What is geo-engineering?
Sam Carana
I was confronted with this question when reading two webpages:
1. a recent NASA recent news release; and
2. a submission to the Royal Society.
1. The NASA news release includes the following paragraph:
"The authors discredit the notion of "geo-engineering" solutions,
noting that with present cost estimates the price of artificially
removing 50 ppm of CO2 from the air would be about $20 trillion. They
suggest instead that improved agricultural and forestry practices
offer a more natural way to draw down CO2, noting that reforestation
of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil
carbon could draw down atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm.
Additional significant CO2 reduction could be achieved by using
carbon-negative biofuels to replace liquid fossil fuels and phasing
out emissions from natural gas-fired power plants, according to the
authors. They find that a combination of these approaches could bring
CO2 back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century."
Source: Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208/
2. An organization called biofuelwatch argues in a submission to the
Royal Society that:
"geo-engineering should not be pursued as a policy option", because of
the "impact which those proposals would have on biodiversity". The
submission focuses on "Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage
(BECS) and biochar".
Source: Submission to Royal Society study on Climate Geo-engineering
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/RS_Geoengineering_Biofuelwatch.pdf
While we can have many comments on each of the above, shouldn't we
first clarifty what is geo-engineering? What appears to be called
geo-engineering by one organization, is referred to by NASA as natural
(as opposed to geo-engineering).
What is your view? What is geo-engineering?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Good to point at the Stern article and comment in New Scientist, at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16433-launch-green-economic-revolution-now-says-stern.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.600-comment-time-for-a-green-industrial-revolution.html
In that same edition of New Scientist, there's an interview with James
Lovelock entitled: 'One last chance to save mankind'.
In it, Lovelock says:
"There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the
massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their
agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent
the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying
it in the soil. [We could get] farmers to burn their crop waste at
very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then
ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it
gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a
by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This
scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is
the one thing we can do that will make a difference..."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true
It's good to see that both Lovelock and James Hansen advocate the same
solution. Hansen seeks to bring CO2 levels down to 350ppm.
In my article "Four Cycles of a Sustainable Economy", I recommend a
combination of techniques, two of which could be regarded as forms of
geoengineering that are safe enough to start with immediately.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977561808
The techniques I recommend include:
- pyrolysis and biochar burial
- air capture
- switching to clean and safe energy
It's crucially important to implement the right policies to get things started.
There has not been enough debate on what are the most effective policy
instruments.
In my view, this means feebates.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:28 AM, David Schnare <dwsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prof. Stern makes the point I was making a year ago now - that we have now
> gone past the 2 degC tipping point (450 ppm CO2eq). He now claims we have
> to try to stay under 500 ppm so as to stay below 4 deg C increase - well
> past what has been projected as the point of no return for the arctic.
>
>
> Comment: Time for a green industrial revolution
>
> 21 January 2009 by
>
> Nicholas Stern
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16433-launch-green-economic-revolution-now-says-stern.html
>
> AS THE world faces up to the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s,
> the economic case for tackling the global climate crisis is more compelling
> than ever. Fortunately, our ability to respond has also increased as we
> embark upon a technological revolution that will drive sustainable growth
> and development of a low-carbon global economy.
>
> Since my colleagues and I published the
>
> Stern Review on the economics of climate change in 2006, it has become
> apparent that the risks and potential costs are even greater than we
> originally recognised. Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing more
> quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases now
> appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures due
> to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a
> warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected.
>
> So, whereas our review
>
> recommended that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be
> stabilised within a range of 450 to 550 parts per million of carbon
> dioxide-equivalent, it now seems that our target should not exceed 500 ppm.
> That's if we are to keep down the risks of potentially catastrophic impacts
> which could result from average global temperatures rising 4 °C or more
> above pre-industrial levels. Over the longer term, it is important to limit
> concentrations more tightly still.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:57 AM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Roy,
>>
>> Thank you for your detailed response.
>>
>> You raise some issues about the risks of geo-engineering - but what is the
>> risk of not geo-engineering? I believe that if we do not use
>> geo-engineering, at least to save the Arctic sea ice, we will condemn the
>> world to (a) massive methane release from permafrost, leading to many
>> degrees of global warming (b) Greenland ice sheet disintegration, leading to
>> many metres of sea level rise. It is difficult to imagine how civilisation
>> could survive such a double whammy.
