Hi > Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure > of climate intervention research programs (or program)?
I would like to elaborate on the use of biological organism and chemical engineering methods to stimulate biological organism growth. > A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases > from the atmosphere > > A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse > gases from the atmosphere I had posted earlier about algae constituting about 0.5% of the global biomass (would like to know the absolute numbers) contributing to 40% of CO2 removal. So would doubling of the algal biomass from 0.5% to 1% result in removal of an extra 40% of CO2 emissions. If so this would be the best Geoengineering solution, since the input / output ratios is very favorable. There are HNLC areas in oceans - High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll. In coast waters and inland waters there are Harmful Algal blooms - i.e., High Nutrient High Chlorophyll areas. Both are not desirable. The algal blooms in coastal waters may in fact be contributing to Global Warming due to higher emission of CO2 and Methane. Therefore if algal biomass is to be increased, it has to be done in a very carefully targeted manner. The flow of nutrients - Nitrogen and Phosphorus into water has been quite unregulated. This has to be compensated by addition of micro nutrients into water. The solution I have posted about earlier - use of a nano micro nutrient powder aims at producing the maximum benefit with minimum intervention. This approach provides micro nutrients in nano size particles to the most useful group of micro algae - Diatoms and a small increase in the micro algae gives immense benefits. best regards Bhaskar www.kadambari.net On Nov 24, 11:24 pm, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we need > research into climate intervention. > > However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope, > emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs). > > Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which > program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be > prioritized. > > I would like to open this discussion: > > ============ > > With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several independent > or quasi-independent research programs: > > A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively active > gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods) > > A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases > from the atmosphere > > A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse > gases from the atmosphere > > B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage that > do not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e., > Solar Radiation Management methods) > > ------------ > > Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to > address problems. One could imagine another program element that is > organized around assessing potential threats and possible responses: > > C. Threat and response assessment > > C.1. Ice sheet stability > > C.2. Permafrost methane degassing > > C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural > productivity > > C.4. etc > > ------------ > > I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they > should be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear > that A.1 needs to be closely linked to A.2. > > =============== > > Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B, > and C, some initial comments: > > I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide > removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and > environmental consequences. > > I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation > management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity of > possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences. > > I distinguish *cost *from *affordability *in that program elements A will, > at least in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus marginal > cost is critical. However, program elements B might be used in an emergency > situation where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a bad > enough situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of GDP > on deployment. > > ============== > > Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure > of climate intervention research programs (or program)? > > ============== > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]; > [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 -- 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.
