I haven't attempted any calculations, but my guess is that to put heat
into the ground we would have to spend a non-negligible amount of
energy pumping it there. And the amounts of heat involved in changing
the temperature of the atmosphere/ocean system are very large relative
to the amount of
This is not dissimilar to a wild idea I had about 30 years ago relating to
how to freeze ice to generate, essentially, encapsulated freshwater
icebergs, that one would tow to regions needing freshwater‹and there are
some others thinking now about how to somehow use the very strong
temperature
It is not a distraction. A good mechanistic understanding of causes of
change is essential.
If you do not understand the mechanisms behind global warming, how can you
sensibly intervene in the climate system?
How can you simultaneously believe that (a) you can add a bunch of
radiatively active
hi all,
The UK Open University with MIT is developing software tools to support
sense-making in compex areas and their initial focus is climate change and
Copenhagen.
I think these 3D and 4D software tools might be very useful for the
geoengineering googlegroup - creating a 3d visual map of our
It would be really good if non-scientists would take model results from the
various climate modeling group and make visualizations.
Anybody who wants to visualize any results from any of our published papers,
I would be happy to provide the netcdf output files.
Usually, working scientists do not
Ken:
There is no argument about long-term global warming. That warming, if it
continues, will justify geoengineering.
There is, however, significant argument as to the causes of global warming.
Indeed, there if far more valid, science-based argument made by well
respected university academics
David
While there is legitimate and sensible argument about how much warming
we might get from anthropogenic CO2, I think the overall physics and
atmospheric science linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the
expectation of increased warming is as solid as about anything in
science. The set of
Your first sentence reveals your bias. While most people who are concerned
and have the requisite background believe that increased greenhouse gas
means increased global warming, everything else being equal, (I do) the
disagreement about the precise relationship and the numeric is what causes
David:
I must rely on you for the history of geoengineering, that being one of you
academic interests and areas of expertise. My reference to the beginning of
geoengineering was to the discussions in the Johnson White House related to
what then was thought likely to be global cooling, and
I was just about to send links to the same.
The reason it's relevant, is that this undercuts the common claim that
concern about warming is recent and that atmospheric scientists in the
60s and 70s were mainly concerned about cooling. When you read the
relevant documents (that is the
10 matches
Mail list logo
