[geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering
I just have to say, I told you so - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/GfMt-0jXzDY/amVJ-V1vXQEJ - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/JFmkKOWe_wY/dbiJemslrqoJ *It was also stated that if we still do not understand (Weather Modification) at small scales (after 60 years), understanding what the impacts of Geoengineering would be at large/global scale, should be seen as a major challenge. [1]http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf * ~ Jim Lee http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:45:57 AM UTC-4, Josh Horton wrote: This may interest some of you - a recent (brief) WMO report on weather modification including some discussion of GE. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf Josh -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] ACP - Abstract - Self-limited uptake of α-pinene oxide to acidic aerosol: the effects of liquid-liquid phase separation and implications for the formation of secondary organic aerosol and organo
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8255/2013/acp-13-8255-2013.html Self-limited uptake of α-pinene oxide to acidic aerosol: the effects of liquid-liquid phase separation and implications for the formation of secondary organic aerosol and organosulfates from epoxides G. T. Drozd, J. L. Woo, and V. F. McNeillDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA Abstract. The reactive uptake of α-pinene oxide (αPO) to acidic sulfate aerosol was studied under humid conditions in order to gain insight into the effects of liquid-liquid phase separation on aerosol heterogeneous chemistry and to elucidate further the formation of secondary organic aerosol and organosulfates from epoxides. A continuous flow environmental chamber was used to monitor changes in diameter of monodisperse, deliquesced, acidic sulfate particles exposed to αPO at 25% and 50% RH (relative humidity). In order to induce phase separation and probe potential limits to particle growth from acidic uptake, αPO was introduced over a wide range of concentrations, from 200 ppb to 5 ppm. Uptake was observed to be highly dependent on initial aerosol pH. Significant uptake of αPO to aerosol was observed with initial pH 0. When exposed to 200 ppb αPO, aerosol with pH = -0.5 showed 23% growth, and 6% volume growth was observed at pH = 0. Aerosol with pH = 1 showed no growth. The extreme acidity required for efficient αPO uptake suggests that this chemistry is typically not a major route to formation of aerosol mass or organosulfates in the atmosphere. Effective partition coefficients (Kp, eff) were in the range of (0.1-2) x 10-4 m3μg-1 and were correlated to initial particle acidity and particle organic content; particles with higher organic content had lower partition coefficients. Effective uptake coefficients (γeff) ranged from 0.1 to 1.1 x 10-4 and are much lower than recently reported for uptake to bulk solutions. In experiments in which αPO was added to bulk H2SO4 solutions, phase separation was observed for mass loadings similar to those observed with particles, and product distributions were dependent on acid concentration. Liquid-liquid phase separation in bulk experiments, along with our observations of decreased uptake to particles with the largest growth factors, suggests an organic coating forms upon uptake to particles, limiting reactive uptake. Citation: Drozd, G. T., Woo, J. L., and McNeill, V. F.: Self-limited uptake of α-pinene oxide to acidic aerosol: the effects of liquid-liquid phase separation and implications for the formation of secondary organic aerosol and organosulfates from epoxides, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8255-8263, doi:10.5194/acp-13-8255-2013, 2013. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Attribution of 2012 US drought, application to geoengineering
Poster's note : the paper below is interesting for general reading on AGW. I also think it's particularly applicable to geoengineering governance, because of the shift in public attitudes in the US which accompanied the drought. From my limited and unscientific perspective on US public opinion, the drought was accompanied by a drop in denialism. This matters for geoengineering, because political attribution of extreme weather to AGW is different from scientific attribution. Accordingly, pressure to geoengineer may be largely unrelated to the science behind the immediate, purported cause of this change in attitudes. Likewise, hostility to geoengineering programmes may be entirely unconnected with the actual effects of these programmes. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1 Causes and Predictability of the 2012 Great Plains Drought M. Hoerling 1, J. Eischeid 2, A. Kumar 3, R. Leung 4, A. Mariotti 5, K. Mo 3, S. Schubert 6, and R. Seager 7[...] Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00055.1 Abstract Central Great Plains precipitation deficits during May-August 2012 were the most severe since at least 1895, eclipsing the Dust Bowl summers of 1934 and 1936. Drought developed suddenly in May, following near-normal precipitation during winter and early spring. Its proximate causes were a reduction in atmospheric moisture transport into the Great Plains from the Gulf of Mexico. Processes that generally provide air mass lift and condensation were mostly absent, including a lack of frontal cyclones in late spring followed by suppressed deep convection in summer owing to large-scale subsidence and atmospheric stabilization.Seasonal forecasts did not predict the summer 2012 central Great Plains drought development, which therefore arrived without early warning. Climate simulations and empirical analysis suggest that ocean surface temperatures together with changes in greenhouse gases did not induce a substantial reduction in summertime precipitation over the central Great Plains during 2012. Yet, diagnosis of the retrospective climate simulations also reveals a regime shift toward warmer and drier summertime Great Plains conditions during the recent decade, most probably due to natural decadal variability. As a consequence, the probability for severe summer Great Plains drought may have increased in the last decade compared to the 1980s and 1990s, and the so-called tail-risk for severe drought may have been heightened in summer 2012. Such an extreme drought event was nonetheless still found to be a rare occurrence within the spread of 2012 climate model simulations. Implications of this study’s findings for U.S. seasonal drought forecasting are discussed. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view
I think the characterisation of Germany's Energiewende as a regression to fossil fuelled energy system is both cheap and wrong. Yes, they are closing nuclear power stations, but they are also making a huge shift of truly global significance to renewables and in the process creating a model of how to do it, that other countries will surely follow. Coal burning in the power sector has increased across Europe, but not because of nuclear closures. The main reason is that coal prices are very low (thanks in part to US switch to shale gas in power sector so much of their coal is now exported) while the EUETS carbon price has collapsed. Coal burning in Europe has increased to the detriment of much more expensive gas. I note that your paper is for African Academy of Sciences. Surely all the more important for African audience to stress the importance of a switch to renewable energy, solar in particular, especially as huge coal burning projects in southern Africa are getting off the ground with ruinous consequences for climate. Oliver. On 21/08/2013 22:31, Andrew Lockley wrote: This is a draft article I wrote for the African Academy of Sciences. I'd really appreciate any comments on it - before I irrecoverably embarrass myself! Thanks A --- Governance of Geoengineering – A personal view Climate change is here to stay. That much is certain. Due to the heat capacity of the oceans, we always feel the effect of emissions past. Meanwhile, not only do emissions continue, but there’s still a breakneck rush to build carbon-spewing plant and vehicles. This is true not only in the developing world, but also in affluent countries that are switching back to fossil – such as Germany, which has turned against nuclear. So not only are we bracing ourselves for the climate change that’s already in the mail, we’re also wilfully accelerating the process. But it gets worse. As emissions are cleaned up in the developing world, the aerosol haze which mutes global warming will fade away – exposing us to the full glare of a changing climate. Furthermore, we are potentially exposed to major tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as the postulated release of methane in the Arctic. Even in the unlikely event that we manage to rapidly decarbonise the economy, we may still find find that any intervention is too little, too late. As a technology, geoengineering – and specifically solar radiation management - is also here to stay. We know we can do it. We know we can do it fairly cheaply - certainly much more cheaply than rapid, large-scale mitigation. We also know that it will work, albeit imperfectly, in reducing the impacts of climate change. So what to do with this terrifyingly powerful technology? We must bear in mind two facts. Firstly, we are still emitting. Secondly, even if we stop emitting there is at least a chance the climate is already in a dangerously unstable state. Faced with a position like that, it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least explore geoengineering technology. And we’d be exploring for a very good reason: committing to NOT geoengineering is rapidly beginning to look like a very dangerous idea indeed. Beyond exploring, what could deployment actually look like? Well here’s the problem: the real world is a messy, dirty place. We live in a world which tolerates reckless emissions, and much more besides. Protectionism, warfare, human rights abuses, genocide. These are all ugly things that go on and the world tolerates them, to a greater or lesser extent. We don’t have an effective global governance policy for such things, although we do try sometimes. We have treaties, which are optional. We have resolutions, which are ignored. We have sanctions, which are ineffective. And we have bombs, which yield highly unpredictable outcomes, and are more effective as a threat than as an intervention. None of the above is terribly efficient at getting people or countries to behave themselves. So why do we pretend geoengineering will really be ‘governed’ by anything, or anyone? My argument is that it