[Andrew K Fletcher]

The problem as I see it is not so much reducing the carbon output, but sorting out the problem with the Atlantic Conveyor System. If anyone is reading this that can influence events, I do have some answers as to how we can stimulate the flow again in the Atlantic Conveyor without it breaking the bank. There is a simple cost effective way to induce this density flow and return system, but It requires a fair amount of multinational cooperation. I suspect however that things need to get far worse before anyone would be willing to listen.

Andrew K Fletcher

[Bass]

So Andrew- you're leaving is in a state of agitated anticipation?  I'll bite, how are you proposing that we stimulate the Atlantic conveyor system?

[Andrew K Fletcher]

First of all view my simple experiments with solutes, particularly the one where i drop salt and sugar crystals in a clear vase with the sunlight shining through so it shows the fluids moving caused even by a single falling crystal of sugar. This initiates flow before the crystal dissolves, which is very important from the conveyor's driving force. http://www.metacafe.com/channels/AndrewKFletcher/ The 4 videos relating to my experiments, located here

What we need is something that is not going to change the salinity of the water but is going to pull the surface water down so it can be replaced by saltier water from underneath it. More to the point, the seeding of the conveyor from the surface would require a huge amount of material in order to address the massive surface area of the ocean, so ideally it would require a massive amount of small particulate aggregate, the finer the better. We know salt is out of the question as this kind of application would quickly exhaust world reserves and possibly have negative effects on fish stocks. Anyway, salt would cost money either way, or we would need a huge amount of salt so this would cost an inevitably huge amount of money.

The solution is quite simple really, as are most solutions.

Throughout the world we have deep water ways for shipping, usually estuarial waters, which receive a huge amount of sedimentary fine sands that cause problems for shipping and have to frequently be dredged and taken out to sea and dumped. Or as in the case of South Devon, mixed with cement and used to render the outer surfaces of houses, (no longer practiced). This fine sand which is a problem in most harbours and estuaries is considered to be an inconvenience these days with little to no application.

However, this fine sand would provide the ideal properties for seeding the conveyor system and would be readily available from dredgers working to keep channels open for shipping. Most shipping requires ballast after dropping off their cargoes, some take on board seawater as ballast. This return capacity could be used to deliver the sand and silt to the point of disposal where it would be scattered or emptied from the passing ships into the ocean where the salinity of the water has been compromised by the influx of salt free surface water from melting ice.

Which brings us back to the simple experiments in my video’s As the sand and silt falls rapidly to the ocean floor, it will cause a huge cloud to form but should not damage the fish stocks as this type of aggregate ends up in the ocean at some point anyway. So no net change, other than the point at where it ends up in the ocean,

On it’s way down to the ocean floor, it causes a dragging effect on the water molecules, as shown clearly in the video’s, this causes surface water to be pulled down with it and mixed with the saltier water. It also generates a pull or return flow as generally accepted in the Atlantic conveyor system, which would inevitably pull on the warmer waters from the equatorial region causing the warmer waters to be drawn up to replace the rapidly sinking waters generated by the falling silt and sand.

On the ocean floor there will be a relatively minor disruption to marine life, as this would take place in some of the deepest parts of the ocean where plant life and marine life are not so abundant. Furthermore, the current generated by the falling aggregate would also be bringing with it adequate flora and fauna to occupy the ocean floor.

The other bonus is that shipping of course will be provided with a new paid cargo to transport, some as return ballast others shipping being utilised for conducting the seeding tasks.

And there will be a concerted effort to open up more ports and waterways as the value of dredging these important water inlets has been realised.

One ship will not make much difference, but a continual flotilla of ships will undoubtedly produce the desired effect and re-establish the carbon sink along with the acceleration of the Atlantic Conveyor System.

I would like to present this concept as a paper and would welcome others from the forum to join me in presenting it to the appropriate authorities, should anyone wish to jointly prepare a paper based on this practical solution to what could be the World’s most challenging pending disaster please feel free to add your thoughts.

[another_someone]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7058074.stm

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.

International scientists found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17%.

The other 18% came from a decline in the natural ability of land and oceans to soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.

About half of emissions from human activity are absorbed by natural "sinks" but the efficiency of these sinks has fallen, the study suggests.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was carried out by the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia, UK, and the British Antarctic Survey.

It found that improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled since 2000, leading to an unexpected jump in atmospheric CO2.

"In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slow-down of natural sinks and the halt to improvements in the carbon intensity of wealth production," said the study's lead author, Dr Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project.

Global sink

The weakening of the Earth's ability to cope with greenhouse gases is thought to be a result of changing wind patterns over seas and droughts on land.

"The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought," said report co-author Dr Corinne Le Quere of the British Antarctic Survey.

"We found that nearly half of the decline in the efficiency of the ocean CO2 sink is due to the intensification of the winds in the Southern Ocean."

