FW: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
Eugene I. Gordon
bounced
From: Eugene I. Gordon
[mailto:eugg...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:09 AM
To: 'David Schnare'
Cc: '<albert...@hotmail.com>'; '<orang...@gmail.com>';
'Geoengineering FIPC'
Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
David is right and we are not cooking this up together. My view is independent. As an outside observer who has been allowed to partake in these discussions, it is clear you all do not have the balls or other equipment to say for consumption what David just said. And the carefully incorrect view you present to the outside world has not bought you much support so far and most likely won’t. You need to go for it.
For historical reasons I mention Galileo and the Catholic church. He was of course right and he argued but they had him in the end. Don’t be had by the establishment.
-gene
From: David Schnare
[mailto:dwsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:03 PM
To: Eugene I. Gordon
Cc: <albert...@hotmail.com>; <orang...@gmail.com>; Geoengineering
FIPC
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
Gene makes the point I have been making for the last three years. The question is not about mitigation. The question is as to when you guys on this List are going to be honest to your core alarmist view--that it is, under your scientific orthodoxy, that it is simply too late to avoid using geoengineering.
The only ways to avoid using geo are either to willing partake of the catastrophe or to revisit the core AGW assumption.
You simply have no other choices.
David Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
On Nov 18, 2009, at 8:49 PM, "Eugene I. Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
David’s excellent comment was ignored. In any case the real issue is have we reached a temperature point beyond where we want to be. It is not going to stop or get cooler by wishing for reduction in CO2 emissions. What CO2 is already in the atmosphere is going to hang around for a long time and the concentration will continue to grow. The solution is not simply stopping insertion of more CO2 in, but active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or blocking sunlight. Convincing governments, companies, and people to go green is too late. Save the airfare to Copenhagen.
Why are all of you having so much trouble to say it? The only solutions that can work are based on geoengineering.
-gene
From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:16 PM
To: dwsc...@gmail.com; orang...@gmail.com
Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
Hi David,
I think you may have overlooked on this. The temperature had followed the CO2 trend definitely since the industrial revolution. The issue this paper is not about denying the accumulative effect of rising p.p.m. which Charles Keeling's work has well established since 1950's.
What the paper points to is that there has not been change in ratio 40% airbone / 60% absorved carbon dioxide. The airborne CO2 fraction in ratio has been increasing only 1.4% +/-0.7% per decade since year 1850. Though, when multiplied by 16 decades, the cumulative increases amount to growth from the base year (1850) much more. The chief importance is not to challenge the accumulation of CO2, but the health of CO2 sinks.
If the CO2 sinks are starting to decline carbon dioxide intake, and the proportion of 60% absorved carbon dioxide starts to fall, this means that then more radical cuts on the emissions will be required if the absorved emissions proportion starts to decrease from current amouts we can dump in the air.
Both the athmospheric CO2 can grow if both airborne and absorved volumes both grow in line or the absorbtion follows increasing in line with what is being put out, but the level of CO2 is now nearly 400 p.p.m. a major rise since 1957. It also bears in mind that the oceans are acidifying and this cause ecosystem damages as well, which is nothing to do with the climate or temperature, but the pH of sea water.
This is a good news for the moment, however, it is also well known that the warmer liquids absorb less gases. The only way sea water could negate this is by increasing algae booms or other biological growth that uses up the additional carbon stocks that dissolve into water. You also need to bear in mind feedback loops, the melting permafrost will release carbon too and we cannot safely extrapolate to infinity on this.
It is more than likely that somewhere there suddenly pops up an abrupt tipping point when the system saturates and may even start reverse.
Kind regards,
Albert
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:32:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
From: dwsc...@gmail.com
To: orang...@gmail.com
CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.comExcept that the temperature has refused to follow the CO2 trend.
We are begining to see more and more extreme statements of alarm that depart from actual observations. Further, the Nature paper is but one view. See the Knorr paper showing the opposite outcome. Ask yourself, which one is based on models and which one is based on observations. Then ask yourself it that's important to you as a scientist.
David Schnare
Public Release: 10-Nov-2009
Geophysical Research Letters
Controversial new climate change data
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
Natural Environment Research Council
Contact: Cherry Lewis cherry...@bristol.ac.uk 44-117-928-8086 University of Bristol
- - - - -
Controversial new climate change results
Press release issued 9 November 2009 New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO 2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO 2 should start to diminish as CO 2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
Please contact Cherry Lewis for further information.
- - - - - - -
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.
Citation: Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36 , L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:
A paper based on this study by Global Carbon Project was published in Nature Geoscience two days ago:
Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
Manu
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:20 PM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"The Copenhagen conference next month is [correction: was - GR] in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way,"
World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists
By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy
Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.