won’t be governed at all. Or at least, there isn’t any reason to assume that there will be a single, overall framework of governance that delivers an effective policy – regardless of whom that single, effective policy favours. Could we not image a world where a chaotic muddle of overlapping and competing geoengineering schemes exists? Take for example, a situation where a power bloc determines a policy of minimal intervention, but is overruled by a private carbon offset firm who offer to ‘top up’ the intervention. This seems superficially possible, if not necessarily plausible. Or perhaps a top up scheme could be provided by a nation state looking to preserve its glaciers? This top up could be provided in defiance of a state looking for a ‘light touch’ geoengineering scheme, which allows it to open up
RE: [geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering
Of course. By the exact same logic, no-one understood combustion enough to build an internal combustion engine until quantum mechanics was worked out. Sorry, I don't see any connection at all between the ability to understand small scale (in space and time) and the average of that behaviour over large scales. Statistical mechanics is a great example where the large scale is quite predictable without requiring understanding of small scales. While I do agree with the conclusion that understanding the impacts is a challenge, I don't think that the appeal to the failure of weather modification is relevant. d From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lee Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:21 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering I just have to say, I told you so * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/GfMt-0jXzDY/amVJ-V1vXQE J * https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/JFmkKOWe_wY/dbiJemslrqoJ It was also stated that if we still do not understand (Weather Modification) at small scales (after 60 years), understanding what the impacts of Geoengineering would be at large/global scale, should be seen as a major challenge. [1] http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2 013_Final_tn.pdf ~ Jim Lee http://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:45:57 AM UTC-4, Josh Horton wrote: This may interest some of you - a recent (brief) WMO report on weather modification including some discussion of GE. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_20 13_Final_tn.pdf Josh -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS
Thanks - useful papers. I did not know about Olaf's paper looking at spreading olivine sand on dynamic areas of seabed. I prefer his approach of letting the movement of the sea do the grinding for you, rather than using 30% of the C gain to grind the olivine to a fine powder using fossil energy. But one way this approach could make sense is, when solar PV gets even cheaper than it is now, to use solar electricity to do the grinding so there is very little carbon debt. Also it is interesting to know that dispersal of 1um olivine powder by commercial shipping could provide an appropriate amount of carbon drawdown to offset current emissions. This something that environmentally responsible shipping companies should consider, at least on a scale to offset their own emissions. Oliver. On 21/08/2013 19:11, Rau, Greg wrote: If one is interested in silicate addition to the ocean (both for direct chemical and indirect bio effects on C), then I refer you to these links and refs therein: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014009/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_014009.pdf http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/551/2011/esdd-2-551-2011.pdf Lots more silicate minerals around than just ash, and yes potential for positive (and negative) cation and anions effects on bio C, but lets find out. Greg From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org Organization: Kyoto2 Reply-To: oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 7:59 AM To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] New article on non-anthropogenic ocean fertilization in MEPS Thanks! My last sentence should have read And of course the other question is re the chemical composition of the silicate in the ash and its particle size as this will determine its quality as a source of silicic acid. So you understood. the rate of weathering is proportionate to surface area so small particles are hugely more effective at releasing silicic acid than large ones. Olivine grain sizes of 0.1mm are proposed for terrestrial application and far smaller than this (~ micrometre scale) for marine use so that the particles can weather during their residence in the water column. The 'powdery' fraction of the ash will give the greatest silicic acid contribution. It's hard for me to comment further without seeing the paper but it's good to know that these questions have been considered, Oliver. On 21/08/2013 15:05, Chris Vivian wrote: Oliver, Bear in mind that the North East Pacific is a high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll (HNLC) area that is known to be limited by iron. The paper gives estimated sea water concentrations of silicate in the North East Pacific in the top 20 metre mixed layer in August 2008 when the volcanic eruption occurred of 5,000-15,000 nM (nana molar) compared