Good point, John, the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect is such that we need to prepare to use everything we've got to counter this.
For starters, we should use techniques that are safe, such as where suitable selecting vegetation, roofs and pavement that are as white and reflective as possible. Pyrolysis of organic waste and biochar burial should definitely be adopted. We should switch to clean and safe ways to produce energy, concrete, etc. The more wind turbines, the more surplus energy, which can be used to make hydrogen, for air capture of CO2 and to power spraying seawater into the sky to change albedo above the sea. So, not only do all these technologies add up, they go hand in hand. One hand washes the other! Cheers! Sam Carana On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:56 PM, 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-revolution-now-says-stern.html > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.600-comment-time-for-a-green-industrial-revolution.html > > > 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-save-mankind.html?full=true > > > 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-revolution-now-says-stern.html >> >> 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 climate >>> modelling but poor weather forecasting. So we solve one man made disaster >>> by >>> setting up another? >>> >>> Consider, also, the energy implications of some of the suggested >>> processes. Whilst fossil fuels still provide most of our energy it >>> doesn't >>> seem such a good idea to embark on the world's largest ever engineering >>> venture and so to put even more CO2 into the atmosphere in the hope that >>> it >>> may cure the problem. Then there's another little problem: we're at the >>> beginning of a world-wide recession. The cost of many of the suggested >>> interventions, at least those with some hope of working, is massive so >>> engage in geo-engineering and imagine what will happen to renewables. I >>> wonder how long it would take most politicians and corporations to drop >>> any >>> help for renewable energy development because of the cost of the >>> intervention and because "a solution had been found". >>> >>> The real urgency is to begin to stop energy waste, to increase energy >>> efficiency and to rapidly improve and deploy mature renewable generation >>> technology. One of the worse aspects of the free market model is that >>> academia has moved even further from cooperation and into competition, >>> thus, >>> instead of seeing any sensible coordination of research and development >>> we >>> tend towards a scramble for new ideas to attract new money. There are >>> many >>> economists who have no understanding of the natural sciences and many >>> scientists who have as little understanding of economics. Unfortunately >>> there seems to be an equal number of people seeking change who have >>> little >>> understanding of either. Fortunately our economic circumstances and the >>> absence of any real degree of international political cooperation on >>> climate >>> change will almost certainly prevent such rash and dangerous action. >>> >>> 2009/1/21 John Nissen <[email protected]> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From Wikipedia: >>> > >>> > 'Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment > >>> > on >>> > a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability".' >>> > >>> > There are two main classes of geo-engineering: one dealing with >>> > radiation input to the Earth from the sun; the other dealing with > >>> > radiation >>> > output, trapped by greenhouse gases. The former class is sometimes > >>> > called >>> > Solar Radiation Management, SRM, and involves reflecting the sun's > >>> > radiation >>> > back into space. The latter class generally involves techniques to > >>> > lower >>> > the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. >>> > >>> > It is worth noting that one of the almost certain consequences of > >>> > global >>> > warming is the Arctic sea ice retreat, see: >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage >>> > This could be a tipping point for the whole Earth climate system, as >>> > further warming of the Arctic could lead to massive methane release > >>> > from >>> > permafrost - sufficient methane to cause runaway global warming. >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Roy Tindle >>> Creekside Forum/ >>> London Thames Gateway Forum >>> Telephone 020 8141 0271 >>> Mobile: 079 8884 7003 >>> [email protected] > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
