The issue must surely be the primary goal. Whether ocean fertilization affects albedo significantly is debatable, but it is not the primary goal -- merely a (possible) side effect.
For "albedo geoeng" I often use SRM (solar radiation management). Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
