised quite easily. It would probably be quite easy to conceal the necessary volumes of SF6 or similar, eg in old salt mines. It would even possibly be within our technology horizon to make a spaceship that could crawl slowly to another planet and crash land that kind of volume of chemicals into their atmosphere. Basically a crude geoengineering version of the death star. A On 28 Sep 2014 17:22, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Goldblatt said in 2013: our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. boil the oceans away. He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.al. Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates paper published at that time. He was quoted in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely. Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil? The man had a base on the Moon. Is ISIS just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon import program? On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth? -- 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Oliver Wingenter Assoc. Professor Department of Chemistry Research Scientist Geophysical Research Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM 87801 USA This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Re: [geo] Re: Dr Evil
But to get an equivalent amount of warming with CFCs or similar would actually be quite practical, I think. It could potentially be weaponised quite easily. It would probably be quite easy to conceal the necessary volumes of SF6 or similar, eg in old salt mines. It would even possibly be within our technology horizon to make a spaceship that could crawl slowly to another planet and crash land that kind of volume of chemicals into their atmosphere. Basically a crude geoengineering version of the death star. A On 28 Sep 2014 17:22, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: Goldblatt said in 2013: our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. boil the oceans away. He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.al. Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html paper published at that time. He was quoted http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/runaway-greenhouse-easier-trigger-earth-thought-study-says-f6C10761164 in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely. Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil? The man had a base on the Moon. Is *ISIS* just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon import program? On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth? -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Re: Dr Evil
OK let's assume that 30,000ppm CO2 would do it. So at 2.12 GT C per ppm CO2, we'd need 60,000 GT of C or 6*44/12 = 220,000 GT CO2. Recoverable fossil fuels might be 5,000 GT C or 18,000 GT CO2, so that's not going to do it. On the other hand, the ocean contains 37,000 GT C or 136,000 GT CO2, so that would get you more than half way there (interesting because evaporating the ocean would cause half its C to degas as CO2 and half to precipitate as carbonates). Guess we'd have to liberate the rest from the 60MT C carbonate mineral pool. Andrew's idea of using non-CO2 GHGs would seem simpler (to the hypothetical Dr. Evil). Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of David Lewis [jrandomwin...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:21 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Dr Evil Goldblatt said in 2013: our estimate is that it would take 30,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere to make it warm enough to trigger this runaway greenhouse, i.e. boil the oceans away. He said this was a finding in the Goldblatt et.al. Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climateshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1892.html paper published at that time. He was quotedhttp://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/runaway-greenhouse-easier-trigger-earth-thought-study-says-f6C10761164 in an NBC interview, saying this really seems quite unlikely. Would 30,000 ppm seem unlikely to Dr. Evil? The man had a base on the Moon. Is ISIS just Dr. Evil diverting our attention from his extraterrestrial carbon import program? On Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: If Dr Evil wanted to destroy the world with geoengineering, how easy would it be? How much super greenhouse gas would have to be released to boil the oceans? How much SRM would be needed to snowball the Earth? -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
