I think saving the arctic sea ice is a lost cause. Saving the
permafrost 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 neces
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
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
I do think geoengineering should be an important issue to be discussed
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
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 overwro
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
David / Gene,
You may be aware that the American Meteorological Society is working
on a statement on geoengineering which many of the individuals you
mention as well as others from this community are co-authors on. It
should probably be out within a month or so.
D
My posted reply to the badg
I know Stephen, and I fully support your proposals. But additionally,
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 tur
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
reduci
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 Enginee
10 matches
Mail list logo
