The reporting was pretty good, but the following is completely wrong: "With all of these potential problems, Professor Alan Robock is still confident that after much more research and theoretical tests, the negative consequences can be kept to a minimum and the benefits will greatly outweigh them."
This is not what I believe, and I never said this. What I think is that we need much more research so we can evaluate the negative consequences and benefits. It is impossible to be confident about something that is unknown. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Alvia Gaskill wrote: > Re: [geo] Re: Seminar Warns Congress of Evils of Aerosol GeoengineeringHow's > this for reportin', Mike? Sounds like the kid has a future in journalism. > But not with the Brent Bozo operation. > > http://blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?id=2851 > > Clean Coal and Geoengineering Seminar > "Two Engineering Measures to Reduce Global Warming: Injecting Particles into > the Atmosphere, and Clean Coal." > > By Ryan Delzer > > Student Correspondent for BlackHillsToday.com > The George Washington University > Washington DC., USA > > Clean Coal and Geoengineering Seminar > > Russel Senate Office Building, Washington, DC., Room 253 on Friday, November > 21, 2008, was packed with around thirty to forty people in business attire > with jobs ranging from scientists to "think tankers." This group of people > came together to hear lectures from Dr. Anthony Socci, Professor Alan Robock, > and Mr. Dale Simbeck. > > Dr. Anthony Socci, Senior Science Fellow at the American Meteorological > Society, opened, moderated, and presented the themes of the discussion: "Two > Engineering Measures to Reduce Global Warming: Injecting Particles into the > Atmosphere, and Clean Coal." Socci introduced distinguished lecturers, > Alan Robock, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Rutgers University, New > Brunswick, NJ, who spoke at length about injecting aerosols into the > atmosphere, and Dale Simbeck, Vice President and Founding Partner of SFA > Pacific, Inc., who discussed Clean Coal. Dr. Socci got the lectures > underway, as the crowd enjoyed refreshments. > > In opening this seminar panel lecture, Dr. Socci presented the main focus: > "Injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere rather than Geoengineering." > The Geoengineering (injecting particles into the atmosphere) part of the > lecture reflected the information that is currently available in the field. > Although Professor Robock didn't add anything new to the discussion, he did > succeed in providing those attending, with information on the current status > and stance of Geoengineering. Dr. Socci stated this Geoengineering scheme > is one of the more plausible ideas, at least compared to putting a trillion > dollar mirror in space for example, which is another more radical idea that > has been proposed. Socci said sulfates could be anything from SO2's to > H2S's, and could be injected in the tropics, the arctic, or both. This > essentially would be the same as a volcano erupting. Actually, the idea > would be to simulate the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, which by the release of > aerosols into the atmosphere would lower the global temperature briefly. > According to Dr. Socci, the reason the aerosols would be injected into the > upper atmosphere rather than the lower atmosphere is because they would last > longer (about 2 years) and the particles there would most likely remove the > health issues that might arise with the sulfates circulating in the air we > breathe. > > The next presenter, Professor Robock, claimed the majority of proponents for > Geoengineering agree with him, that Geoengineering is not a permanent > solution but rather a temporary fix until alternative energy sources and > carbon capturing is ready to play a larger role and can affect our current > warming trend. Also, Robock commented on the fact that even though sulfates > being injected into the upper atmosphere would reduce our global temperature > and even promote new growth of sea ice, these benefits would only persist as > long as you continue to inject the sulfates. Once the injections are > terminated the warming trend is continued rapidly which can actually prove to > be more fatal because of the rapid changes are more difficult for life to > adapt to. So, Robock's opinion was that this Geoengineering scheme would have > to be accompanied by other solutions, such as carbon capturing and reducing > carbon emissions through alternative energies. Otherwise the consequences > might be worse than the benefits. > > Professor Alan Robock also outlined 20 reasons why this scheme may not be > worth it and the reasons it may not work. A few of these are: ozone > disruption (larger and longer lasting ozone holes), ocean acidification which > may go as far as dissolving the corral, the production of a white haze way up > in the atmosphere which may affect different biology differently (although > sunsets would be spectacular), and less solar radiation