Dear Gregory, Ocean iron fertilization may fall under both "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration". It is proven to enhance albedo and may sequester additional carbon.
Oliver Wingenter On Sep 2, 11:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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-cli... > > >> 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
