Re: [geo] ERL papers on lineThere's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon. There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit more so as to bring the level down. Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel with a flow of biofuel. A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'. It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of organization. It's all so blindingly obvious Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike MacCracken To: John Nissen ; David Keith Cc: Climate Intervention ; Geoengineering ; Ken Caldeira ; Julian Norman Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John—A couple of comments:
1.. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held by
the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space, making
the ice thicker).
2.. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management,
my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I prepared
on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a fourth category
devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential. This was not covered
in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and I am not as
knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As
long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and
then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is
going to have enough of an effect to make a significant difference-we have to
get emissions down to deal with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and
keeping sea ice from melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we
are going (the only other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG
emissions and soot to zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down
faster than the rise in forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time.
You can see my thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at
http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
Mike
On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If
we are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
should we approach it. He considers three problem areas:
1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of
ice that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
methane and carbon feedbacks.
I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global
warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise. The
retreat of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it
is crucial to prevent its summer disappearance. Do you agree, Mike?
If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
papers seem rather irrelevant!
Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed
with SRM geoengineering. If we consider problems such as ocean acidification,
and addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the
other papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity -
but then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
---
David Keith wrote:
Folks,
There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue.
More papers and a editorial will be added later.
Cheers,
David
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101
Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate
System
2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045101 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101>
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/help/-topic=abstract/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101>
Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been
receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate
change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December.
However, the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen
consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing
rainfall, and many aspects remain under-researched.
This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken
Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for
engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
Further reading
Focus on Geoengineering at
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/subject/tag=geoengineering
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science is an open-access
proceedings service available at www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees>
Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate
System Contents
Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045102>
David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045103>
Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews
Researching geoengineering: should not or could not?
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045104>
Martin Bunzl
Of mongooses and mitigation: ecological analogues to geoengineering
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045105>
H Damon Matthews and Sarah E Turner
Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research
<http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045106>
David R Morrow, Robert E Kopp and Michael Oppenheimer
On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change
impacts <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045107>
Michael C MacCracken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09
07:38:00
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: image.gif>>
