All:
"We should always make a clear distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration"." I suggested before that all these measures, plus carbon restriction, can be called "climate control" with divisions such as the above. We will be augmenting processes like albedo change and sequestration, amplifying with new technologies. This avoids people making distinctions on provenance (artificial vs natural) rather than method. On: The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That is the scale of the engineering challenge. Both Lowell Wood and I have done an economic cost estimate for the Arctic and find a few hundred million dollars a year is sufficient, using existing technologies -- which need development, nonetheless. I believe from other experiences that we could trade money for time in this development and hit a 3 year deadline. It's the will that's missing, not the means. Gregory Benford -----Original Message----- From: John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; John Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 4:04 am Subject: [geo] Re: Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration 0A Hello John, I realised you should not have been addressing your points at Dan, but your points are pertinent, nevertheless. 1. We should try and get field trials of the cloud brightening idea, as it could help to cool the North Atlantic and restore Arctic sea ice, in conjunction with stratospheric aerosols. 2. I think that time rather than cost is the issue with stratospheric aerosols. Will we able to get them up fast enough, given that otherwise the Arctic sea could be ice-free within five years or less? The Caldeira-Wood paper (in PhilTransRoySoc) reports simulation results in a world with double pre-industrial CO2 levels, i.e. 540 ppm: "A linear regression on the results obtained here suggests that restoring September sea ice extent to its pre-industrial value in a 2xCO2 atmosphere would require reduction of insolation by approximately 21 per cent over the 2.7 per cent of the Earth that lies north of 71 degrees N." The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That is the scale of the engineering challenge. 3. The term geo-engineering has been con fusing journalists. For example the BBC correspondent, Tom Fielding, on the Radio 4 Today programme (6.50 am Monday) seemed to think that geo-engineering (including injection of Sulphur into the upper atmosphere) was all about "managing the carbon cycle"! We should always make a clear distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration". Cheers from Chiswick, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Latham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 7:44 AM Subject: [geo] Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration Hello again Dan, Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight missive to you below, namely that you are not the originator of the comments I responded to, but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that I screwed up. All Best, John. Quoting John Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello Dan, > > Briefly to respond to points in your 3 messages today (9/1). > > 1. Our cloud-albedo global temperature stabilisation scheme does not > involve the creation of clouds (fake or otherwise). Nor is it > accurately represented by your "shooting various things into the > clouds .....". If you were to read the 2 papers we produced for the > Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you would find that it is > concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of existing clouds by > introducing seawater particles into them in order to increase their > droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos. The principle > is the same as that involved in the formation of ship-tracks. GCM > computations made by leading groups in the UK and the US (2 separate > models) suggest that this technique could produce a controllable > cooling sufficient to hold the Earth's temperature constant for at > least 50 years. Although there exists some experimental / > observational support for these predictions more work is required > before a categoric statement can be made about the efficacy of this > scheme, and a full study of its possible ramifications - should it > ever be deployed - has yet to be made. > > 2. At the recent workshop on geo-engineering held at Harvard, the > participating economists (half of the total group, the rest being > scientists) stated unanimously that the estimated costs of deploying > the Crutzen stratospheric sulphur scheme or our atmospheric > cloud-albedo one are so trivial in comparison with those associated > with unbridled CO2 emissions that they should be regarded as zero. The > funds we need for definitive testing of these ideas are comparable > with those of middle-range NSF grants. > > 3. The word geo-engineering has highly negative connotations. I think > it important that we counterbalance or overcome these by stressing > much=2 0 more often that our goal is to achieve significant restorative > effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from > perfect, but it could be significant. > > Cheers, John. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Quoting Dan Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225094/pick-tab-climate-tinkering >> >> Who will pick up the tab for climate-tinkering technologies? >> >> As scientists call for more funding for geo-engineering pilot studies, >> experts warn risks could be too great to attract investors >> James Murray, BusinessGreen, 01 Sep 2008 >> >> While the rewards may one day prove mind blowing, the risks inherent >> to the development of geo-engineering technologies that many >> scientists believe are now necessary to combat global warming are so >> huge that proposed pilot projects are struggling to find funding. >> >> According to a series of papers published today by the Royal Society, >> the failure to address soaring carbon emissions means that the world >> should be preparing geo-engineering techniques capable of artificially >> lowering temperatures, such as dumping iron into oceans to improve >> plankton's ability to soak up carbon or seeding clouds to bolster >> their ability to reflect the sun's rays. >> >> Writing in the preface to the collection of papers, Brian Launder of >> the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of >> Cambridge argued that, "While such g eo-scale interventions may be >> risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky >> than doing nothing." >> >> However, several of the scientists who contributed work for the Royal >> Society series have today admitted that with no commercial model >> currently in place to monetise geo-engineering projects, they are >> struggling to raise the funding required to move beyond the planning >> stages. >> >> "There is no money to be made from saving the planet," said Stephen >> Salter, emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of >> Edinburgh, who is proposing a project to seed marine clouds to >> increase the amount of energy they reflect. "You can make vast sums >> from wrecking it, but not the other way round, unfortunately." >> >> Salter claimed that his team could undertake a working pilot project >> for about £20m, a sum he describes as less than the security budget >> for the UN's series of international climate change negotiations. But >> he admitted that attracting the investment was proving difficult. >> >> "At the moment there is no commercial return on these [geo- >> engineering] projects for bringing the temperature down," he said. >> "The people working in carbon markets don't want these type of >> projects included and unless someone works out a way to put a value on >> cooling, there is no commercial proposition." >> >> Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Launder agreed that geo-engineering >> projects were fa cing huge difficulties in raising the funding >> necessary to move their proposals into the pilot stage. "The funding >> could come from government, but it is difficult prising out the >> necessary development money," he said. "For businesses, we are talking >> about technologies that have to be ready to go, but you hope you will >> never have to use… that requires a new business model to anything we >> have currently." >> >> The commercial risks associated with such projects are simply too >> large for most investors, according to David Metcalfe, director at >> independent green business research firm Verdantix. "There is a >> growing sense among scientists that we will need some of these big >> bets as part of the portfolio for tackling climate change," he said. >> "But for most investors, even projects such as carbon capture and >> storage are too risky a bet, so [geo-engineering] will really struggle >> [to attract funding]." >> >> The risk associated with geo-engineering projects was highlighted >> earlier this year when almost 200 countries imposed a moratorium on >> ocean iron fertilisation projects. >> >> Iron fertilisation is believed to help lower carbon dioxide >> concentrations in the atmosphere by stimulating the growth of >> phytoplankton, which trap the carbon dioxide on the ocean floor when >> they die. However, many environmentalists have criticised the >> approach, claiming it could do huge damage to delicate marine >> ecosystems. >> >> The20ban on fertilisation projects throws into doubt the future of a >> number of startups already working on the technology, such as US firm >> Climos and Australian outfit Ocean Nourishment Corp, which announced >> plans for a pilot project off the coast of the Philippines earlier >> this year. >> >> Salter is confident that his proposals for cloud seeding could avoid >> many of the environmental risks associated with more controversial and >> costly projects such as ocean fertilisation, and is continuing to seek >> financial backing. >> >> "The advantage of seeding clouds to make them whiter is that you can >> try it on a small scale and it is reversible," he said. "You can also >> use satellites to measure how much energy is reflected and prove it is >> working." >> >> But Metcalfe warned that commercial backing for geo-engineering >> projects will remain very difficult to secure. "The problem with any >> project in the R&D phase is that an investor has to ask when it will >> start delivering," he said. " And with these projects that is just not >> clear." >> >> > >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
