[geo] Re: Holdren et al weigh in
Submit written comment to PCAST via: pc...@ostp.gov Comments submitted* may *be read during PCAST meetings. On Friday, March 22, 2013 9:25:11 PM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: ... the preceding oversight seems dangerously narrow minded. -Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Icelandic volcano's ash led to more CO2 being absorbed by oceans
With perhaps 6000 tonnes of helium per year getting produced, and the moon continually tidal modulating Earth; its hot innards of gasses and solids has to go somewhere. On Mar 22, 2:42 am, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1416cookieConsent=A NEWS Icelandic volcano's ash led to more CO2 being absorbed by oceans 22 March 2013, by Harriet Jarlett The Icelandic volcano's ash plume that caused huge air travel disruption across Europe in 2010 resulted in the oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide (CO2) than usual, say scientists. They found that particles from the ash cloud that fell into the ocean provided microscope plants, called phytoplankton, with a nutrient boost in the form of iron. Phytoplankton are important as they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. In fact, while phytoplankton represent just two per cent of all plant matter on Earth, they account for half of all CO2absorption from the atmosphere.'This had never been done, no one has ever made any at-sea in-situ measurements during an eruption,' explains Professor Eric Achterberg, from the National Oceanography Centre Southampton, lead researcher on the study.In the oceans south of Iceland there isn't usually enough iron for phytoplankton to bloom for more than a few weeks before it runs out. This latest study reveals that the volcanic ash column supplied enough iron that the phytoplankton were able to bloom for longer, and absorb more CO2 than they would typically have been able to.'In normal years the iron levels are very low in the Iceland basin as the system runs out of this nutrient during the annual spring bloom. But in 2010 the iron supply was so high that demands were met. But then the phytoplankton stripped the nitrogen out of the surface waters so they became limited by that instead,' says Achterberg.The research, published in Geophysical Research Letters, found even with the added iron from the volcano and the longer blooming period, the phytoplankton were only able to absorb about 15-20 per cent more CO2 than in other years before the nitrogen in the water ran out.Intentionally adding iron to the oceans, called iron fertilisation, has been suggested as a way of getting phytoplankton to bloom and absorb more carbon dioxide, to combat rising levels in the atmosphere.The results in the study were collected on three separate expeditions on the RRS Discovery. Eyjafjallajökull erupted just as the first cruise was about to embark and nearly spelled the end of several long-planned experiments - scientists had originally intended to observe the normal iron levels in the water and see if phytoplankton struggle to find enough iron.But then the researchers became the first to measure the effect of a volcanic eruption on the ocean productivity, whilst the eruption was happening. 'We managed to get right under the plume. We sampled there to look at the effects of ash on the water column and see how it affected dissolved iron and aluminium concentration. It was challenging - the ship was covered with ash,' concludes Achterberg. Achterberg, E. P., C. Mark Moore, S. A. Henson, S. Steigenberger, A. Stohl, S. Eckhardt, L. C. Avendano, M. Cassidy, D. Hembury, J. K. Klar, M. I. Lucas, A. I. Macey, C. M. Marsay, and T. J. Ryan-Keogh (2013), Natural iron fertilization by the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, doi:10.1002/grl.50221. Keywords: Biology, Climate system, Earth system, Environmental change,Hazards, Marine life, Plants, Volcanoes, Water, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Holdren et al weigh in
Further comment below. Some nuggets: Efforts to adapt to climate change will ultimately be overwhelmed, however, unless the government moves to curb, or mitigate, carbon emissions, PCAST notes. G - So adaptation is useless, and the government efforts to curb, or mitigate, carbon emissions doesn't look too promising either. No mention of the possibility of other options(!) It is one thing to be realistic about what legislation you can pass this year, adds geochemist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It is another thing entirely not to be realistic about the scale of energy transition our nation must undertake if we are to make a substantial dent in climate risk. Still no mention of the existence and need to research alternative strategies. -G Science 22 March 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6126 p. 1372 DOI: 10.1126/science.339.6126.1372 * News Analysis Climate Policy A More Modest Climate Agenda for Obama's Second Term? 1. Eli Kintisch View larger version: Prepared? The White House science council says the nation needs to do more to prepare for disasters, such as last year's drought and Superstorm Sandy (left), that could come in a warmer world. CREDITS (LEFT TO RIGHT): STAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES/NEWSCOM; JEFF TUTTLE/REUTERS/NEWSCOM When it comes to tackling climate change, President Barack Obama once had grand ambitions, including forging a global deal on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and persuading Congress to enact legislation that would impose fees on U.S. carbon pollution. With those hopes dashed by political realities, however, the president's science advisers last week proposed some potentially more doable climate actions that Obama could take during his second term. But some climate scientists say that the proposals, while laudable, fall short of what's needed. The 10-page report approved on 15 March by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) outlines a range of steps that Obama could take, most without requiring new legislation, to address the causes and consequences of global warming. To curb U.S. emissions, for instance, PCAST says Obama should extend recently developed regulations that cover emissions from new power plants that burn fossil fuels to the much larger number of existing plants. It also suggests that the administration consider negotiating a regional pact on greenhouse gas emissions with the country's North American neighbors, Canada and Mexico. And it urges Obama to appoint a new national commission on climate preparedness that would recommend ways to improve the government's planning for droughts, floods, and other natural disasters that could be spurred by climate change. The president has read a draft of the report, says PCAST member Daniel Schrag, a geochemist and an energy specialist at Harvard University, and was broadly supportive, mostly, of what we were doing. Conspicuously absent from PCAST's list, however, are the big climate