This report is pretty unremarkable, although it tends to make the mistake
of presenting GE as an alternative rather than a complement to mitigation:
"Geoengineering is an attempt to combat global warming independently of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."
On a related note, some of the recent CBD materials highlighted in a
different thread ("new CBD report on impacts ..."), particularly the
summary report compiled by the Executive Secretary
(http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/official/sbstta-16-10-en.pdf),
fall into the familiar trap of comparing a GE world to current conditions,
rather than comparing an overheated world w/ GE to an overheated world w/o
GE.
Josh Horton
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:13:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Hayes wrote:
>
> I belieave there is a plan for a large scale afforestation effort along
> the sub sahara.
>
> "ATTEMPTS to slow down climate change by large-scale geo-engineering
> present ''serious risks'' and are unlikely to replace the need to cut
> greenhouse gas emissions, Australia's chief scientist has warned." Is not
> afforestation a reconized form of GE? Did I miss that part of GE 101?
>
> Also, here is a link to an oceanic c4 plant senario posted to the group
> which dates back to last summer. Just need 6% of the planet surface and the
> CO2 issue and much of the fuel issue could be handled.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rau, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "The simplest way to remove carbon from the air is the planting of
>> forests on a massive scale but the limitations of suitable land, water and
>> nutrients mean it can only play a small part in reducing emissions.
>> ''Estimates suggest that, at best, about 2 to 4 per cent of greenhouse gas
>> emissions from human activities could be offset this way,'' the report
>> said."
>>
>> but >50% of annual anthro CO2 emissions is already mitigated by nature's
>> own geoengineering. - G
>>
>> full report here: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/04/ops1/
>>
>> Geo-engineering 'a risk' in climate change battle
>> April 10, 2012
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/geoengineering-a-risk-in-climate-change-battle-20120409-1wl7a.html
>>
>> ATTEMPTS to slow down climate change by large-scale geo-engineering
>> present ''serious risks'' and are unlikely to replace the need to cut
>> greenhouse gas emissions, Australia's chief scientist has warned.
>>
>> In an overview of schemes proposed by scientists, researchers at the
>> Office of the Chief Scientist say the main methods of planetary-scale
>> engineering would confront big problems with technical feasibility,
>> political co-operation and cost. But research should be pursued in the hope
>> of developing last-ditch methods to slow climate change.
>>
>> ''Given the difficulty in implementing global action to reduce CO2
>> emissions from human activities and their continued growth, geo-engineering
>> is one possible approach to combat global warming,'' it said.
>>
>>
>> ''Geo-engineering would not moderate all the effects of rising emissions,
>> and will introduce its own risks and uncertainties.''
>>
>> Humans already play a role in dictating the Earth's climate by adding
>> greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - raising carbon dioxide levels by about
>> 40 per cent since the Industrial Revolution - and by clearing forests to
>> reduce the amount of carbon the land absorbs. But the deliberate management
>> of global climate is still confined to theory, backed by a few small-scale
>> experiments.
>>
>> The report divides geo-engineering solutions to climate change into two
>> basic types - plans to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and plans
>> to block some of the sun's heat before it gets here.
>>
>> They include fertilising the oceans with iron filings, to stimulate the
>> growth of algae, which absorbs CO2 and then sinks to the ocean floor, and
>> sowing the atmosphere with sulphates, which deflect some of the sun's rays
>> away from Earth.
>>
>> The simplest way to remove carbon from the air is the planting of forests
>> on a massive scale but the limitations of suitable land, water and
>> nutrients mean it can only play a small part in reducing emissions.
>> ''Estimates suggest that, at best, about 2 to 4 per cent of greenhouse gas
>> emissions from human activities could be offset this way,'' the report said.
>>
>> Ocean fertilisation is also likely to be ineffective on a large scale,
>> and the best estimates suggest only a few per cent of human emissions could
>> be offset this way, the report concluded. This is because many marine
>> organisms feed on algae, ultimately returning its CO2 to the surface,
>> because the ocean waters mix together, bringing deep water back to the
>> surface. There would also be unknown side effects on fish.
>>
>> Like efforts to absorb more CO2, efforts to shield the planet from some
>> of the sun's rays would need to be kept up more or less forever, lest there
>> be a sudden surge of extra heat.
>>
>> Releasing sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere is one method
>> canvassed in the chief scientist's report. The cheapest and most effective
>> technique of doing this could be connecting long tubes to a sulphate source
>> and raising them into the atmosphere by means of balloons.
>>
>> But the potential drawbacks are many, including reducing rainfall over
>> land masses, hampering the regeneration of the ozone layer and causing acid
>> rain. If the scheme failed or was stopped, temperatures would rise very
>> quickly.
>>
>> The findings of the Australian report are similar to those of recent
>> studies undertaken by Britain's Royal Society and the US Task Force on
>> Climate Remediation Research.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Michael Hayes*
> *360-708-4976*
> http://www.voglerlake.com
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/bLE8nKYy58IJ.
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.