since the sulfates > would reflect some of the radiation before it reaches the surface of the > Earth. A very scary aspect of this proposal is the question of whether any > unexpected consequences might arise, because it takes at least a year before > the sulfates are removed from the atmosphere so we would have to deal with > those consequences for at least that long. Also, there would be less > motivation to mitigate since the current problems would essentially disappear > but that is only a temporary disappearance. > > Questions that come to mind are the bigger problems to consider. It > obviously could be expensive. And, if it is successful, who controls the > thermostat? What if we want to cool the Earth but Russia wants to continue > the warming trend? Who gets to decide what happens? Also, if this solution > benefits humans but not certain animals or plants, do we go through with it > and harm the animals and plants while we get the benefits? > > Scientifically there is also a big problem: "How do we get the aerosols into > the upper atmosphere?" There are several proposals. Most of these proposals > are not practical or they have never been attempted before. One suggestion > expressed is, "to use weather balloons." However, the only problem with this > idea is that in order to get an effective amount of aerosols into the upper > atmosphere, we would have to use billions per year, which would essentially > litter plastic all over the Earth. Also, it is proposed to use a "space > elevator" which is basically a tank in space with a shaft coming down into > the atmosphere, which would release the sulfates. This has never been done > before and could be quite expensive. Another idea is flying aircrafts up > there, but we would have to invent new technologies of unmanned air vehicles > that could achieve that elevation, but the technology currently does not > exist. > > [Is this a preview of Alan's AGU presentation? Billions of balloons? You > wouldn't use weather balloons. Stratospheric high altitude balloons could be > used as I have described previously and the total would be hundreds or > thousands per day, not billions per year. The litter problem can also be > managed. Rich Turco told me last spring he thought that the launching would > be problematic. It might. To get a balloon that eventually inflates to the > size of a football stadium up carrying 8000 lbs of payload requires a crane > and a ground crew of a half dozen people. But they recently launched one > carrying an equipment package weighing several tons from Antarctica. > Antarctica. Anything you can do in Antarctica once you can do multiple times > anywhere else. Also, how do you think those Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloons > are launched? > > I haven't heard much about the space elevator in recent years. Maybe he is > thinking about Lowell Wood's high altitude blimp with the hose coming up from > the ground. I have my doubts about this one for several reasons and cost is > not among them. Getting the SO2 to stay gaseous passing through the cold > point region, the fact that no floating platform exists and efforts to > develop one have stalled and the structural stability issues associated with > a 15-mile-long hose are among the engineering challenges. > > Alan has apparently never heard of the US Air Force which has flown numerous > aircraft over the years capable of reaching nearly 100,000 ft (even the > ancient F-4 which is mentioned in another posting coming up). I proposed the > F-15C Eagle because of its (a) service ceiling of nearly 70,000 ft, (b) > ability to carry significant payloads under the wings (8 tons total or around > 4 tons of a gas like H2S or SO2), (c) range of nearly 1000 miles, and (d) > availability of nearly 1100 of these and similar Russian planes. > > Whether the F-15C can be used for this or some other kind of aircraft needs > to be designed has to be determined, e.g., a modern version of the Valkyrie. > Also to be determined is if the quantities of precursor gas needed to offset > AGW forcing are significantly more than those estimated based on Pinatubo's > eruption, i.e. whether the processes that produce the aerosol from a manmade > release of gas will result in droplets too large to be effective and require > many more times that from the Pinatubo calculations. So there are unanswered > questions about the use of aircraft as delivery platforms, but service > ceiling is not one of them. AG] > With all of these potential problems, Professor Alan Robock is still > confident that after much more research and theoretical tests, the negative > consequences can be kept to a minimum and the benefits will greatly outweigh > them. > > [Well that's good to know! AG] > > He sees this solution working in conjunction with mitigation, such as energy > alternatives, solving this huge problem. However, he stated, some other > benefits may include reducing ocean acidification, dependence upon foreign > oil thus reducing terrorism simultaneously, freeing resources from the > military budget, and creation of job