The declining power of the seas to soak up industrial pollution is not only being recorded in the southern hemisphere, however.

According to a separate 10-year study published recently, the effect is also being seen in the North Atlantic.

So what is the likelihood that the enormous investment we are making in trying to deliberately guide global temperatures in a different direction is anything other than a total waste of money and resources that could be put to better use on projects with a more predictable outcome?

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Oddly enough, I’ve been saying the same thing for years.

OASIS IRRIGATION is a plan to utilise the massive waste water and sewage problem generated by the West by transporting it as ballast in super tankers. Crude oil shipping currently transports sea water half way around the world for no financial gain, in act it costs the oil industry a lot of money to clean out the tankers and return clean oil back to the ocean, or in fines for discharging the tar residues in storms hoping they won't be picked up by satellites.

My idea is much better. Fill the tankers with waste water as ballast, and take it to the desert coastlines where it is used to reforest right up to the coast working your way inland  and in doing so cool down the hot dry coastal strip that provides an invisible thermal barrier that behaves like an impenetrable force field against moisture laden clouds, preventing them from crossing onto the land and offloading rain onto the scorching earth below.

Remove the thermal barrier by reforesting using waste water to replace the organic material which binds the sand grains together creating a fertile crust that suspends the water table in the first metre of sand and thus reduces the need for frequent irrigation long enough to get the roots established and provide some cover against the sun.

Stand on a hot tiled swimming pool edge burning your feet. Then stand where some ones wet feet have been before you. The temperature difference is amazing.

Irrigate a 10 mile strip of coastline along North or South African Desert and replace the desert with lush green fertile forest and cause it to rain. Don’t believe it? Well, that is exactly what happens regularly on the Costabrava in Southern Spain, whereas down the coast just a short distance West where the forests have been removed and replaced by concrete and tarmac  deserts we find a completely different climate, and when it does eventually rain in these areas we see flash floods and devastation instead of fertile forests teaming with life.

More to the point, if we start cooling the deserts down and reversing the devastation by reforesting we will create huge wildlife reserves, property that is worth purchasing, end famine in the surrounding areas, teach the world how to replicate in other areas and begin to share the rainfall equally around the globe preventing the devastating floods and fires we see today.

Instead we choose to slap a tax on cars, planes and shipping and shout about ozone depletion when the real depletion is in the deserts which are expanding at a phenomenal rate. Cool the hottest ares in the world and begin to cool the planet. And make a handsome profit from the whole process while dramatically reducing water bills. A fellow mathematician who was also a engineer for South West Water, did an analysis on the costs and saving from no longer having to treat waste water in the South West, but storing it in huge tankers submerged and encased in concrete as breakwaters in Brixham and a few more ports. He predicted a £200 per household saving. Bob Baty, goes on record saying my project is not economically viable as it is too expensive. We now have the highest water bills in the whole of the U.K. He lied through his teeth!

But we will all carry on regardless and go along with the pathetic attempts to tax global warming and grow money in the greenhouse effect instead of addressing the fundamental problems we are all inevitably about to face. And when the proverbial hits the fan, these idiotic  B.S’rs will be enjoying their spoils in some oasis raising a glass saying we were wrong.

[angst]

George, I know you don't believe in global warming and I will not debate you on this issue. You can disagree, but I said mostly thing tings about education, that are my opinion, there is no tutor system.

But about carbon sequestration - the research has been done. It is not good for the future unless the issues is addressed. This conclusion is held by well over 90% of the people who have done the peer review work. The deck is stacked against what you are trying to argue and that is the LAST thing I will say in this thread.
 
P.S. Many better minds than yours had to agree to the Nobel Prize. I doubt that I have the intelligence to doubt their collective wisdom.

This is the problem that I have with the 'global warming' debate, and generally scientific debate within the public domain. It ceases to be a discussion about the science and becomes a discussion about who (and how many) agree with a certain viewpoint. Under these terms of scientific argument, Galileo was wrong. Under these terms the Earth is the centre of the Universe. Or, rather, under these terms the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

Unless one accepts that the very nature of the Universe altered as public opinion altered, then the 'democratic' argument is scientifically redundant.

The report by the IPCC had to construct 'errors' within two disparate measurement mechanisms in order for their model to be accurate. Not only two errors, but two corresponding errors. What are the chances of that? I would imagine that such a convergence of seperate errors must be pretty small, and yet such a probablitiy was preffered over the thought that the model might be incorrect. Does that sound like sound scientific practice?

What is happening within the wider public debate on this is that scientists are becoming the 'high priests' of science, that laymen can never understand. This is a dangerous place, as when those high priests are shown to be in error, then faith in their 'religion' will begin to crumble - and we will see a return to superstitions as the basis of understanding the world around us.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Angst

Well spoken

[angst]

Andrew, thank you for your kind words. I don't feel quite so much like I need to go and get 'me coat'.