Hi Alvia,
 
It is so pathetic, on Friday NSIDC informed that the ice volume had once again 
shrank to new low.
 
Despite the ice area being bigger than last year, it was only result of more 
extensive break up and sea ice scattering. The more widely scattered sea ice 
then absorved more heat from water and melted thinner than ever before.  No the 
ice is becoming paper thin and the latest images show how much the autumn 
storms are fracturing and scattering this paper thin ice even now.Another twist 
on story is that the timing of Greenland glaciation has gone tatters, we were 
aware this since last spring.  The Pleiostocene 2-3 myr age has been pushed 
back to Oligocene 23 myr.  We have been questionning the methodology for some 
time and pushing the Danes to check it out.
 
FIPC think that after the ice-free Arctic Ocean, Greenland ice is melting 
everywhere on surface extensively and flash floods making that even worse 
dumping 10-20 cm of rain during electric storms like on the south dome in July 
2007.  We expect this meltwater fall under ice and it to float on land on its 
own meltwaters and the ground connectivity loss leading to ice sheet land 
contaiment failure within a few years of ice-free Arctic Ocean (as referred 
back to UN General Assembly back in 1992).
 
I would rather correct:  "The World Ends in 2020 (at least Greenland ice ends). 
 Are You Prepared?"
 
Rgs,
 
Albert 
 
Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign
of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [geo] The World Ends in 2300. Are 
You Prepared?Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:36:03 -0400



This paper courtesy of Renaud de Richter, mostly based on a set of models used 
to assess the impacts of stratospheric aerosols in the year 2300.  What about 
the 21st century?  Or didn't the models give the "desired" result for 2100?  I 
note that in Table 2, the global precipitation decrease for 2100 using the AER0 
scenario, where temperature is held constant from the year 1900, is only one 
third that for 2300.
 
I have no problem with worst casing geoengineering, as long as more reasonable 
and realistic scenarios are also considered or at least mentioned.   That 
doesn't seem to be standard practice, however.  And in this piece of research, 
skipping over 300 years to point out problems could have been part of the 
study, but it didn't have to be the entire study and is very misleading, 
especially since it assumes we are still burning coal as a primary power source 
for electricity production in 2300.
 
>From the summary:
 
"In summary, we have found that climate change mitigation using stratospheric 
aerosol emissions is associated with high risks which will persist for 
centuries and even millenia.  Therefore, this geoengineering option cannot be 
seen as a solution to the problem of human-made climate change.   Assessment of 
this option and its consideration as a sort of emergency brake in case climate 
change becomes too dangerous must not distract the scientific mainstream from 
searching for sustainable approaches to diminish economic dependence on fossil 
fuels.  There is a long way to go, but this is the only secure way to avoid the 
high risks of dangerous anthropogenic climate change in the 
future."_________________________________________________________________
Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to