opportunities. Whether these benefits > will prove to outweigh the consequences , they will be discovered in the > future with further research and tests. > > [Now that the political campaigns are finally over, can we stop talking about > "foreign oil" as this does not exist. There is oil and there is an oil > market. There is no foreign oil. We do import petroleum, but most of it > comes from Canada and Mexico, not Iran as the politicians keep implying. The > Saudis learned the hard way that when you turn off the tap, it only > encourages domestic exploration. Even Mr. Terrorism himself, Osama bin Laden > said his imaginary coast-to- coast Caliphate would be supported by selling > the Infidels crude at $147/barrel, enough to keep us poor and out of his way. > For a time last summer, the price was right. Today? <$50/barrel and > everybody's worried about a Great Depression. Without their oil revenues, > Saudi Arabia and Nigeria would be more like Somalia. Pirates of the Atlantic > anyone? AG] > > Next lecturer, Mr. Dale Simbeck, began his speech on Clean Coal. This portion > of the lecture was a bit hard to follow. Simbeck really was not given > enough time for what he wanted to say, so he often found himself rushing > through his presentation. The main points that I feel needed to be expressed > were; that in truth, it should not be called Clean Coal for that does not > exist. It should be called "low carbon fuel." It remains very cheap. Even > though coal has a bad rap, it is still the fastest growing energy resource. > Also, probably one of the most surprising facts is that the majority of US's > coal plants are old and inefficient which leads to China being 20% more > efficient in coal than the US. However, Simbeck also defended us by saying, > "even though the US produces 20% of world carbon emissions we also make up > 20% of the GDP." Mr. Simbeck additionally said, "food for fuel [or biomass > fuel] is the most disgraceful thing I have seen out of Washington." > > [The big problem with carbohydrate generated ethanol is not loss of the food > value. Most of the non starch component is reused as animal feed, which is > where most of the corn winds up anyway. It's the substitution of corn for > wheat in what is grown that contributes to price increases. So we're not > burning food, we're wasting land. AG] > > This seems to be a general consensus with many people currently, except, > for the areas that revolve around agriculture like the Midwest. Simbeck > believes Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is an important step to get things > geared for a more energy efficient US. However, we need an incentive to make > anthropogenic carbon dioxide to be put into the ground. Finally, Simbeck > pointed out that Clean Coal is out there and the Dakota Gasification Plant is > one example located in North Dakota. Simbeck believes that our movement > should be to rebuild plants, not retrofit in order to make them efficient, > such as the Dakota Gasification Plant. > > All in all, this presentation didn't offer any new insights into these two > topics. However, this was a great resource to be educated in the field of > solving Global Warming. I thought the speakers did a good job presenting > their solutions. The only problem I saw with the program was that the > speakers could have used an extra hour to fully develop their ideas. The > presentation and their Power Points will soon be available to the public on > this site, http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/ESSSarchiveclimatechange.html > > [My final comment about these seminars is that I am disappointed they were > not well advertised in advance. Maybe they were on the AMS website, but > Google only indexed them after the fact. C-SPAN has covered these in the > past. Were they there this time? Not in the CSPAN archives. But I'll be > on the lookout for those presentations and the audio/video versions that > according to the wesbsite will be posted soon. AG] > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mike MacCracken > To: Ken Caldeira ; Geoengineering > Cc: Tony Socci > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 7:33 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Seminar Warns Congress of Evils of Aerosol Geoengineering > > > Ken?You forgot to include their appropriate slogan ?The Right News, Right > Now.? That?s right, they?re right. Here is an example of their view of > unbiased reporting: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1984057/posts > --anyone think this is a really balanced choice of commenters? > > Mike > > > On 12/1/08 1:23 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is a terrible job of reporting because it is representing Alan > Robock's views as the views of the American Meteorological Society. > > http://www.cnsnews.com/public/static.aspx?PageID=18 > > About Us > > > The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source > for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium > on balance than spin and seek news that's ignored or under-reported as a > result