It does snow in the arctic. I'm sure. I was thinking along the lines of catching moisture when thew temperature is low enough to snow and adding extra snow with cloud seeding. Whenever it snows there is obviously moisture in the air. Basically I though we could make it snow harder and longer during natural snowfalls.
On Nov 1, 7:53 pm, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > My guess would be that there is too little moisture in the cold air to make > much snow--and clouds are generally low. The challenge is really getting > more moisture into the Arctic--now, warming will do this, but then one gets > rain instead of snow. If, as Caldeira and Wood calculations make clear, if > you can reduce sunlight in the region while rest of world is warm, then will > likely get more snowfall. > > Mike > > On 11/1/09 5:50 PM, "Neil Farbstein" <pro...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mike and everyone else; I have thought of a possible method of > > keeping the arctic frozen to prevent melting of the ice pack. Cloud > > seeding can increase the size of the snow pack over places where > > methane and gigatons of carbon dioxide would otherwise be released by > > thawing of the permafrost. It is possible to thicken the ice covering > > the permafrost to prevent melting in the spring and lengthen the time > > that ice and snow cover the ground in the spring. The biggest problem > > will be coming up with funding to do it. Like all other geoengineering > > projects we should think about the consequences and side effects of > > cloud seeding on that scale. > > > On Nov 1, 5:39 pm, John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Peter, > >> To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to > >> appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against. > >> Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious. > >> But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we? > >> Cheers, > >> John > >> --- > >> Peter Read wrote:There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be > >> significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there > >> that > >> want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV > > >> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit > >> more so as to bring the level down. > > >> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel > >> with a flow of biofuel. > > >> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'. > > >> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of > >> organization. > > >> It's all so blindingly obvious > > >> Peter > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From:Mike MacCracken > > >> To:John Nissen;David Keith > > >> Cc:Climate Intervention;Geoengineering;Ken Caldeira;Julian Norman > > >> Sent:Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM > > >> Subject:[geo] Re: ERL papers on line > > >> Dear John‹A couple of comments:Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and > >> keeping > >> summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer > >> sea > >> ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the > >> winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice > >> and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).On the issue of the paper > >> just > >> dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March > >> 2009 > >> and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World > >> Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, > >> which > >> I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper > >> was > >> long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I > >> certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel > >> emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it > >> is > >> hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of > >> an > >> effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to > >> deal > >> with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from > >> melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only > >> other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to > >> zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in > >> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my > >> thoughts > >> on dealing with short-lived GHGs > >> athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf > >> Mike > >> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David. > >> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If > >> we > >> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how > >> should we approach it.  He considers three problem areas: > >> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense > >> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching; > >> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of > >> ice > >> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude > >> weather; > >> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate > >> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger > >> methane and carbon feedbacks. > >> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to > >> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on > >> global > >> warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. > >>  The retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification > >> process, > >> so it is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance.  Do you agree, Mike? > >> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice > >> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the > >> other > >> papers seem rather irrelevant! > >> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed > >> with > >> SRM geoengineering.  If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, > >> and > >> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the > >> other > >> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - > >> but > >> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone. > >> Cheers from Chiswick, > >> John > >> --- > >> David Keith wrote:      > >>  Folks,There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental > >> Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special > >> issue. > >> More papers and a editorial will be added later.... > > >> read more » > > >>  image_gif_part > >> < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