>>
>> Thus, when you consider this risk of not geoengineering, any risks
>> associated with the two SRM geoengineering techniques I recommend
>> (essentially mimicking of natural processes - volcanic discharge into
>> stratosphere and sea spray), pall into insignificance.
>>
>> Note that the conventional wisdom is that we can prevent global warming if
>> we make sufficient emissions cuts (e.g. by more efficient use of energy and
>> by use of renewables) over the next few decades. This is a lie. It is a
>> lie for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. the lifetime of CO2 is effectively thousands of years, so global
>> warming from anthropogenic legacy CO2 is bound to continue into the next
>> century unabated;
>>
>> 2. even if CO2 levels could be reduced to 350 ppm over a few decades (Prof
>> Hansen's target), the Arctic is warming so rapidly that the methane release
>> and Greenland ice sheet disintegration will happen before the reduction in
>> greenhouse gas forcing could have any significant effect;
>>
>> 3. one actually needs a negative forcing to cool the Arctic - reduction
>> of CO2 levels, even to a pre-industrial level, will reduce the positive
>> forcing, but not make it go negative.
>>
>> 4. the net positive forcing from greenhouse gases is of the order of 1.6
>> Watts/m2, whereas we need to counter a much higher forcing, of the order of
>> 30 Watts/m2, caused by the Arctic sea ice albedo effect (as ice replaced by
>> sea, solar energy is mostly absorbed instead of being mostly reflected back
>> into space).
>>
>> There is no alternative to geoengineering for saving the Arctic sea ice.
>>
>> BTW, neither geoengineering technique is particularly expensive (each
>> would cost less than $1 billion per year), and neither uses much energy for
>> deployment compared to solar energy reflected. Nor is there any commercial
>> interest in providing the technology, because there is nothing to sell.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Roy Tindle
>> To: John Nissen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [localsustuk] Re: [geo] What is geo-engineering?
>> Interesting quote from Wikipedia but what a pity that the article wasn't
>> quoted in full. But that wouldn't have supported this dead-end case, would
>> it?
>>
>> Wikipedia, quite correctly, observes the many pitfalls, dangers and
>> objections to these techniques, much promoted by engineering companies who
>> could profit from such dangerous interventions - and by those with only a
>> passing understanding of the physics - and chemistry - involved.
>>
>> Perhaps the most significant point to observe is that any major attempt at
>> a worldwide Geo -engineering project would require world wide political
>> agreement. Wikipedia refers to the possibility of side effects such as
>> droughts etc, any of which could easily be regarded as deliberate and which
>> could spark a global conflict. Imagine, for example, a US led initiative to
>> spray sulphur dioxide aerosols into the upper atmosphere and that these fell
>> as crop destroying acid rain on Russia and caused an extreme drought in
>> Iran.
>>
>> Our understanding of atmospheric physics has grown considerably but it has
>> a long way to go. There are still far too many interactions that we can not
>> fully understand and the complexity of these interactions is so great that
>> we are unable to compute them with accuracy. Hence we have good climate
>> modelling but poor weather forecasting. So we solve one man made disaster by
>> setting up another?
>>
>> Consider, also, the energy implications of some of the suggested
>> processes. Whilst fossil fuels still provide most of our energy it doesn't
>> seem such a good idea to embark on the world's largest ever engineering
>> venture and so to put even more CO2 into the atmosphere in the hope that it
>> may cure the problem. Then there's another little problem: we're at the
>> beginning of a world-wide recession. The cost of many of the suggested
>> interventions, at least those with some hope of working, is massive so
>> engage in geo-engineering and imagine what will happen to renewables. I
>> wonder how long it would take most politicians and corporations to drop any
>> help for renewable energy development because of the cost of the
>> intervention and because "a solution had been found".
>>
>> The real urgency is to begin to stop energy waste, to increase energy
>> efficiency and to rapidly improve and deploy mature renewable generation
>> technology. One of the worse aspects of the free market model is that
>> academia has moved even further from cooperation and into competition, thus,
>> instead of seeing any sensible coordination of research and development we
>> tend towards a scramble for new ideas to attract new money. There are many
>> economists who have no understanding of the natural sciences and many
>> scientists who have as little understanding of economics. Unfortunately
>> there seems to be an equal number of people seeking change who have little
>> understanding of either. Fortunately our economic circumstances and the
>> absence of any real degree of international political cooperation on climate
>> change will almost certainly prevent such rash and dangerous action.