of media bias by omission. > > Study after study by the Media Research Center <http://www.mrc.org/> , the > parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in > many news outlets ? bias by commission and bias by omission ? that results in > a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news." > > In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III > <http://www.mrc.org/archive/newscol/welcome.asp> founded CNSNews.com in an > effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that > are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias > by commission. > > CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story > and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues. > > CNSNews.com has a full staff of credentialed journalists at its world > headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, staffs full time news bureaus in > Jerusalem and the Pacific Rim, and works with credentialed correspondents in > London, Paris, Moscow and Nairobi. In addition to news, CNSNews.com is proud > to present a full slate of commentaries by some of the brightest minds and > sharpest wits in the nation, and a full stable of cartoonists to provide you > with a morning political chuckle. > > CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center, a not-for-profit > 501 (c)(3) organization. Like National Public Radio and the Public > Broadcasting System, CNSNews.com is able to provide its services and > information to the public at no cost, thanks to the generous support of our > thousands of donors and their tax-deductible contributions. However, unlike > NPR or PBS, CNSNews.com does not accept any federal tax money for its > operations. > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:20 AM, John Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello Alvia et al., > > I'm not sure who is defining the Crutzen stratospheric scheme as > "Aerosol Engineering", but it is misleading in the sense that: (1) > there are other stratospheric seeding ideas, suggested principally by > Lowell Wood, which do not possess the disadvantages adduced to the > Crutzen idea, but are still "aerosol geo-engineering". The same is > true of the tropospheric cloud seeding scheme on which colleagues and > I are working. So I think, for clarity's sake, it is better to call > the sulphur scheme something more specific like the Crutzen > geoengineering idea. > > I hasten to say that in my view the Crutzen scheme has high promise of > being efficacious, and research into it should definitely be pursued > in order to assess fully its feasibility and ramifications (as should > be done with all ideas that have significant promise). > > Cheers, John. > > **************** > > > Quoting "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40003 > > > > Scientists Discuss Replicating Volcano's Effect to Cool Climate > > Monday, December 01, 2008 > > By Sara Burrows > > > > > > (CNSNews.com) - Scientists discussed the merits and demerits of > > pumping sulfur into the Earth's atmosphere as a temporary "fix" to > > global warming at a forum hosted in Washington, D.C., on November 21 > > by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). > > > > The idea is to artificially re-create the effects of volcanic > > eruptions in an effort to temporarily cool the planet. > > > > In 2006, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and National > > Center for Atmospheric Research Senior Scientist Tom Wigley > > suggested that "geoengineering" might be used as a quick, but > > temporary, remedy for global warming. This idea was one of the > > issues discussed at the AMS forum. > > > > "In particular, Crutzen and Wigley focused on blocking incoming > > solar radiation, an idea that has generated much interest in the > > press and the scientific community," the AMS explained in a posting > > on the forum on its website. "Nature offers an example of how to do > > this. Volcanic eruptions cool the climate for up to a couple of > > years by injecting precursors to sulfate aerosol particles into the > > stratosphere, which has the effect of temporarily blocking incoming > > sunlight." > > > > The AMS, however, indicated that it is worried that geo-engineering > > of this type has the potential to create more problems than it > > solves. [I'm not aware that the AMS has taken a position on > > geoengineering. This was a seminar hosted by AMS and although as I > > previously commented, pretty one-sided, most seminars are not > > debates. AG] > > > > On its website (ametsoc.org <http://ametsoc.org> ), it lists depletion > of the ozone layer, > > a reduction in rainfall, and an unknown impact on plant life as > > some of the undesirable potential side effects of geoengineering. > > > > Injecting sulfur into the atmosphere would also cost taxpayers. > > > > "Nobody knows what a system would cost," said Alan Robock, a > > professor of atmospheric science at Rutgers, said at the forum. > > "There have been estimates it would cost from $10 to $100 billion > > dollars a year to counteract the warming that's going