Re: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C
Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an integrated fashion (e.g. http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf). Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this? They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention must surely contravene the London Convention! On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/**science/article/pii/**S1352231011007722http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 Atmospheric Environmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 Volume 46http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, January 2012, Pages 545–553 [image: Cover image]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation - L.J. Mickleyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , [image: Corresponding author contact information]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1 , [image: E-mail the corresponding author], - E.M. Leibenspergerhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2 , - D.J. Jacobhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , - D. Rindhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3 We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United States This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US. Note that they find little effect outside of the geoengineered region. (This came out last year but I missed it then.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Consideredhttp://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C
The second word in the second sentence should have been warming. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:24:24 PM UTC+2, Ninad Bondre wrote: Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an integrated fashion (e.g. http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf ). Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this? They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.comwrote: So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention must surely contravene the London Convention! On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/**science/article/pii/**S1352231011007722http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 Atmospheric Environmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 Volume 46http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, January 2012, Pages 545–553 [image: Cover image]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation - L.J. Mickleyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , [image: Corresponding author contact information]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1 , [image: E-mail the corresponding author], - E.M. Leibenspergerhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2 , - D.J. Jacobhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , - D. Rindhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3 We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United States This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US. Note that they find little effect outside of the geoengineered region. (This came out last year but I missed it then.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@**carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Consideredhttp://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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. -- 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,
Re: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C
Ninad The International Maritime Organization is proposing to restrict sulphur emissions from ships which will have the warming effect you describe except in the Arctic. Stephen On 27/05/2013 16:24, Ninad Bondre wrote: Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an integrated fashion (e.g. http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf). Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this? They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention must surely contravene the London Convention! On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 Atmospheric Environment http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 Volume 46 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, January 2012, Pages 545–553 Cover image http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation * L.J. Mickley http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#^a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1^, Corresponding author contact information http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1^, E-mail the corresponding author, * E.M. Leibensperger http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#^a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1^, ^b http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2, * D.J. Jacob http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#^a http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1, * D. Rind http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#^c http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3 We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United States This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US. Note that they find little effect outside of the geoengineered region. (This came out last year but I missed it then.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab@kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs -- You received this message because you
Re: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C
Ninad's missive implicitly raises the issue of the ethical difference between doing something knowingly versus doing it intentionally. Apparently, if I knowingly add sulfur to the atmosphere by plugging in a toaster and having some more smoke come out of the smokestack, that is relatively OK (and Ninad and I would both do this). However, if I put another two slices of bread in the toaster with the intent of having some more smoke come out of the smokestack, this is then evil (and neither Ninad nor I would do this). It is all the same to the climate system, but strikes our moral sensibilities very differently. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Ninad The International Maritime Organization is proposing to restrict sulphur emissions from ships which will have the warming effect you describe except in the Arctic. Stephen On 27/05/2013 16:24, Ninad Bondre wrote: Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an integrated fashion (e.g. http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf ). Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this? They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.comwrote: So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention must surely contravene the London Convention! On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s**cience/article/pii/S1352231011**007722http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 Atmospheric Environmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 Volume 46http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, January 2012, Pages 545–553 [image: Cover image]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation - L.J. Mickleyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , [image: Corresponding author contact information]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1 , [image: E-mail the corresponding author], - E.M. Leibenspergerhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2 , - D.J. Jacobhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1 , - D. Rindhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722# chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3 We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United States This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US. Note that they find little effect outside of the geoengineered region. (This came out last year but I missed it then.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.**edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/c**aldeiralabhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Consideredhttp://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
[geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? By CLIVE HAMILTON CANBERRA, Australia --- THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere recently surpassed http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering --- the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier or offset some of its effects --- may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet's climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun's heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground. The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming --- the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency. How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization --- spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide --- means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand. Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now. Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear. Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we look at an ecosystem the more complex it becomes. Now we are contemplating technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest and most complex ecosystem of them all --- the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would change not just the
RE: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C
Agreed. All of us are now knowingly warming and acidifying the planet via our unmitigated use of fossil fuels. Would love to have a meaningful conversation as to what to do now about this extensive, announced and well-reviewed, but so far inadequately regulated climate and chemistry intervention. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ninad Bondre [nrbon...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:24 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Regional inadvertent geoengineering cooling eastern US by 0.5 C Measures that tackle air pollution have led to well-documented, largely positive health outcomes that need not be repeated here. That cooling is an unintended consequence of such measures is hardly news: that is why several recent endeavours have called for tackling air pollution and climate in an integrated fashion (e.g. http://www.igacproject.org/sites/all/themes/bluemasters/images/IGBP_IGAC_AirPolClim_Statement_FINAL.pdf). Are members of this group considering researching aerosol removal to intentionally warm the climate? Any current research or proposed research projects aimed at tackling climate change by engaging in climate warming? Do update the group if that is the case. Then we can have a meaningful conversation about that extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention. On Monday, May 27, 2013 5:53:14 AM UTC+2, Ken Caldeira wrote: Why aren't ETC and the Chemtrail nutters up in arms about this? They would rather focus on the hypothetical and the fantastical than focus on the climate change that modern society is today knowingly causing. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Russell Seitz russel...@gmail.comUrlBlockedError.aspx wrote: So extensive, un-announced , un-reviewed and un-regulated a climate intervention must surely contravene the London Convention! On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722 [X] Atmospheric Environmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 Volume 46http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C, January 2012, Pages 545–553 [Cover image]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310/46/supp/C Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation * L.J. Mickleyhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1, [Corresponding author contact information] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#cor1 , [E-mail the corresponding author] , * E.M. Leibenspergerhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1, bhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff2, * D.J. Jacobhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff1, * D. Rindhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011007722#aff3 We find that removing U.S. aerosol significantly enhances the warming from greenhouse gases in a spatial pattern that strongly correlates with that of the aerosol. Warming is nearly negligible outside the United States, but annual mean surface temperatures increase by 0.4 - 0.6 K in the eastern United States This article suggests that inadvertent regional geoengineering is already cooling the US by about 0.5 C in the eastern US. Note that they find little effect outside of the geoengineered region. (This came out last year but I missed it then.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Consideredhttp://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/176344300/this-scientist-aims-high-to-save-the-worlds-coral-reefs -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comUrlBlockedError.aspx. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this
Re: [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
Yes, and Oliver Morton is the source of the Ron Prinn quote, which I use as a chapter epigraph in my book (along with the citation). Jim On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduwrote: Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print **Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?** ** By CLIVE HAMILTON ** ** ** CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warminghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifieror offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Societyhttp://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground. The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency. How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand. Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now. Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear. Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we look at an ecosystem the more complex it
RE: [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
