On wikipedia they are referred to as 'Solar radiation management' and 'Greenhouse gas remediation'. I suggest we stick to this. In practice, 'Carbon sequestration' is the only viable remediation technique at present. 'Albedo modification' is also a viable nomenclature. As I recall, all these expressions have a history of use. Whilst I'm 'on the phone' as it were, some other points: 1) Are there any papers or articles suggesting the use of cloud machines in the arctic? I know stephen has discussed it on the list. 2) As regards balloons, for what it's worth I really don't think that H2 release is sensible. We should design burners, and possibly us He as a lifting gas on a research scale only.
A 2009/3/30 Stuart Strand <[email protected]> > I suggest atmospheric remediation or greenhouse gas remediation. > Remediation has a successful engineering history, related to removal and > degradation of pollutants. SRM would be different. > > > > = Stuart = > > > > Stuart E. Strand > > 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > > voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 > > http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eugene I. Gordon > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 10:31 AM > *To:* 'John Nissen'; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; 'Ken Caldeira' > *Cc:* 'Geoengineering FIPC'; [email protected]; 'Indianice FIPC'; 'Peter > Read' > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen > or others who disagree you > > > > John, I agree. we need to coin another term so tht we may distinguish > between Geoengineering I and Geoengineering II. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Nissen [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 12:39 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Ken Caldeira > *Cc:* [email protected]; Geoengineering FIPC; [email protected]; > Indianice FIPC; Peter Read > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking > Hansen or others who disagree you > > > > Hi Albert, > > > > What I find incomprehensible is that Jim Hansen, who I admire greatly for > convincing people about the reality of global warming, should appear to be > supporting the message that emissions reduction (including sequestration) > *alone* can get us out of the mess we are in. Humanity has put a great > "pulse" (Hansen's word) of CO2 in the atmosphere, sufficient to cause over 2 > degrees of global warming, even *without* positive feedback making the > situation worse. I believe that climate models now indicate that, even if > we were to halt emissions overnight, it could take centuries for the CO2 to > return to pre-industrial levels, other things being equal. (Ken, do you > have a time for this, from your own modelling?) Thus to get the level > quickly down to the 350 ppm that Hansen now wants, we have to employ CO2 > extraction by geoengineering, bioengineering, aforestation and > reforestation. This perhaps requires "reengineering of the economy" in some > countries, e.g. for widespread uptake of biochar practice. > > > > So, thus far, I go along with Gene: > > > > We don't stand a chance in hell of significantly reducing GHG emissions > sufficiently to make a difference and if the lifetime of GHGs is as long as > some think, it is already too late for mitigation. All we have left is the > geoengineering option or building rocket transports to establish life on > another planet. I am a homebody so I elect geoengineering R&D. > > > > Now on top of this, we have colossal threats/risks from the Arctic sea ice > retreat and regional warming - one threat being sudden sea level rise (not > impossible), another being massive methane release from permafrost (possibly > enough to cause runaway global warming). To counter these threats we have > to use geoengineering to cool the Arctic. But this is extraordinarily * > inexpensive*, using stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening. > We don't have to reengineer any economies for this. Deployment cost could > work out at well under 1$ billion per year, which is peanuts compared to > bailing out banks for example. > > > > BTW, it is very confusing to lump the two quite different types of > geoengineering together - the one for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and > the other for cooling through solar radiation management (SRM). > > > > Cheers, > > > > John > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Albert Kallio <[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] ; [email protected] > > *Cc:* [email protected] ; Geoengineering > FIPC<[email protected]>; > [email protected] ; Indianice FIPC <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 3:27 PM > > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen > or others who disagree you > > > > *MISLEADING COMMENTS:* > > It is very *dangerous criticism *and unfair as Jim Hansen has put his skin > deep in and out to point out the dangers of climate change. An unhelpful > criticism like that sinking into the political patrons, and the rest > assured, there will be *no money and then no geoengineering*. > > Many on the emissinons curtailment camp point out to *Winston Churchill *as > an example to his ability to *re-engineer the economy to respond to the > threat*. In a just few years the UK industry was converted to supply > aeroplanes and munitions. > > As the car industry is going to decline in the US and UK due to falling > demand and cheap cars from elsewhere, what is better than *industrial > conversion *to make them to turn up wind turbines, solar energy gensets, > insulation materials, and - geoengineering gadgets. > > *Neither renewable energy nor geoengineering can be substantially > implemented without establisment of approppriate industrial base for both. > * Is someone just trying to create clever experiments whitout any intent > to fix the climate problem? > > [snip] > > *There are many things that can go wrong and badly, both known and > unknown, both agreed and disagreed, but blaming each others different > perspectives is just disgusting and leads into a dysfunctional response to > the grave danger.* > > Kind regards, > > Albert > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:55:50 -0400 > Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > If David Hawkins knows of a way to accomplish geoengineering research > absent third party funding, it might be helpful if he proffers his > knowledge. In the mean time, I suppose he would use OIF (the commercial > investment) as an example. Otherwise, he simple pricks the skin of the > geoengineers without helping whatever. > > > > David Schnare > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Hawkins, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gene says-- > > "Any honest scientists will agree that you cannot prove the negative; you > cannot prove that it will not be affordable; and you cannot prove that it > will not be available in time. In contrast dishonest scientists can make it > not happen by ignoring or deprecating the possibility; or by preventing it > from getting funding to establish feasibility, timing and cost." > > > > This statement is correct whether the word "it" represents geo-engineering > or emissions mitigation. But not everyone who raises questions about either > approach should be characterized as dishonest. And we should recognize that > "funding" is not the only tool available to society. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eugene I. Gordon > *Sent:* Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:10 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Revkin > *Subject:* [geo] Post on geoengineering > > This appeared today in the New York Times Dot Earth post by Andy Revkin on > Tipping Points. Please send comments and particularly send items to Andy > that he should include in an article on geoengineering. Many of you are just > a prestigious as the people he includes in his Posts. You can help him get > it done and get some discussion going. > > > > If you don't follow these posts you may not know that 'denier' is the term > used AGW aficionados to describe those who don't agree with them. I am > making a small twist of the knife > > > > -gene > > Andy, I continue to find it amazing that in all these discussions, > including this one on tipping points and the value of using it as a scare > tactic in forcing action on reducing use of fossil fuel, reality has not set > in. I was glad to see some experts in your Post point out that in effect > that 'crying polar bear', as in crying 'wolf', can be counter productive. > > Experts like Hansen keep pushing 'reduction' when it is clear that they are > working against a prevailing force or resistance that will only give slowly > if at all. The real deniers are those who are pushing for a change that > cannot occur to any great extent in the next half century and possibly > longer. > > Even more amazing is that these deniers never consider or discuss alternate > solutions such as geoengineering. In my opinion the human mind is capable of > producing viable techniques for reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the > Earth's surface or removing CO2 from the atmosphere long before it will be > able to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Any honest scientists will agree > that you cannot prove the negative; you cannot prove that it will not be > affordable; and you cannot prove that it will not be available in time. In > contrast dishonest scientists can make it not happen by ignoring or > deprecating the possibility; or by preventing it from getting funding to > establish feasibility, timing and cost. > > Hansen totally ignores it. That is incredible! By my limited definition > that makes Hansen a dishonest scientist. That cannot be refuted because that > limited claim is totally true. > > Finally I have to say Andy you are failing us by not including > geoengineering in the discussion, by not posting related comments by > experts, by not getting opinions from people like Chu and other government > 'experts'. > > And you readers please attack what I say. Produce your arguments and URLs > that pooh pooh geoengineering. You don't and you have not in the past > despite many past comments about geoengineering by me. You deniers, where > are your competitive juices? > > — Gene G, New Jersey > > > </div > </HTML<BR > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