>>
>> 2009/1/21 John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From Wikipedia:
>> >
>> > 'Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on
>> > a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability".'
>> >
>> > There are two main classes of geo-engineering: one dealing with
>> > radiation input to the Earth from the sun; the other dealing with radiation
>> > output, trapped by greenhouse gases. The former class is sometimes called
>> > Solar Radiation Management, SRM, and involves reflecting the sun's radiation
>> > back into space. The latter class generally involves techniques to lower
>> > the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
>> >
>> > It is worth noting that one of the almost certain consequences of global
>> > warming is the Arctic sea ice retreat, see:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage
>> > This could be a tipping point for the whole Earth climate system, as
>> > further warming of the Arctic could lead to massive methane release from
>> > permafrost - sufficient methane to cause runaway global warming.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Roy Tindle
>> Creekside Forum/
>> London Thames Gateway Forum
>> Telephone 020 8141 0271
>> Mobile: 079 8884 7003
>> royt...@gmail.com
Sam Carana
we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this.
For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where
suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white
and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar
burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and
safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc.
The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to
make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater
into the sky to change albedo above the sea.
So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand.
One hand washes the other!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:56 PM, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> As usual, people are ignoring the problem of the rapid Arctic sea ice
> disappearance, which is arguably a tipping point for the whole Earth's
> climate system.
>
> There is no alternative to geoengineering for cooling the Arctic region and
> saving the Arctic sea ice. But it requires the SRM-type geoengineering [1],
> not carbon-removal-type geoengineering, that James Lovelock talks about.
>
> Reducing CO2 to 350 ppm would still leave considerable positive forcing on
> the Earth's climate system - currently estimated at a net 1.6 Watts per
> square metre. The albedo effect, as reflective sea ice is replaced by
> sunlight-absorbing water, is of the order of 30 Watts per square metre. This
> is a measure of what we are up against. But SRM has a chance to counter
> this albedo effect by another albedo effect, i.e. using clouds to reflect
> sunlight before it reaches the sea surface.
>
> So Stern is wrong. A green revolution will not save us.
>
> And Lovelock is wrong. Carbon removal will not save us.
>
> And Hansen is wrong. Bringing CO2 down to 350 ppm, however quickly, will
> not save us.
>
> But SRM geoengineering might save us, just, if we're quick about it.
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
> John
>
> [1] SRM is solar radiation management, and there are two leading candidate
> techniques: one using stratospheric aerosols, and the other brightening
> marine clouds (in the troposphere).
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Carana" <sam.c...@gmail.com>
> To: <dwsc...@gmail.com>; <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>; "greenhouse effect"
> <greenhou...@googlegroups.com>; "geoengineering"
> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; "geo-engineering"
> <geo-eng...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?
Sam Carana
as long as there are no spray vessels on the sea in action, why not
use surplus energy generated by wind turbines, to make the wind
turbines spray water over the sea, by making the turbines turn in
reverse, so to say? If the turbines aren't used for anything at night,
when there's no demand on the grid for electricity, why not use the
turbines in such a way, in order to spray seawater into the sky?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Sam Carana
>
> The power rating of a spray vessel is only 100 kW. They have to operate in
> mid ocean and migrate with the seasons so they have to generate their own
> energy as they move through the water rather than rely on supplies from wind
> turbines.
>
> Stephen Salter
>
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> School of Engineering and Electronics
> University of Edinburgh
> Mayfield Road
> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> Scotland
> tel +44 131 650 5704
> fax +44 131 650 5702
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
>
>
> Sam Carana wrote:
>>
>> Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such that
>> we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this.
>>
>> For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where
>> suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white
>> and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar
>> burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and
>> safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc.
>>
>> The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to
>> make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater
>> into the sky to change albedo above the sea.
>>
>> So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand.
>> One hand washes the other!
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Sam Carana
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
Sam Carana
at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (C4) December 2009. Is
anyone bringing this up? Has anyone seen what's on the agenda? Has
anyone been invited to speak in Copenhagen?
Since C4 is a UN initiative. does a country like Russia have veto
rights over this? How are decissions going to be made? Could sanctions
against non-cooperative countries be endorsed/enforced without
Russia's cooperation?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Stuart Strand <sst...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Seems a bit overwrought to me. Of course preventing arctic ice melt and its consequences is the number one geoengineering priority, but removing carbon from the atmosphere is a perfectly valid geoengineering topic.