on." [Those > > numbers are on the high side and would be the cost to the entire > > world to offset a doubling or more of CO2 equivalent. Opponents of > > geoengineering always push the worst case to make theirs. AG] > > > > Even though Robock said he is concerned about the long list of > > potential problems associated with geo-engineering, he said society > > may get to the point where it has no choice but to use an emergency > > measure like sulfur injections to cool global temperatures. [Too > > late then boys. AG] > > > > Anthony Socci, a senior science fellow at AMS, agreed. > > > > "This problem is coming at us faster and larger than we thought. We > > may find ourselves backed against a wall and be forced to look at > > these temporary solutions in a more serious way," he said. > > > > Freder Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the > > University of Virginia, doesn't see the human race getting backed > > against a wall by global warming. [That's Frederick Singer, Denier > > Emeritus. AG] > > > > "My feeling is global warming is not a problem. It's not a threat. > > Therefore all of these fancy schemes are not only useless but a > > waste of resources," he told CNSNews.com. > > > > In Unstoppable Global Warming, a book he co-authored with Dennis T. > > Avery, Singer argues that the Earth goes through natural warming and > > cooling cycles every 1,500 years. He agrees that we are presently > > experiencing a warming trend, but does not think it is dangerous. > > > > Singer says geo-engineering schemes like sulfur injections are > > expensive, useless and dangerous. "It's like trying to turn the sun > > off ? it makes no sense," he said. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Alvia Gaskill > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:43 AM > > Subject: Seminar Warns Congress of Evils of Aerosol Geoengineering > > > > > > Hey, what happened to the acid rain? I guess it wouldn't be > > Debbie Downerish to mention that this problem has largely been > > determined to be irrelevant. > > > > > http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/EnvironmentalScienceSeminarSeries.html > > > > American Meteorological Society's Environmental Science Seminar > Series > > Two Engineering Measures to Reduce Global Warming: > > Injecting Particles into the Atmosphere and "Clean" Coal > > > > Friday, November 21, 2008 > > New Time - 10:00 AM - 12:00 noon > > Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253 > > Washington, DC > > > > What is geoengineering? How might injecting sulfate aerosol > > particles into the stratosphere result in a temporary planetary > > cooling? Would this be analogous to creating the equivalent of a > > long-term volcanic eruption? Would this be a permanent solution to a > > global warming or an exercise in buying time to effectively address > > the root cause of the climate problem? What is the logic behind it > > and what are the mechanics of it? What sorts of policies would > > likely have to be in place in order to engage in such a venture? Who > > decides and who is liable if things go awry? Does science inform us > > of the potential risks and negative impacts of engaging in such a > > venture? Is clean coal and carbon capture and storage one and the > > same? What is meant by the term 'clean' in clean coal? Does the > > technology currently exist to produce clean coal on a massive scale > > and if so, at what cost relative to today's energy costs. What are > > the risks of leakage of CO2 from underground storage reservoirs > > after the fact? Who is likely to be liable for leakage? How much of > > a difference would clean coal technology ideally make in mitigating > > our present climate trajectory? > > > > Moderator: > > > > Dr. Anthony Socci, Senior Science Fellow, American Meteorological > Society > > > > Speakers: > > > > Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science; > > Director of the Meteorology Undergraduate Program, and Associate > > Director, Center for Environmental Prediction, Department of > > Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ > > > > Dale Simbeck, Vice President and Founding Partner of SFA Pacific, > > Inc., Technology and Energy Consultants, Mountain View, CA > > > > Program Summary > > > > Managing Incoming Solar Radiation > > Largely out of concern that society may fall short of taking large > > and rapid enough measures to effectively contain the problem of > > global warming, two prominent atmospheric scientists - Paul Crutzen, > > who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995, and Tom Wigley, a > > senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research - > > published papers in 2006, suggesting that society might consider > > using geoengineering schemes to identify a temporarily "fix" to the > > problem. The schemes were suggested as an interim measure intended > > to buy time to prevent the worst damage from global warming while > > society used that time to identify and deploy measures to address > > the root cause of the problem. Such suggestions however, are not