Thanks to Sam for pulling together this matrix of evaluation criteria. Is anyone knowledgeable/brave/foolish enough to have a go at ranking the ideas against these criteria? I don't have the knowledge or the credibility.
A 2008/12/24 Sam Carana <[email protected]>: > Here are some points on which I have evaluated a number of geo-engineering > projects. I encourage others to suggest additions and changes. > > ======= > SCIENCE > ======= > - EXISTING STUDIES - Are relevant studies available? Has there been any > peer-review? > - FURTHER STUDY - What further studies and modeling are required? > - EFFECTIVENESS - How effective will the proposal be in reducing global > warming? > - TIMESCALE - How long will it take to see results? > - CONCERNS - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers? > > =========== > ENGINEERING > =========== > - METHODS - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed? > - TECHNICAL PROBLEMS - Could the project run into technical problems? > - TECHNOLOGIES - Does the project require development of new technologies? > - TESTING - Has any testing been done? At what scale? > > ========== > ECONOMICS > ========== > - COST - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages of) > implementations would cost? > - FINANCING - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing for > the project? > - RESOURCES - Will there be access to the various resources needed to make > it work? > - IMPACT - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the > project? > > ======= > POLITICS > ======= > - APPROVAL - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead? > - SUBSIDIES - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility studies > or for specific parts of the project? > - POLICY - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g. offset > policies, emissions trading or feebates? > - LEGAL - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can legal > challenges be expected? > - DIPLOMACY - Would the project require international negotiations between > nations? > - ADMINISTRATION - From where will the project be administered? > > =============== > SOCIAL & MEDICAL > =============== > - SUPPORT - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance against > the project? > - CONSULTATION - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public been > consulted? > - CONTROL - What level of policing, supervision and security is needed? What > monitoring is needed? > - MEDICAL - Would the project pose safety and health concerns? > - CULTURAL - Does the project offend some people in some way? > > ============ > ENVIRONMENT > ============ > - IMPACT STUDY - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are > further studies required? > - MAINTENANCE - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration required, to > prevent environmental damage? > > These points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to > implement with a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each point by > asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the respective > project. A high score would indicate that there can be expected to be little > or no difficulty on this point for the project, while a low score would > indicate that the project can be expected to have difficulty on this point. > > Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall score > for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more the project > should be of interest to members of this group. A high overall score should > indicate that there is sufficient confidence that the project is safe, > effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or no concern, risk or danger > that things could go wrong or that a proposal could cause damage or harm in > some way. > > Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one winner > is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach and to > continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel. > > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Here's the reference I used for soot. >> http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/geoengineering.htm >> >> I am pretty sure that soot from burning rainforests caused >> significant regional cooling in SE asia. >> >> If I'm wrong please can someone set me straight. >> >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>: >> > I cannot imagine how adding soot to the atmosphere would lead to cooling >> > instead of warming. >> > >> > On the use of sulfates, indeed there were problems as a result of >> > deposition. The worst problems occurred when the sulfate was not lofted >> > and >> > so dispersed, as opposed to local, concentrated deposition. Sometimes >> > this >> > occurred well down some particular trajectories (such as UK to >> > Scandinavia). >> > The question is whether there might be a way, by selectively determining >> > locations and the particular weather, to build up sulfate concentrations >> > over dark oceans rather than over land and forests. Certainly there >> > would >> > still be (and likely are now) some adverse consequences, but one would >> > seek >> > to minimize those. Then the question is how these impacts would compare >> > with >> > the effects of the warming that is being alleviated--and how this would >> > compare with the balance for other approaches and the costs and >> > challenges >> > of implementing the various approaches. >> > >> > Mike MacCracken >> > >> > >> > On 12/23/08 4:31 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories >> >> will put their views forward. >> >> >> >> I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way. It caused terrible >> >> damage to the forests of Europe in the 70s and 80s. At this time it >> >> was apparently difficult to establish exactly which sources were >> >> causing the problem. How can we ensure that this does not happen >> >> again? >> >> >> >> Furthermore, I understand that tropospheric soot is also very >> >> significant, and that some have proposed using 'dirty burn' in ships >> >> and aircraft to promote cooling. Smoke from rainforest fires in SE >> >> Asia is apparently sufficient to promote regional cooling. Should >> >> this go on the IN list? >> >> >> >> A >> >> >> >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>: >> >>> Dear Andrew-- >> >>> >> >>> Although not done intentionally (well, in many cases we have chosen >> >>> not to >> >>> use the technology that would maximally limit emissions), we are >> >>> already, >> >>> quite fortunately, creating a significant cooling influence with >> >>> tropospheric sulfate aerosols. While there are negative side effects, >> >>> comparing those against the impacts this cooling presently alleviates >> >>> (resulting from about the 0.5 C cooling influence) has not been done, >> >>> but >> >>> might not be clear-cut. >> >>> >> >>> In that there is no overwhelming negative influence of the >> >>> tropospheric >> >>> sulfate aerosols, one could well imagine increasing their amount, at >> >>> least >> >>> to generate additional sulfate aerosols in regions where ecological >> >>> impacts >> >>> are likely to be minimal. So, increasing tropospheric sulfur dioxide >> >>> emissions from the elevated stacks of coal-fired power plants or by >> >>> some >> >>> other means of lofting the sulfur dioxide to above the boundary layer >> >>> (where >> >>> its lifetime is long enough to allow conversion to sulfate aerosol) >> >>> would >> >>> seem to be an option to be included in the IN category. Indeed, there >> >>> may be >> >>> adverse impacts in terms of deposition and human health, but it may >> >>> well be >> >>> possible to manage the emissions to that they occur only for >> >>> trajectories >> >>> that take the sulfates out over the oceans or to other locations where >> >>> deposition would not be problematic. >> >>> >> >>> In fact, given the apparently increasing SO2 emissions from the new >> >>> coal-fired power plants in China (as evidenced by the high sulfate >> >>> levels >> >>> shown in the figure in the IPCC WG I report), this approach to >> >>> limiting >> >>> warming may already be having some effect--indeed, maybe, as in the >> >>> mid 20th >> >>> century, sulfates may be what seems to be somewhat slowing the warming >> >>> over >> >>> the past decade. >> >>> >> >>> Mike MacCracken >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 12/22/08 8:37 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Can anyone else help me 'rank' the technologies? Just because people >> >>>> talk about a tech lots doesn't mean it's actually any good! I'm >> >>>> getting the impression that the following are basically in/out >> >>>> >> >>>> IN >> >>>> Sea water spraying >> >>>> Sulphur stratospheric seeding >> >>>> Ocean fertilisation with iron/urea >> >>>> White roofs (nice but not very effective) >> >>>> >> >>>> DON'T KNOW >> >>>> Limestone powder into the sea >> >>>> Fake plastic trees >> >>>> Biochar >> >>>> Removing HCl from oceans >> >>>> >> >>>> OUT >> >>>> Nuclear bombs >> >>>> Space mirrors >> >>>> Shiny balloons >> >>>> Sea albedo from litter/pykrete >> >>>> Low level soot and sulphur burning >> >>>> >> >>>> This is obviously just a list based on my bar stool expertise. If >> >>>> anyone with more knowledge could help that would be appreciated. Any >> >>>> references to an objective ranking system that I can put in the wiki >> >>>> would be appreciated. >> >>>> >> >>>> A >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
