Ecologists weigh inHi Greg Re "[=small scale solutions to a big scale problem are less risky?", exactly. Those touting hi tech geo-engineering solutions need to look at the capital costs involved. Fine it seems for ocean cooling a la Latham and Salter and maybe for Crutzen's sulphur seeding if side effects are acceptable. But cooling is not the whole answer and the need is to get C out of the atmosphere and put it somewhere safer. But artificial trees? Really. What's wrong with ordinary trees?
Re " Where's the proof that land based ideas are going to solve the problem?" please visit Read,P. and Parshotam, 2007. "Holistic Greenhouse Gas Management Strategy (with Reviewers' Comments and authors' rejoinders)". Institute of Policy Studies Working Paper 07/1, Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington New Zealand. http://ips.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/205 and Read, P. 2008. "Biosphere Carbon Stock Management" Climatic Change 87/3-4, 305-320. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/fulltext.pdf It needs no rocket science, just getting on with a job that could bring improved living standards to some of the world's most impoverished people. However, as noted somewhere in all those words, it is a daunting organizational task and I would be the first to welcome contributory activity over the remaining 80 per cent of the world's surface. In connection with which, Stephen Salter's ideas for using wave power to raise nutrient rich (and cooler) water to the surface layer of the ocean's biological deserts, both disposing of CO2 to deep ocean and supporting fish farming to feed the globe's protrein deficient billions, need careful attention. Likely a better way than seeding with iron. Maybe Stephen can provide a link to his recent paper. Re: And what happens if those aren't enough and/or don't happen fast enough - isn't that also "a dangerous game"? Yes, a very dangerous game. The metric for danger from several imminent potential climatic catastrophes is accumulated global heating, not the rate of change of temperature or the temperature increase. Visit http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/Events/previous-events/ipcc-conference-1/ipcc_conf_2007/Peter-Read-Berlin%20IPCC%20statement.pdf/view for the original presentation of my argument that we need to limit the integral of the CO2 level (roughly the double integral of emissions less absorption), which is elaborated somewhat in my essay "Reducing CO2 levels - so many ways, so few taken" forthcoming in Climatic Change. Cheers Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Rau To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:12 AM Subject: [geo] Ecologists weigh in Apologies if this has already been discussed, but thought some quotes in here were pretty precious. Article written in a curious mixture of tenses. Anyone go to this? "The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment," [=small scale solutions to a big scale problem are less risky?] "Any large-scale fertilization could cause risks to ocean ecosystems as great as those of global warming itself," [On the other hand ignoring 70% of the earth's surface and the largest CO2 controller on the planet doesn't make a lot of sense either in solving a global CO2 problem. Where's the proof that land based ideas are going to solve the problem?] "Playing with the Earth's climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules.....We need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources." [And what happens if those aren't enough and/or don't happen fast enough - isn't that also "a dangerous game"? How does carefully considering other options like geoengineering increase global risk? If at the end of the day research proves that no geoengineering options are worth it, then fine, please don't use them. Until then, since nothing else seems to be working, how about soliciting and actively investigating other ideas like geo? ] -Greg http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/symposium-to-discuss-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change-at-the-esa-annual-meeting_68460.html Symposium to discuss geoengineering to fight climate change at the ESA Annual Meeting - 6 Aug 2009 By Ecological Society of America Symposium to discuss geoengineering to fight climate change at the ESA Annual Meeting Ecologists call techniques a risky strategy at large scales Geoengineering techniques aim to slow global warming through the use of human-made changes to the Earth's land, seas or atmosphere. But new research shows that the use of geoengineering to do environmental good may cause other environmental harm. In a symposium at the Ecological Society of America's Annual Meeting, ecologists discuss the viability of geoengineering, concluding that it is potentially dangerous at the global scale, where the risks outweigh the benefits. "The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment," says session organizer Robert Jackson , director of Duke University's Center on Global Change. Global alterations of Earth's natural cycles have too many uncertainties to be viable with our current level of understanding, he says. One global-scale geoengineering method, termed atmospheric seeding, would cool the climate by releasing light-colored sulfur particles or other aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays back into space. This approach mimics what happens naturally when volcanoes erupt; in 1991, for instance, an eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the Earth by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit. But Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research argues that despite its potential to create overall cooling, atmospheric seeding could cause significant changes in localized temperature and precipitation. Her simulations also predict that sulfur seeding could destroy atmospheric ozone, leading to increased ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. "An increase in ozone depletion over the Arctic could lead to dangerous levels of ultraviolet light hitting the Earth's surface," she says. "In this case, the recovery of the ozone hole over the Antarctic could be delayed by decades." Another large-scale geoengineering scheme is fertilizing the oceans with iron to increase carbon uptake from the atmosphere. Charles Miller of Oregon State University says that ocean fertilization could create a rise in iron-limited phytoplankton populations, which by dying and sinking would use enough oxygen to create extensive dead zones in the oceans. In addition, he says, the maximum possible rate of ocean iron fertilization could only offset a small fraction of the current rate of carbon burning by humans. Ocean fertilization also does not alleviate the increasing problem of ocean acidification, caused by carbon dioxide from the increasingly carbon-rich atmosphere dissolving into seawater. In fact, Miller says, ocean fertilization schemes will likely exacerbate this problem. "Any large-scale fertilization could cause risks to ocean ecosystems as great as those of global warming itself," he says. Despite its apparent hazards at the global scale, Jackson thinks that research should continue on safer ways to use geoengineering at a smaller scale. Geologic sequestration, sometimes known as CO2 capture and storage, takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and stores it in underground reservoirs. Jackson says that this solution has the potential to store more than a century's worth of electric power emissions at a relatively low cost. He notes, however, that some potential risks of geologic sequestration include carbon leakage and the potential for interactions with groundwater. But on the planetary scale, most ecologists are skeptical of climate engineering. "Playing with the Earth's climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules," says Jackson. "We need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources." ### Clifford Duke, Director of Science Programs at the Ecological Society of America, is co-organizer of the symposium. Additional speakers include David Keith from the University of Calgary and Phillip Duffy from Climate Central, Inc. The researchers will present their results in: Symposium 21 - The Environmental Effects of Geoengineering Thursday, August 6, 2009, 1:30 PM-5:00 PM Pecos room, Albuquerque Convention Center For more information about this session and other ESA Annual Meeting activities, visit http://www.esa.org/albuquerque. The theme of the meeting is "Ecological Knowledge and a Global Sustainable Society." More than 3,500 scientists are expected to attend. The Ecological Society of America is the world's largest professional organization of ecologists, representing 10,000 scientists in the United States and around the globe. Since its founding in 1915, ESA has promoted the responsible application of ecological principles to the solution of environmental problems through ESA reports, journals, research, and expert testimony to Congress. ESA publishes four journals and convenes an annual scientific conference. Visit the ESA website at http://www.esa.org. Subscribe to ESA press releases by contacting Christine Buckley. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.56/2302 - Release Date: 08/14/09 06:10:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
