Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[M V Bhaskar]

Eugene

What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem?
If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find ways 
to solve or mitigate them.

No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems.
We are only trying to solve it. 

I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or 
partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to 
the fire. :)

regards

Bhaskar

On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:
>
> Eugene,
> What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification?
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> --
> *From:* "eugg...@comcast.net " 
> >
> *To:* rev...@gmail.com 
> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira >; 
> Geoengineering >
> *Sent:* Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
>
> Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take 
> exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human 
> driven'  cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven 
> that global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on 
> average for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a 
> difference; AND there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the 
> general warming trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does not 
> substitute for proven science and the theory of CO2-driven global warming 
> clearly remains to be proven using the accepted scientific process. Science 
> is not an election and AGW remains to be proven. until it is proven it 
> remains a not so robust hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is 
> it debatable?
>
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/zKwXzpgstSYJ.
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.

Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[euggordon]

Bhaskar: 



You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, p otential solutions 
depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the 
last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 
years. That gradual rise is not the current or nearterm cause or issue. There 
are warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and we may be in a 
warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. W e are also in a 
Malenkovic h cycle. T here are a variety of possibilities to explain the 
warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. T he point is that it is warming 
and the strategy for controlling the warming needs to be worked out and prove n 
so it can be implemented as necessary. To conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to 
do is reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; it is sheer stupidity in the 
extreme. W e need a thermostat that works and only geoengineerin g can provide 
that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks have been able to block the emergence 
of a serious geoengineering effort. 



-gene 



- Original Message -


From: "M V Bhaskar"  
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: euggor...@comcast.net, rev...@gmail.com, "Ken Caldeira" 
, "Geoengineering" 
 
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM 
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. 

Eugene 


What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem? 
If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find ways to 
solve or mitigate them. 


No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems. 
We are only trying to solve it.  


I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or partly, 
due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to the fire. :) 


regards 


Bhaskar 

On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: 




Eugene, 
What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification? 
Thanks, 
Greg 



From: " eugg...@comcast.net " < eugg...@comcast.net > 
To: rev...@gmail.com 
Cc: Ken Caldeira < kcal...@carnegiescience.edu >; Geoengineering < 
geoengi...@googlegroups.com > 
Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. 


Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take exception 
to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human driven'  cause 
ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven that global warming is 
human driven and because it has been warming on average for 10,000 years 
without enough humans or CO2 around to make a difference; AND there are cycles 
of warming and cooling overlaying the general warming trend. One can have an 
opinion, FINE, but opinion does not substitute for proven science and the 
theory of CO2-driven global warming clearly remains to be proven using the 
accepted scientific process. Science is not an election and AGW remains to be 
proven. until it is proven it remains a not so robust hypothesis. Why is that 
so hard to understand? Is it debatable? 





-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Andrew---It is important to recognize that there are differences between
the perspectives of scientists and engineers on dealing with climate change,
and problems with how both have been addressing climate change. You point to
the problems of scientists, that is, relying too much on theoretical
understanding as incorporated in their models without recognizing possible
shortcomings of their models (and the one I am wondering about relating to
the Arctic is if the forcing that has been applied for the Arctic might be
in error, neglecting the effects on radiation of cleaning up Arctic haze,
something that would be leading to more solar radiation reaching the surface
of the snow/sea ice in spring). I do not think you should expect the entire
scientific community to be leading the charge in the way you suggest‹sure,
some will do this, but the scientific community as a whole is naturally
cautious‹that is what makes all that they are saying so really serious. What
is so surprising is that the loudest objectors to scientific results are
complaining scientists are saying too much rather than too little, which, as
you suggest, is likely where the real uncertainties are.

At the same time, engineers come at issues a bit differently, as you
suggest. In the area of adaptation, however, a number of engineers  have
unfortunately tended to base their designs on past climatic conditions, and
it has generally taken some time to get them to include climate change in
the conditions that are used in their designs (so, at least in the US,
sewage plants have been built at sea level, and a lot of housing right on
the coast, etc.). There is a lot for all to improve in how they are reacting
to and dealing with climate change.

What we need is more experts who are bridging the two disciplines, focused
on applied science/engineering physics, etc. This was just what I was lucky
enough to be able to have as a background‹undergrad in engineering, master¹s
with a lot of physics, and PhD combining both.

