Hi Peter,
To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to
appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
Cheers,
John
---
Peter Read wrote:
There'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 -----
Sent:
Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
Subject:
[geo] Re: ERL papers on line
Dear John—A couple of comments:
- 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).
- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
