Dear Tom, Please qualify your comments. I have three publications to qualify mine.
Oliver Wingenter On Sep 2, 9:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
