Andrew:
That is but one theory and reflects a weak correlation. It is not proved
and is not subject to scientific testing. Other phenomena seem much more
likely to have caused the cooling in that period.
David Schnare
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Andrew Lockley
wrote:
>
> I note from the
Dear Andrew--
There is certainly need for discussion, but you are over-interpreting a bit.
I am not out to make summers so cool that agriculture does not do well
(except perhaps in the new higher latitude areas to where it has expanded)
and my winters would be plenty cool enough to form lots of s
There have been suggestions about putting dust or solar absorbing material
in orbit in the past (I think they were covered in the 1992 NAS report, for
example). The idea actually goes back at least to Hoyle (1957) and was
expanded on by Kahle and Deirmendjian (1973) of Rand Corporation. The basic
p
Perhaps I've missed something, but if you are
advocating increased ventilation of the
subsurface ocean, this water is not only nutrient
rich, but is is also supersaturated in CO2
(relative to air). Natural ocean upwelling is a
huge CO2 source for the atmosphere. So unless
you can show that
Dear all,
I think this kind of life-force thinking runs very deep, and prevents us
acting appropriately.
Just about the whole environment movement seems to be based on a thinking
that the planet is naturally stable, and if only mankind can behave
"naturally", all will be well - the negative
Aerosols from an eruption cool the climate briefly and then settle out
of the atmosphere, whereas greenhouse gases released by volcanism
persist longer. Ice sheets thick enough to affect volcanism take many
years to accumulate. So this sounds more likely to be a positive-
feedback effect to me.
Dear Geo Group,
One last time.
If say Dr. Guru has a plan to keep see water from rising. He writes a
paper. Some how Prince Dubai gets a hold of it and says. "Holy Paula
Abdula, I can save my billion dollar casino that is 1 m above water.
He contacts Guru. Guru says we are going to need a lo
In my view there is already a mechanism for this, the UNFCCC.
What may be needed is a new Protocol, directed specifically
towards geoengineering.
Kyoto Protocol experiences, and US intransigence, may make
people nervous about this mechanism -- but the K.P. is flawed
and the "climate" has changed
How about one more scenario. The city of LA has been slowly upgrading
its buildings sidings and roof to save energy. The effect has been
that far fewer fires occur. The city of LA put a lot of the fire
hoses on sale on EBay. Now Dr. Brainstorm can finally afford his
project, with the help of t
Any outgassing of the deep ocean water when it rose to the surface
would only release gases added during the aeration process. Unless
the existing ocean water was supersaturated, then there shouldn't be
any additional outgassing. I don't have the expertise to advise
whether there are supersatura
Andrew--Greg is right--and warming of ocean near surface would also force
CO2 out, so maybe do at high latitudes where it is cold and encourage marine
life.
Mike
On 1/14/09 7:25 PM, "Andrew Lockley" wrote:
>
> Any outgassing of the deep ocean water when it rose to the surface
> would only re
Surely the effect detailed below will affect ALL plans to aid Ocean
mixing. The outgassing has nothing to do with the use of bubbles to
move the water - the bubbles can't possibly release more gas than a
comparable non-bubble technique.
A
2009/1/15 Mike MacCracken :
> Andrew--Greg is right--and
12 matches
Mail list logo