new. > > > > The concept of geoengineering - deliberately using technology to > > modify Earth's environment - has been discussed in the context of > > climate change since at least 1960. Over the years, proposals have > > included everything from carbon sequestration through ocean > > fertilization to damming the oceans. Crutzen and Wigley argued that > > geoengineering schemes, if done continuously, could reduce global > > warming enough to buy society time to address mitigation. However, > > geoengineering schemes may not be the answer. And in fact, such > > measures have the potential to create more problems than they solve. > > > > In particular, Crutzen and Wigley focused on blocking incoming > > solar radiation, an idea that has generated much interest in the > > press and the scientific community. Nature offers an example of how > > to do this. Volcanic eruptions cool the climate for up to a couple > > of years by injecting precursors to sulfate aerosol particles into > > the stratosphere, which has the effect of temporarily blocking > > incoming sunlight. It is true that volcanic eruptions cool the > > climate, but their effects are not innocuous, and should serve as a > > warning to society to be very cautious about deploying such > > geoengineering "solutions" without careful and considered evaluation > > beforehand. Among other things, the particles from volcanic > > eruptions also cause ozone depletion. > > > > [The aerosol droplets (liquid, not particles) don't actually cause > > ozone depletion. The ozone depletion reactions occur on the > > surfaces of the frozen droplets. The ozone depletion issue has been > > greatly overhyped and simply mentioning this to policymakers > > without context is bound to lead to false conclusions about the > > seriousness of any impacts. AG] > > > > Furthermore, reducing solar radiation also reduces evaporation, > > and hence precipitation, more than warming by greenhouse gases > > increases precipitation. Thus, checking the temperature (incoming > > solar radiation) with aerosols actually reduces global average > > precipitation. > > > > [Correct. However, by reducing evaporation, that also means that > > surface water supplies last longer. So it is the net effect that > > matters. Also fails to note that global warming will dry out the > > Amazon (as one example) much faster than will aerosols. Like > > politics, all climate is local. AG] > > > > Furthermore, the cooling from such measures is not uniform. In the > > Northern Hemisphere, aerosols cause more cooling over the Eurasian > > continent than over the oceans in the summer, thus reducing the > > strength of the Asian summer monsoon, which provides rain to grow > > the food supply for billions of people. > > > > [Again, overgeneralizing to scare policymakers by implying that > > billions of people are at risk of starving to death. Also, no > > studies have been done to see if modulating the aerosols can limit > > any precipitation reduction, either from aerosol or cloud > > brightening. For example, if the effects could be countered by > > adding ammonia to the stratosphere near where the monsoonal flows > > originate, this might remove the aerosol in those areas and allow > > the temperature differential to be restored to pre-aerosol > > conditions. It may not be possible, but such ideas haven't been > > looked at. You continue to treat this subject as if it were part of > > a college textbook where all the science is settled, all the facts > > are in and there is nothing left to learn. Ludditism 101. AG] > > > > Reductions in rain have historically been observed after major > > volcanic eruptions, but they only last a year or two, and do not > > have long-lasting consequences. With continuous geoengineering, > > however, these effects would persist for years. > > > > [Not known for certain. Also, the level of aerosol forcing would > > determine how much the precipitation is reduced. Your conclusions > > are based on Pinatubo-scale aerosol levels. More studies are needed > > on the impacts of lower levels as levels approaching those of > > Pinatubo would not be required for decades or perhaps all. AG] > > > > There are other reasons to be concerned about "solar radiation > > management." There would be less solar radiation for solar power, > > especially for systems requiring direct radiation. > > > > [Again, dependent on the level of aerosols used. Also, no > > conclusive studies that this would be the case for photovoltaics. > > Also, the impact on thermal systems that would be built in the > > future is unknown. AG] > > > > Plant growth would be affected in still unknown ways. > > > > [So rather than saying that plant growth would be enhanced by an > > increase in diffuse light, a potential benefit and an offset to > > reduced precipitation as well as GHG emissions, let's just say we > > don't know. At least we didn't say that plant growth would be > > reduced because of this as has been the case before from some > > critics of the aerosol idea. AG] > > > > And by not dealing directly with greenhouse gas