Alan and All, An interesting thought experiment is to consider a parallel world to ours: a sulfate world in contrast to our greenhouse world. In the sulfate world, high-altitude aircraft have been emitting significant amounts of sulfates for many decades, a process eventually recognized (by most, though not all) to reduce global average temperature. All power generation and energy use is low carbon, so the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 280 ppm. Society is heavily dependent on high-altitude aircraft for transportation, and no viable alternatives have been identified. Global cooling is headed toward levels deemed dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Ecosystems are beginning to adapt in irreversible ways. The summer extent of arctic sea ice is growing and sea level is dropping. Polar bear populations are exploding. Side effects, such as changes in precipitation patterns, are beginning to impact society. With the political process unable to reach consensus on constraining aviation, a geoengineering field emerges that promises technological solutions. One novel approach is increasing carbon dioxide emissions from power generation to counter the cooling effects of the sulfates. How would this discussion proceed? Critics might claim that increasing greenhouse gas levels - perhaps even to 300-350 ppm - involves so many unknowns we can't afford the risk. They would point out issues with ocean acidification. They would note that no small-scale testing is possible. Some nations would express concern that they lose while others win, stalling progress toward action. Proceeding intentionally with greenhouse gas geoengineering would be enormously difficult for society to accept; proceeding knowingly without thoughtful planning has proven far easier. (Ken Caldeira's terms intentionally and knowingly are appropriate here). Perhaps this adds no insight into whether geoengineering should proceed. It does suggest how easily society may stumble into subsequent climate change crises after global warming. Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. This thought experiment may have been used before, but I have not seen it (and I'm glad to attribute it correctly if someone informs me!) Bill William B. Gail, PhD | Chief Technology Officer | Global Weather Corporation 3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | bg...@globalweathercorp.com President-Elect | American Meteorological Society | www.ametsoc.org http://www.ametsoc.org/ From: Alan Robock [mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM To: Geoengineering Subject: [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a- false-promise.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a -false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print pagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? By CLIVE HAMILTON CANBERRA, Australia - THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere recently surpassed http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes -long-feared-milestone.html 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering - the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html? inline=nyt-classifier or offset some of its effects - may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet's climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun's heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some
[geo] Call for papers, Simulation and Gaming
Poster's note - this appears an ideal location to submit any 'serious games' research into geoengineering. I have seen are a number of experiments, both formal and informal, which may merit a paper. http://sag.sagepub.com/site/includefiles/CfP_Sustainability_f-LY.pdf Call for papers Sustainability and simulation/gaming Special issue of Simulation Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research http://sg.sagepub.com/ | http://www.unice.fr/sg/ Guest Editors Levent Yilmaz, Auburn University, USA Tuncer Ören, University of Ottawa, Canada -- 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] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
An excellent point. This is why I have been arguing for a holistic view of anthopocene climate management that includes the full 15,000-year? span of anthopocene modifications beginning with animal plant domestication (never underestimate the land use / land cover modification ability of sheep ...). This is also consistent with my suggestion that GE information management needs will eventually far exceed our current assumptions (or capabilities). Imagine a society 1000 years in the future trying to recreate the history of what climate modification interventions were actually carried out in the 21st century. We have enough trouble reading 8-track tapes, imagine trying to figure out when exactly ocean iron fertilization began and how much it affected the natural history of ocean primary productivity. *Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. * Bill ** ** *William B. Gail, PhD *| *Chief Technology Officer* | *Global Weather Corporation* 3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | bg...@globalweathercorp.com** ** ** *President-Elect* | *American Meteorological Society* | www.ametsoc.org*** * ** ** *From:* Alan Robock [mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu] *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM *To:* Geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today ** ** Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?By CLIVE HAMILTON*** * CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. *** * Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warminghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifieror offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Societyhttp://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground. The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and
Re: [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
ALAN: Hamilton's shoplifting your ideas without credit gives insight into his qualifications as an ethicist... Gregory On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: An excellent point. This is why I have been arguing for a holistic view of anthopocene climate management that includes the full 15,000-year? span of anthopocene modifications beginning with animal plant domestication (never underestimate the land use / land cover modification ability of sheep ...). This is also consistent with my suggestion that GE information management needs will eventually far exceed our current assumptions (or capabilities). Imagine a society 1000 years in the future trying to recreate the history of what climate modification interventions were actually carried out in the 21st century. We have enough trouble reading 8-track tapes, imagine trying to figure out when exactly ocean iron fertilization began and how much it affected the natural history of ocean primary productivity. *Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. * Bill ** ** *William B. Gail, PhD *| *Chief Technology Officer* | *Global Weather Corporation* 3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | bg...@globalweathercorp.com** ** ** *President-Elect* | *American Meteorological Society* | www.ametsoc.org** ** ** ** *From:* Alan Robock [mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu] *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM *To:* Geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today ** ** Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?By CLIVE HAMILTON** ** CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. ** ** Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warminghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifieror offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Societyhttp://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground. The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make
Re: [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