Best, Mike

 


On 9/22/12 2:57 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> Without wishing to get sidetracked by a debate on the fundamental science of
> AGW, I'd like to add my tuppence on the arctic sea ice discussion.
> 
> To me, this is a fulfilment of warnings I've been giving out for years on the
> flawed approach of science to the AGW issue.  The 'mainstream ' science on the
> Arctic has been woefully, shamefully wrong - bordering on denial. Scientists
> have been shy of the sea ice data, and instead referred back to wholly
> inadequate models.  This is the *exact opposite* of the scientific method.   I
> suspect the same folly is repeated throughout climate science.
> 
> Scientists studying AGW have been too timid to compound mechanisms to give
> realistic conclusions.  They have been reluctant to shout about our reliance
> on models which are too piecemeal to model the earth system properly. They
> have shied away from controversy by playing down their warnings and by using
> conservative assumptions, where prudence dictates the opposite. This is
> repeated in other sub fields, notably emissions predictions.
> 
> A social parallel would be if a shepherd failed to cry "wolf", until DNA tests
> confirmed it was actually a wolf savaging the sheep, and not a similar-looking
> animal - "But what if it's a large dog? We need more research!" Meanwhile, the
> flock on which the citizens depend is lost.
> 
> Collectively, climate scientists face grave embarrassment, even disgrace, if
> they continue on this path.
> 
> As a young student engineer, I was taught to build factors of safety into my
> work. Designing things an order of magnitude stronger than needed is routine
> in society, and we do not question the cost . Bridges designed for walking can
> support cars without breaking. Buildings can survive impacts and blasts far
> beyond their design thresholds without collapse. Airliners can tumble miles in
> freefall without breaking up. Climate scientists have a lot to learn from this
> approach. They are at present risking the very survival of our society by a
> collectively reckless approach to risk, which is not repeated in comparable
> disciplines.
> 
> Step up, or history will shame us.
> 
> A
> 
> On Sep 22, 2012 4:29 AM, "RAU greg"  wrote:
>> Eugene,
>> What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification?
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> From: "euggor...@comcast.net" 
>> To: rev...@gmail.com
>> Cc: Ken Caldeira ; Geoengineering
>> 
>> Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
>> 
>> Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take
>> exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human
>> driven'  cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven
>> that global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on
>> average for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a
>> difference; AND 

[geo] Re: Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[David Lewis]

Hansen has a page up entitled Sea Ice 
Area including 
charts that in addition to showing the trends over three decades in arctic 
sea ice maximum and minimum, also shows the trends of sea ice area at the 
time of maximum and minimum insolation.  (The page was last modified 
September 4 2012).  From his page:

"This sudden loss of sea ice is a cause of concern because sea ice area 
causes an amplifying climate feedback. As the area of ice decreases, 
increased absorption of sunlight by the darker ocean causes more sea ice 
melting. The huge sea ice loss of 2007 caused some scientists and other 
people to speculate that all Arctic warm-season sea ice may be lost within 
five years.


Sea ice cover is probably not that unstable. Figure 3 shows Arctic and 
Antarctic sea ice cover in the summer months of maximum insolation, as well 
as the ice cover in the months with maximum and minimum ice area. It is the 
sea ice area in April-August, when the sun is high in the Arctic sky, that 
determines the degree of sea ice feedback in the Northern Hemisphere. The 
figure below suggests that the September 2007 sea ice minimum did not have 
a correspondingly large effect on the sea ice area at the time of maximum 
insolation.



Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent at their minimums, maximums and seasons 
of maximum and minimum insolation. (Also in 
PDF.) 
The "extent" includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It 
is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. 
[This statement and data source is National Snow and Ice Data Center, 
Boulder, CO; 
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
.] 

It seems likely that all September Arctic sea ice may be gone within a few 
decades, if human- made greenhouse gases continue to increase. On the other 
hand, as discussed in "Storms", if Earth's energy balance is restored by 
decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 ppm or less, it may be 
possible to stabilize or increase the area of Arctic ice.

See more figures .
Last Modified: 2012/09/04, Data through August 2012. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/d_xEESuoZbAJ.
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.