emissions, carbon > > dioxide would continue to accumulate in the oceans and the > > atmosphere, resulting in more ocean acidification and the continued > > build up of more climate-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. > > > > [But did you also know that by reducing global warming, the > > feedback systems would also be slowed, thus preventing some CO2 and > > CH4 from entering the atmosphere and eventually the ocean? Of > > course you did. AG] > > > > Furthermore, if such geoengineering were to stop precipitously, as > > a result of failures of technology, societal will or capability, > > warming would likely be exceptionally rapid, as these measures treat > > the symptoms of a warming climate and not the root causes. The rate > > of climate change is also one of the most important disrupting > > factors. > > > > [Wouldn't be a critical presentation without trying to scare > > everybody. But just how realistic is this scenario? Hoover Dam, > > the Golden Gate Bridge and the Empire State Building were all built > > during the Great Depression. You can't tell me that the aerosol > > technology would be any more difficult that those projects, all of > > which went on for years. The Interstate Highway system was begun in > > the 1950's and continues to operate today. AG] > > > > Even if geoengineering proved effective in the short term, whose > > hand would be on the thermostat? Who would be held liable if the > > experiments went awry? Furthermore, it is possible that the world > > could not agree on an optimal temporary cooling. What if Russia, for > > example, wanted the temperature to be a couple of degrees warmer > > and India a couple degrees cooler? And who would arbitrate? Should > > this temporary cooling effect set the planetary temperature to the > > pre-industrial value or keep it constant at today's temperature? > > Would it be possible to tailor the climate of each region of the > > planet independently without affecting the others? Current > > scientific understanding of these issues says no. Consequently, if > > society proceeds with geoengineering schemes, might it also be > > setting the stage for climate wars of the future? > > > > [Ridiculous. You could make the same argument about Kyoto or > > global trade agreements. Your own work points to the real threat > > and it isn't from geoengineering. India vs. Pakistan or China over > > water because of unchecked climate change. Nuclear war. Ozone > > layer destroyed. Everyone dies. AG] > > > > One of the most important concerns among many [Many as in people > > or as in the number of concerns? AG] is that schemes perceived to > > temporarily cool the planet will lessen the incentive to mitigate > > greenhouse gas emissions or worse, give the impression of being > > permanent solutions to the root causes of climate change. Yes, > > geoengineering research should continue. Society desperately needs > > to better understand the efficacy and potential problems related to > > such measures. Unfortunately, there are no current US research > > programs on geoengineering, nor any funding for such programs. > > > > [Well after hearing this talk, I'm sure the budget writers will be > > busy over the holidays. AG] > > > > At some point society may well need to consider geoengineering as > > an emergency stop-gap measure, but such a decision should be > > informed by modeling studies to better assess the potential impacts > > and the dangers involved. > > > > [Only modeling studies? You mean like those that are done at > > academic institutions? AG] > > > > However, even if geoengineering measures are deployed, society > > would be remiss to fall into the trap of equating treating the > > symptoms of the problem with measures that serve to mitigate the > > root causes of the problem. The more headway society is capable of > > making in the realm of mitigating climate change, the less likely > > society might need to deploy interim geoengineering measures. > > > > [Dream on. Makes it sound as if geoengineering were the threat > > and not climate change. AG] > > > > > > > > Clean Coal Technology and Future Prospects > > Clean coal technologies are real, commonly used in commercial > > industrial gasification and likely essential to reduce CO2 due to > > the fast growing use of coal worldwide, especially in China. > > Commercial example of clean coal technology in the USA is the 25 > > year-old coal to synthetic natural gas (SNG) plant in North Dakota > > where all of the CO2 is captured and most is geologically storage > > for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in Canada. > > > > The key issue is expanding clean coal technologies into coal-based > > electric power generation. This expansion presents additional > > challenges - more technology options and higher cost of CO2 capture > > than for industrial gasification. This also requires large-scale > > demonstration of all three CO2 capture technology options: pre, post > > and oxygen combustion. In time, the CO2 capture and storage costs > > will be reduced by both "learning by doing" and developing advanced > > technologies already moving in to small-scale demonstrations. > > > > The way forward is likely to focus on CO2 capture and storage > > (CCS) based on rebuilding the old, paid-off, lower efficiency and > > relatively dirty coal power plants in the USA. This approach can > > avoid capacity and efficiency loses of CCS while at the same time > > greatly reducing all emissions. > > > > Biographies > > Dr. Alan Robock is a Distinguished Professor of atmospheric > > science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers > > University and the associate director of its Center for > > Environmental Prediction. He also directs the Rutgers Undergraduate > > Meteorology Program. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin, > > Madison, in 1970 with a B.A. in Meteorology, and from the > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology with an S.M. in 1974 and Ph.D. > > in 1977 in Meteorology. Before graduate school, he served as a > > Peace Corps Volunteer in the Philippines. He was a professor at the > > University of Maryland, 1977-1997, and the State Climatologist of > > Maryland, 1991-1997, before coming to Rutgers. > > > > Dr. Robock has published more than 250 articles on his research in > > the area of climate change, including more than 150 peer-reviewed > > papers. His areas of expertise include geoengineering, regional > > atmosphere-hydrology modeling, climatic effects of nuclear weapons, > > soil moisture variations, the effects of volcanic eruptions on > > climate, detection and attribution of human effects on the climate > > system, and the impacts of climate change on human activities. > > > > Dr. Robock is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and > > President of the Atmospheric Sciences Section of the American > > Geophysical Union. He has been a Member Representative for Rutgers > > to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research since 2001, > > and serves on its President's Advisory Committee on University > > Relations. Dr. Robock is also the American Meteorological > > Society/Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer for the academic year > > 2008-2009, and is a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on > > Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. > > > > During his first sabbatical in 1986-1987, Dr. Robock was a AAAS > > Congressional Science Fellow. At that time he served as a > > Legislative Assistant to Congressman Bill Green (R-NY), and as a > > Research Fellow for the Environmental and Energy Study Conference. > > > > Dale Simbeck joined SFA Pacific in 1980 as a founding partner. His > > principal activities involve technical, economic and market > > assessments of energy and environmental technologies for the major > > international energy companies. This work includes electric power > > generation, heavy oil upgrading, emission controls and synthesis gas > > production plus utilization. > > > > Mr. Simbeck's work on the global climate change issue includes a > > private multiclient analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation options > > for over 30 major international energy companies. Among a host of > > things, he was a lead author of the 2005 IPCC Special Report on CO2 > > Capture and Storage (CCS). He is also an advisor to the CO2 Capture > > Projects (CCP-1&2) and the Canadian Clean Power Coalition (CCPC). > > His public assistance on this important issue includes work for the > > United Nations, World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) > > and the Governments of Canada, China and the United States. > > > > Mr. Simbeck is a Chemical Engineering graduate of Pennsylvania > > State University. He has also assisted the Engineering Department of > > Stanford University as a Ph.D. advisor and Massachusetts Institute > > of Technology as a member of the External Advisory Broad to the MIT > > Energy Lab. Dale is a Registered Professional Engineer in California > > and has made numerous presentations on the technical and economic > > challenges of CO2 mitigation and clean coal technology. His peer > > reviewed papers on CO2 mitigation are mostly for the 1998-2006 > > International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies (GHGT), > > including a technical session keynote at the GHGT-9 in Washington, > > DC. November 17, 2008. > > > > This seminar series is open to the public and does not require a > > reservation. To bypass the registration table on the day of the > > seminar, please use the online form. This ensures you will receive > > future email notifications for our seminars. > > > > This seminar series is open to the public and does not require a > > reservation. > > > > The Next Seminar is tentatively scheduled for the second week in > > December, 2008. > > Topic: Coming to Grips with Sustainable Practices - A Peek into > > the Near Future > > > > Please see our web site for seminar summaries, presentations and > > future events: http://www.ametsoc.org/seminar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