I am not a big fan of Clive but I think it is a bit much to suggest that he needs to provide attribution for each idea expressed in his Op Ed. Most of the ideas we think are original with us were probably in somebody else's brain at some earlier point in time. (I am sure somebody else has thought this before, but I am not sure to whom it should be attributed.) Often ideas occur nearly simultaneously to several people because the preconditions for the idea are floating around. I am not concerned about borrowed ideas. My bigger concern is that some people have a tendency to make up facts when the available supply is insufficient to their needs. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: ALAN: Hamilton's shoplifting your ideas without credit gives insight into his qualifications as an ethicist... Gregory On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: An excellent point. This is why I have been arguing for a holistic view of anthopocene climate management that includes the full 15,000-year? span of anthopocene modifications beginning with animal plant domestication (never underestimate the land use / land cover modification ability of sheep ...). This is also consistent with my suggestion that GE information management needs will eventually far exceed our current assumptions (or capabilities). Imagine a society 1000 years in the future trying to recreate the history of what climate modification interventions were actually carried out in the 21st century. We have enough trouble reading 8-track tapes, imagine trying to figure out when exactly ocean iron fertilization began and how much it affected the natural history of ocean primary productivity. *Geoengineering in response to global warming may be only the forerunner of the many times future society will be forced to contemplate geoengineering. * Bill ** ** *William B. Gail, PhD *| *Chief Technology Officer* | *Global Weather Corporation* 3309 Airport Rd, Boulder, CO 80301 USA | 303.513.5474 mobile | bg...@globalweathercorp.com** ** ** *President-Elect* | *American Meteorological Society* | www.ametsoc.org* *** ** ** *From:* Alan Robock [mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu] *Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 10:26 AM *To:* Geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today ** ** Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?By CLIVE HAMILTON* *** CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. * *** Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warminghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifieror offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air
[geo] Re: Clive Hamilton's op-ed in the New York Times today
* **If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science.*...*a more humble climate scientist... has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”* Since when has lack of understanding of complex systems been an impediment to unbridled political advocacy? If anything is scary, it's Alan and Clive's confidence in adducing social engineering as a substitute for science policy. On Monday, May 27, 2013 12:26:05 PM UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote: Dear all, I agree with virtually everything in Clive's op-ed in the New York Times today. That is because I wrote it several years ago, first in my 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea, and then in several articles since then. But he gives no indication that these are not his original ideas. You can see all my papers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/robock_geopapers.html Here is the op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?hppagewanted=print Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? By CLIVE HAMILTON CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science. Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering. Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warminghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifieror offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity. But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass. While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed. Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries. But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Societyhttp://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground. The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices. Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency. How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand. Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now. Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe,
[geo] Re: Transcript of Keith, Shiva, Hamilton, Goodman interview
The root of Clive Hamilton's thought on geoengineering appeared more clearly in this interview. When discussing the fact that The Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute have endorsed geoengineering as a solution for the problem they have denied exists more emphatically than anyone else on the planet, Clive said: They see it*—see geoengineering as a way of protecting the system, of preserving the political economic system, whereas others say the problem IS the political and economic system, and it’s that which we have to change*. And later in the interview, after Clive states that the risks to civilization that scientists such as David Keith and Alan Robock are concerned about are one thing, i.e. *scientific risks* whereas Clive sees an additional factor, which he calls *political* risks, he says this: [edited to make my point clear] *the danger that geoengineering becomes... ...a way of protecting the political economic system from the kind of change that should be necessary* * * A way to interpret this is to say Clive wants our system of economic and political relationships as they exist* to fail* to cope with climate change in order that civilization will change in ways he thinks will make it more likely that the changed civilization will survive for a longer term. Another way to say this is he wants everyone in civilization to realize there is no way forward without a fundamental reordering of our political and economic relationships with each other, which is a necessary precursor to fundamental change. In Green philosophy, this lines up with those who say anything that allows this civilization to continue, such as discovering how to mitigate acid rain back in the 1980s for instance, is not the good thing it appears on the surface, because it merely allows the civilization to exist a bit longer which allows it to expand to a larger size, enabling it to do more damage to the planetary life support system, allowing it to take more of the rest of life on Earth with it as and when it collapses. Geoengineering, even removing CO2 from the atmosphere, in this line of thought, is therefore something to be opposed. If this is the root of Clive's thought, it would throw some light on why he has taken the position in his Nature piecehttp://www.nature.com/news/no-we-should-not-just-at-least-do-the-research-1.12777, i.e. no, we should not do the research [into geoengineering]. On Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:12:10 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13653 Democracy Now!/ MON MAY 20, 2013/ Geoengineering: Can We Save the Planet by Messing with Nature? Amy Goodman interviews Clive Hamilton with some recorded clips of Shiva, Dyer, Keith, etc. -- 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.