agenda items from Obama's first term, including setting a price on carbon and negotiating a global pact. In large part, the omissions reflect PCAST's interest in focusing on things that Obama could push for and achieve, Schrag says. A price on carbon would be great, but we don't expect it to happen politically because of opposition in Congress. That approach isn't sitting well with some researchers. It is not PCAST's job to do Obama's political strategizing for him, says climate modeler Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in Illinois. I believe that PCAST should have emphasized the importance of implementing a price on carbon. It is one thing to be realistic about what legislation you can pass this year, adds geochemist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California. It is another thing entirely not to be realistic about the scale of energy transition our nation must undertake if we are to make a substantial dent in climate risk. Other critics note that the report is silent on whether the White House should approve the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, which opponents say would promote unwise energy development. Eighteen scientists, led by NASA climatologist James Hansen, urged the president earlier this year to stop the project, saying it runs counter to national and planetary interests. Instead of wading into such largely political issues, PCAST emphasized a topic that often gets short shrift in policy discussions, Schrag says: the need to prepare the country for the impacts of climate change. The proposed preparedness commission, he says, could help lay the ground work for changing federal policies on disaster relief and insurance … [so] that financial capital, when invested following a disaster, is used not just to rebuild, but to rebuild better. Homes could be moved out of coastal areas that are likely to be flooded again by
[geo] Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China (Guradian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/22/geoengineering-china-climate-change Why geoengineering has immediate appeal to China Beijing wants to cut emissions without hindering growth and avert a revolt from a population under extreme climate stress Clive Hamilton professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra Friday 22 March 2013 14.01 GMT The political dilemma over geoengineering – deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system designed to counter global warming or offset some of its effects – will perhaps be most acute in China. In December, the country listed geoengineering among its Earth science research priorities, in a marked shift in the international climate change landscape noticed by China specialists Kingsley Edney and Jonathan Symons. On the one hand, China's rapid economic growth has seen a huge escalation in its greenhouse gas emissions, which on an annual basis overtook those of the United States five years ago. Sustained GDP growth provides China's Communist party with its only claim to legitimacy, its mandate of heaven. China's efforts to constrain the growth of its emissions have been substantial, and certainly put to shame those of many developed nations. Yet neither China's efforts nor those of other countries over the next two or three decades are likely to do much to slow the warming of the globe, nor halt the climate disruption that will follow. Global emissions have not been declining or even slowing. In fact, global emissions are accelerating. Even the World Bank, which for years has been criticised for promoting carbon-intensive development, now warns that we are on track for 4C of warming, which would change everything. China is highly vulnerable to water shortages in the north, with declining crop yields and food price rises expected, and storms and flooding in the east and south. Climate-related disasters in China are already a major source of social unrest so there is a well-founded fear in Beijing that the impacts of climate change in the provinces could topple the government in the capital. Natural disasters jeopardise its mandate. So what can the Chinese government do? Continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions is a condition for its hold on power, but climate disruption in response to emissions growth threatens to destabilise it. Geoengineering has immediate appeal as a way out of this catch-22. While a variety of technologies to take carbon out of the air or to regulate sunlight are being researched, at present by far the most likely intervention would involve blanketing the Earth with a layer of sulphate particles to block some incoming solar radiation. Spraying sulphate aerosols could mask warming and cool the planet within weeks, although it would not solve the core problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. Scientists and policy-makers in China have been watching the debate over geoengineering unfold in the US and Europe where there has been a boom in discussion and research since the taboo was lifted in 2006, following an intervention by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen calling for investigation of plan B. In the US, there have been several high-level reports arguing for more research into geoengineering — the National Research Council, the House of Representatives' committee on science and technology and the Government Accountability Office. Influential Beltway thinktanks, like the Bipartisan Policy Center, have joined the fray. Plan B is being discussed in the White House, and the military is keeping a watching brief, and maybe doing more. China's decision to initiate a research programme could be motivated by no more than a desire to develop a national capacity to keep abreast of what is happening in the rest of the world. Certainly, there is a good deal of scepticism about geoengineering within China's scientific community. Yet as the world remains paralysed by the scale of the warming crisis, and watches while it becomes locked-in, the capacity to implement an emergency response will become ever-more attractive. And in a global emergency — a crippling drought, the Amazon ablaze, Greenland collapsing — the gaze becomes focussed on the urgent to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of other, less-powerful nations whose plight may be worsened if a major power decided to regulate the Earth's climate system. While western nations are not ruled by one-party states determined to maintain power at all costs, in truth the tyranny of the economic system is no less absolute. The 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath demonstrated that the structures of power that underpin the system — the banks, the markets, the major corporations and their ties to the political system — are extremely resilient, perhaps every bit as resistant to change as China's Communist party. After all, when it comes to responding to climate disruption every report and recommendation — from the Stern report to