>
> But please discuss the science and politics of albedo modification etc to your heart's desire. Here is a question that I haven't seen addressed: Do the governments of the arctic nations even want to prevent arctic ice melting? Russia?
>
> = Stuart =
>
> Stuart E. Strand
> 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
> skype: stuartestrand
> http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eugene I. Gordon
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:32 AM
> To: s.sa...@ed.ac.uk; sam.c...@gmail.com
> Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering'; 'geo-engineering'
> Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?
>
>
> Is there anyone in this group who does not agree that the primary urgency,
> virtually to the exclusion of all other geoengineering considerations, is
> reversing the Artic ice melt. And if you agree than do you agree that the
> issue is removing huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere quickly or
> reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic region. Can you add to
> that list?
>
> Priority 2 is how do we organize geoengineering into a valid professional
> activity that can promote geoengineering into a position wherein these
> overriding needs can be implemented? Once that is done it becomes a
> professional activity that offers a recognized and critical venue for the
> activity; and a vehicle for obtaining funding for a whole variety of
> activities.
>
> Why do we continue to discuss longterm methods for reducing the amount of
> carbon going into the atmosphere? You are fiddling while Rome burns.
Sam Carana
geoengineering, i.e. a runaway greenhouse effect would require
geoengineering to mitigate.
Another definition of a runaway greenhouse effect is that the primary
cause is no longer human activity, but that it feeds on itself. Higher
temperatures turn soils and oceans into net emitters, rather than
sinks.
Yet another way to define a runaway greenhouse effect is in terms of
risk, which is an important consideration, as the risk of a runaway
greenhouse effect will for many be the very reason to go ahead with
geoengineering. A runaway greenhouse effect would come with a rise in
greenhouse gases that takes place with such speed that many species
will go extinct, unable to adjust to such rapid changes. The decrease
in biodiversity would be unacceptable and thus justify geoengineering.
Moreover, human beings as a species will face the risk of total
extinction, particularly if many species of animals and plants that
humans depend on will disappear.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, dsw_s <ds...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> We're apparently using the phrase "runaway global warming"
> differently. As I understand it, there are a set of oscillations and
> negative feedback loops keeping the state of the climate within a
> certain subset of its possible states; if various exogenous variables
> (insolation, CO2, position of continents, etc.) go beyond a certain
> range, a positive feedback loop takes over until the state of the
> climate reaches another such set of oscillations and negative feedback
> loops. The positions of the continents are still essentially as they
> have been for the past few million years: in particular there's a
> Tibetan Plateau and there's an Isthmus of Panama. So the new regime
> after this episode of positive feedback is likely to be drawn from the
> repertoire of ice ages and interglacial periods that we've seen in
> geologically recent time.
>
> If "runaway global warming" means going all the way back to a climate
> pattern like those that prevailed through most of geologic time, even
> though we still have the oddity of an Atlantic/Pacific separation that
> extends from the antarctic to the arctic, then I think we probably
> have time to prevent it, if it's even in the cards at all. And there
> are probably a completely new set of possibilities that come with
> interventions like putting a few terawatts of wind turbines in the
> westerly winds above the trade winds.
>
> On Jan 25, 10:46 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> How many of you are familiar with thewww.scotese.comwebsite? If not take a
>> few minutes; it is a mind-boggling experience. Christopher Scotese is a well
>> known and highly respected geologist. He has one page for global average
>> temperature going back 540 million years. The data is derived from proxy
>> studies. It is a science that is evolving and the data values have migrated
>> a bit over the years. For example, he now shows 24 C as the maximum global
>> average whereas some years back it was 22 C. The minima has changed from 12
>> C to 10 C except for the current period wherein it bottomed out at 12 C and
>> an earlier period when it turned upward in midstream. Some special short
>> lived (million year) peaks (delta +2 degrees C above the maximum) occurred
>> as a result of major asteroid hits and those destroyed most life on Earth.
>>
>> [Man almost certainly evolved because of the latest increase to about 15 C
>> from an ice age minimum of 12 C.]
>>
>> The global average has never started up and turned around before reaching
>> the maximum. Clearly there is a positive feedback mechanism in global
>> temperature change and once on the way up there has been no reversal. The
>> changes are most likely related to motion of continents, so the changes
>> survive over many millions of years.
>>
>> If we do nothing the Earth is certainly headed for 22-24 C independent of
>> AGW. AGW only changes the upward slope.
