There are three possible ways of doing geoengineering: managing solar radiation, removing greenhouse gases to unblock terrestrial radiation, and managing transport of sensible and latent heat within the atmosphere. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person in the entire world who favors the third possibility. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against it (except insofar as they argue against all geoengineering); they just don't acknowledge that it's one of the options.
On Jan 23, 7:56 am, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > As usual, people are ignoring the problem of the rapid Arctic sea ice > disappearance, which is arguably a tipping point for the whole Earth's > climate system. > > There is no alternative to geoengineering for cooling the Arctic region and > saving the Arctic sea ice. But it requires the SRM-type geoengineering [1], > not carbon-removal-type geoengineering, that James Lovelock talks about. > > Reducing CO2 to 350 ppm would still leave considerable positive forcing on > the Earth's climate system - currently estimated at a net 1.6 Watts per > square metre. The albedo effect, as reflective sea ice is replaced by > sunlight-absorbing water, is of the order of 30 Watts per square metre. > This is a measure of what we are up against. But SRM has a chance to > counter this albedo effect by another albedo effect, i.e. using clouds to > reflect sunlight before it reaches the sea surface. > > So Stern is wrong. A green revolution will not save us. > > And Lovelock is wrong. Carbon removal will not save us. > > And Hansen is wrong. Bringing CO2 down to 350 ppm, however quickly, will > not save us. > > But SRM geoengineering might save us, just, if we're quick about it. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > [1] SRM is solar radiation management, and there are two leading candidate > techniques: one using stratospheric aerosols, and the other brightening > marine clouds (in the troposphere). > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "greenhouse effect" > > <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" > <[email protected]>; "geo-engineering" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:56 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: What is geo-engineering? > > Thanks, David, > > Good to point at the Stern article and comment in New Scientist, > at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16433-launch-green-economic-rev...http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.600-comment-time-for-a... > > In that same edition of New Scientist, there's an interview with James > Lovelock entitled: 'One last chance to save mankind'. > In it, Lovelock says: > > "There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the > massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their > agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent > the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying > it in the soil. [We could get] farmers to burn their crop waste at > very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then > ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it > gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a > by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This > scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is > the one thing we can do that will make a difference..." > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to... > > It's good to see that both Lovelock and James Hansen advocate the same > solution. Hansen seeks to bring CO2 levels down to 350ppm. > > In my article "Four Cycles of a Sustainable Economy", I recommend a > combination of techniques, two of which could be regarded as forms of > geoengineering that are safe enough to start with > immediately.http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977561808 > The techniques I recommend include: > - pyrolysis and biochar burial > - air capture > - switching to clean and safe energy > > It's crucially important to implement the right policies to get things > started. > There has not been enough debate on what are the most effective policy > instruments. > In my view, this means feebates. > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:28 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > > Prof. Stern makes the point I was making a year ago now - that we have now > > gone past the 2 degC tipping point (450 ppm CO2eq). He now claims we have > > to try to stay under 500 ppm so as to stay below 4 deg C increase - well > > past what has been projected as the point of no return for the arctic. > > > Comment: Time for a green industrial revolution > > > 21 January 2009 by > > > Nicholas Stern > > >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16433-launch-green-economic-rev... > > > AS THE world faces up to the worst global financial crisis since the > > 1930s, > > the economic case for tackling the global climate crisis is more > > compelling > > than ever. Fortunately, our ability to respond has also increased as we > > embark upon a technological revolution that will drive sustainable growth > > and development of a low-carbon global economy. > > > Since my colleagues and I published the > > > Stern Review on the economics of climate change in 2006, it has become > > apparent that the risks and potential costs are even greater than we > > originally recognised. Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing > > more > > quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases > > now > > appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures > > due > > to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a > > warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected. > > > So, whereas our review > > > recommended that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be > > stabilised within a range of 450 to 550 parts per million of carbon > > dioxide-equivalent, it now seems that our target should not exceed 500 > > ppm. > > That's if we are to keep down the risks of potentially catastrophic > > impacts > > which could result from average global temperatures rising 4 °C or more > > above pre-industrial levels. Over the longer term, it is important to > > limit > > concentrations more tightly still. > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:57 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Dear Roy, > > >> Thank you for your detailed response. > > >> You raise some issues about the risks of geo-engineering - but what is > >> the > >> risk of not geo-engineering? I believe that if we do not use > >> geo-engineering, at least to save the Arctic sea ice, we will condemn the > >> world to (a) massive methane release from permafrost, leading to many > >> degrees of global warming (b) Greenland ice sheet disintegration, leading > >> to > >> many metres of sea level rise. It is difficult to imagine how > >> civilisation > >> could survive such a double whammy. > > >> Thus, when you consider this risk of not geoengineering, any risks > >> associated with the two SRM geoengineering techniques I recommend > >> (essentially mimicking of natural processes - volcanic discharge into > >> stratosphere and sea spray), pall into insignificance. > > >> Note that the conventional wisdom is that we can prevent global warming > >> if > >> we make sufficient emissions cuts (e.g. by more efficient use of energy > >> and > >> by use of renewables) over the next few decades. This is a lie. It is a > >> lie for the following reasons: > > >> 1. the lifetime of CO2 is effectively thousands of years, so global > >> warming from anthropogenic legacy CO2 is bound to continue into the next > >> century unabated; > > >> 2. even if CO2 levels could be reduced to 350 ppm over a few decades > >> (Prof > >> Hansen's target), the Arctic is warming so rapidly that the methane > >> release > >> and Greenland ice sheet disintegration will happen before the reduction > >> in > >> greenhouse gas forcing could have any significant effect; > > >> 3. one actually needs a negative forcing to cool the Arctic - reduction > >> of CO2 levels, even to a pre-industrial level, will reduce the positive > >> forcing, but not make it go negative. > > >> 4. the net positive forcing from greenhouse gases is of the order of 1.6 > >> Watts/m2, whereas we need to counter a much higher forcing, of the order > >> of > >> 30 Watts/m2, caused by the Arctic sea ice albedo effect (as ice replaced > >> by > >> sea, solar energy is mostly absorbed instead of being mostly reflected > >> back > >> into space). > > >> There is no alternative to geoengineering for saving the Arctic sea ice. > > >> BTW, neither geoengineering technique is particularly expensive (each > >> would cost less than $1 billion per year), and neither uses much energy > >> for > >> deployment compared to solar energy reflected. Nor is there any > >> commercial > >> interest in providing the technology, because there is nothing to sell. > > >> Cheers, > > >> John > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Roy Tindle > >> To: John Nissen > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:47 PM > >> Subject: Re: [localsustuk] Re: [geo] What is geo-engineering? > >> Interesting quote from Wikipedia but what a pity that the article wasn't > >> quoted in full. But that wouldn't have supported this dead-end case, > >> would > >> it? > > >> Wikipedia, quite correctly, observes the many pitfalls, dangers and > >> objections to these techniques, much promoted by engineering companies > >> who > >> could profit from such dangerous interventions - and by those with only a > >> passing understanding of the physics - and chemistry - involved. > > >> Perhaps the most significant point to observe is that any major attempt > >> at > >> a worldwide Geo -engineering project would require world wide political > >> agreement. Wikipedia refers to the possibility of side effects such as > >> droughts etc, any of which could easily be regarded as deliberate and > >> which > >> could spark a global conflict. Imagine, for example, a US led initiative > >> to > >> spray sulphur dioxide aerosols into the upper atmosphere and that these > >> fell > >> as crop destroying acid rain on Russia and caused an extreme drought in > >> Iran. > > >> Our understanding of atmospheric physics has grown considerably but it > >> has > >> a long way to go. There are still far too many interactions that we can > >> not > >> fully understand and the complexity of these interactions is so great > >> that > >> we are unable to compute them with accuracy. Hence we have good > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
