As I understand it, a common process for CCS from coal plant is to burn the coal in oxygen-enhanced air, and then sequester the entire stack emissions. (not that they'd be stack emissions anymore, but that's semantics). This would preclude the application of your suggested technique in that instance. Further, any 'wet' processes will tend to scrub SO2 as it has a high affinity for water (from my high-school chemistry knowledge). In any event, the cooling effect of SO2 in the troposphere is short-lived (although important, as my previous posts have suggested). Further, tropospheric SO2 contributes to acid rain significantly, and to dry deposition (which causes erosion of buildings and, I believe, respiratory problems.) It's pretty nasty stuff, and the stratosphere seems by far a better place for it.
Nevertheless, as I've discussed previously, the often-ignored consequence of mitigation is a significant reduction in such tropospheric aerosols will 'unmask' the true extent of global warming. What's often ignored in this debate, is that an immediate halt to emissions would make AGW significantly worse, not better. We're all global climate junkies, hooked on pollution and emissions to keep our planet together - whilst those same emissions destroy it. I don't think this problem has been given half enough attention. A 2009/4/4 Peter Read <[email protected]> > A subversive thought > Is not the logical thing to do to continue burning sulphurous coal and rely > on CCS together with biotic capture to remove the CO2 ? > Or does amine washing of flue gases remove sulphur (SO2?) as well as CO2 ? > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] ; John Gorman <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Geoengineering <[email protected]> ; Tom > Wigley<[email protected]>; John > Nissen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2009 4:57 AM > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen > or others who disagree you > > Dear Andrew—My talks in Copenhagen covered a lot of these points. I have > attached the two abstracts—and am working on getting papers written up. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 4/3/09 6:12 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > An important effect which is often ignored when debating emissions > reduction is the tropospheric aerosols component. If CO2 emissions fall, so > will SO2 emissions (which cause tropospheric reflective aerosols). This > aerosol loss will 'unmask' the real forcing from existing CO2. As a > consequence, emissions reduction will actually cause a substantial RISE in > radiative forcing. This effect will persist as long as does the CO2, unless > we geoengineer the aerosols back in. > > It seems to me that most people looking at this issue have ignored this > effect - including some scientists. Even without losing the 'aerosol > umbrella' we are already seeing two dangerous change: > 1) Considerable methane excursions from land and sea > 2) Arctic shrinkage with ice-albedo feedback (exacerbating 1 above) > It is my view that we are now ALREADY in runaway climate change, because > we're 'addicted' to further emissions to keep the aerosols in the > atmosphere. > > I am in daily contact with non-geoengineering 'experts' in global warming, > and trying to get get them to take this seriously is beyond my capability. > In my view, there is a desperate need for someone to run a model which > considers ice-albedo feedback, aerosol forcing and carbon cycle feedback all > together. > > I'm not a climate scientist, but I've read a fair bit of research and I've > not seen anything which joins up the dots in this way. > > Could I ask if one of the clever people on this list, with their clever > computers, could do such a paper? IMO we really, really need to know if > we've 'fallen over the waterfall'. > > A > > 2009/4/3 John Gorman <[email protected]> > > > Emissions peaking in 2015 is pure fiction. In the recent report by the UK > Institution of Mechanical Engineers the prediction was 100 years from the > time when we really start panicking. Most engineers and economists seem to > realise this. Only a climate scientist could possibly suggest 5 or six > years. > > This is one of the differences in thinking that results in the strong > opinions for and against geoengineering. > > John Gorman > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Nissen" <[email protected]> > To: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected] > >; > "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; "Peter Read" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:08 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or > others who disagree you > > > > > Dear Tom, > > What do the latest models say if emissions were reduced to zero > instantaneously? What happens to CO2 (eq), and what happens to > temperature? > Does any model take into account the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and, > if so, what is taken as the most likely date for that? > > Nicholas Stern in his lecture to the RGS in London yesterday, gave some > probabilities for temperatures of 2 degrees up to 6 degrees for various > levels of CO2 (eq). I noted that the figures he'd used were from monte > carlo simulations in 2004. The science, and hence the modelling, has moved > on since then. What is the probability of keeping below 2 degrees, if > emissions peaked in 2015 - some consider the soonest possible with really > aggressive policies? > > If we can show that we need geoengineering, however tough we are on > emissions cuts, that would perhaps force people to take geoengineering > seriously. > > Cheers, > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected] > >; > "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; > "Geoengineering FIPC" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; "Indianice FIPC" <[email protected]>; > "Peter > Read" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:06 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking > Hansen > or others who disagree you > > > > You can use MAGICC to see what will happen if emissions of > > CO2 (or any gas) are reduced to zero (or any level) instantaneously > > (or over any other time period). > > > > Just copy one of the emissions files, rename it, and edit it to > > your chosen scenario. MAGICC also allows uncertainties to be > > explored. > > > > MAGICC can be downloaded from the cgd web page. > > > > Tom. > > > > ++++++++++++++++ > > > > John Nissen wrote: > >> 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 > >> <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> > > > >> *To:* [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > ; > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > >> *Cc:* [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > ; > >> Geoengineering FIPC > >> <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > ; > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > ; Indianice FIPC > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]%3e>> 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]<[email protected]> > > > >> > >> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> > >> > >> <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]%3e>] > *On Behalf Of *Eugene > >> I. Gordon > >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:10 AM > >> *To:* [email protected] > >> > >> <mailto:[email protected]<[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 > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.40/2039 - Release Date: 04/03/09 > 06:19:00 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