>>
>> In my view only geoengineering can intervene and I have no doubt that
>> eventually it will be implemented. There will be no catastrophic runaway to
>> 24 C. My interest is in earlier rather than later implementation. It is in
>> the best interests of my great grandchildren. I am too old for it to make
>> any difference for me.
>>
>> -gene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>
>> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dsw_s
>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 2:27 AM
>> To: geoengineering
>>
>> probably is too. We need to deal with the effects of runaway global
>> warming, not pin our hopes on stopping it. If that's where we draw our
>> Maginot Line, then we're still in the situation where the least that might
>> be necessary is far in excess of the most that might be politically
>> possible. Dealing with the effects -- having a warmer world with more small
>> hurricanes over ocean instead of bigger stronger ones making landfall,
>> having enough snowfall on the ice sheets to more than offset the increased
>> loss of ice, having global patterns of precipitation that are compatible
>> with agriculture, limiting ocean acidification -- that's geoengineering too.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I personally feel that if we don't address BOTH geoengineering and
>> > low-carbon economy satisfactorily at Copenhagen then we're at a
>> > serious risk of entering 'game over' situations.
>>
>> > I think that a lot of work needs to be done to put forward a package
>> > of research that should be backed by the summit to establish a
>> > direction for geo-eng. It is not going to be easy to build consensus
>> > to support and fund this research, but it's the chance for the funding
>> > we all need. I personally am working where I can to push the 'green'
>> > organisations to accept it as an essential part of the climate
>> > solution mix.
>>
>> > A
>>
>> > 2009/1/25 Stuart Strand <sstr...@u.washington.edu>:
>>
>> > > The biosphere removes vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere yearly
>> reversing the year to year trend dramatically. We control 10% of the
>> terrestrial biosphere. We can use that control to significantly reduce the
>> lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>> > > Glad to hear that the national sovereignty problem has been disposed of.
>> > > = Stuart =
>>
>> > > Stuart E. Strand
>> > > 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
>> > >voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836
>> > > skype: stuartestrand
>> > >http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/
>>
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:euggor...@comcast.net]
>> > > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 2:33 PM
>> > > To: Stuart Strand; s.sal...@ed.ac.uk; sam.car...@gmail.com
>> > > Cc: 'John Nissen'; 'greenhouse effect'; 'geoengineering';
>> 'geo-engineering'
>>
>> > > Stuart:
>> > > I am not sure why you say it is overwrought. After all, we agree
>> > > precisely on preventing ice melt and the importance of taking large
>> > > amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. I added reducing sunlight, also
>> > > a possibility which you commented on but I missed your point. So again,
>> why is it overwrought.
>>
>> > > What you may have missed is the discussion of CO2 lifetime in the
>> > > atmosphere. I have circulated material that shows pretty clearly
>> > > that it is over 1000 years. No one took exception. If it is reducing
>> > > CO2 emissions buys us nothing in the short term other than a
>> > > reduction in use of fossil fuels, which is a valuable thing to do
>> independent of CO2 emissions.
>>
>> > > The issue of other governments and what they desire has been
>> > > addressed in these exchanges way back. I suspect that you are right
>> > > that the Russians might prefer continued ice melt. I did not realize
>> > > that the atmosphere had been nationalized. If it has not been
>> nationalized then screw the Russians.
>>
>> > > -gene
>> > > From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>> > > [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter
>> > > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:20 AM
>> > > To: sam.car...@gmail.com
>> > > Cc: John Nissen; greenhouse effect; geoengineering; geo-engineering
>> > > Subject: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering?
>>
>>
>> > > The power rating of a spray vessel is only 100 kW. They have to
>> > > operate in mid ocean and migrate with the seasons so they have to
>> > > generate their own energy as they move through the water rather than
>> > > rely on supplies from wind turbines.
>>
>> > > Stephen Salter
>>
>> > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and
>> > >Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL
>> > >Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203
>> > > Sam Carana wrote:
>> > >> Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such
>> > >> that we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this.
>>
>> > >> For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where
>> > >> suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white
>> > >> and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar
>> > >> burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and
>> > >> safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc.
>>
>> > >> The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used
>> > >> to make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying
>> > >> seawater into the sky to change albedo above the sea.
>>
>> > >> So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand.
>> > >> One hand washes the other!
>>
>> > >> Cheers!
>> > >> Sam Carana
>>