to an estimated 6-20 nM supply from the ash fallout over the fertilized area in the Gulf of Alaska. Your second point was unclear but I assumed you were querying the release rate of the silicate from the ash. The ash used in the experiment was collected on a fishing boat during the eruption and stored dry in containers. The experiment only used the 2 mm size fraction. The release rate of silicate in the experiments was 170 nmol silicate per gram of ash in the first hour and up to 585 nmol silicate per gram of ash after 20 hours. Chris. On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:12:19 AM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote: IMHO the significance of the silicic acid would depend on the time of year. In the spring silicic acid is generally abundant so adding more of it would make little difference. One it has all been used up and diatoms are giving way to other phytoplankton a boost of silicic acid would give rise to a second diatom bloom - so it would be very significant. And of course the other question is how effectively the chemical composition of the silicate in the ash and its particle size as this will determine its quality as a source of silicic acid. Have the authors given any serious examination to such questions? Oliver. On 21/08/2013 09:55, Chris Vivian wrote: Oliver, ï¿1Ž2 I have seen the paper but cannot post a copy online. In the paper the authors did measure the release of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate and silicate in leaching experiments and concluded that the impact of these macronutrients released from Kasatochi ash on primary productivity was probably minimal.ï¿1Ž2They also suggested that the release of trace metals other than iron could also have influenced phytoplankton growth. ï¿1Ž2 Chris. ï¿1Ž2 On Monday, August 19, 2013 4:23:59 PM UTC+1, Oliver Tickell wrote: I have not found an open source version of this paper yet, but here is
RE: [geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering
Of course. By the exact same logic, no-one understood combustion enough to build an internal combustion engine until quantum mechanics was worked out. I worry that this exaggerates in at least two ways. I don’t see any connection at all between the ability to understand small scale (in space and time) and the average of that behaviour over large scales. 1. The small scale discussed in the report is tens of orders of magnitude closer to large scale than in your example. The world's smallest internal combustion engine (circa 2001) [*1] was about the size of a penny, which (at 19.05mm) is around 1.18*10^33 times greater than Planck length; the area of the atmosphere is only about 31.8 million (3.18*10^7) times greater than the patch of sky over the WMO's home town of Geneva (and only about 12,000 times greater than the sky over Switzerland.) Might not the logic change if the scale difference is 37 septillion (~37,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times less extreme? Statistical mechanics is a great example where the large scale is quite predictable without requiring understanding of small scales. 2. Then you have the question of whether city-scale atmosphere averages into global atmosphere the way that quantum particles average into solid objects, or statistically modeled particles average into idealized gases. My understanding (not having studied quantum mechanics formally in some years) is that quantum effects at mesoscale have to be carefully teased out because, inter alia, the small-scale effects typically average themselves away [Fermi-Dirac/binomial distribution of spins, etc *2]. But one look at a Hadley cell makes it clear that global atmosphere isn't a flat mean of local atmosphere. I'm not even sure that statistical mechanics works that well for you here--isn't turbulence theory a core area of research at both small and large scales? And there are other problems (an engine, as a black box, is highly bounded with near-perfect observation of inputs and outputs, so control without low-level understanding is more plausible; in the atmospheric case, we're literally underneath the box and observing bits of it from above and below). Anyway, not sure the WMO's point is that easy to dismiss... *1 http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/04/02_engin.html*2 http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407081.pdf From: macma...@cds.caltech.edu To: rez...@gmail.com CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 07:38:24 -0700 Of course. By the exact same logic, no-one understood combustion enough to build an internal combustion engine until quantum mechanics was worked out. Sorry, I don’t see any connection at all between the ability to understand small scale (in space and time) and the average of that behaviour over large scales. Statistical mechanics is a great example where the large scale is quite predictable without requiring understanding of small scales. While I do agree with the conclusion that understanding the impacts is a challenge, I don’t think that the appeal to the failure of weather modification is relevant. d From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lee Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:21 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: New WMO Report on Weather Mod Plus Geoengineering I just have to say, I told you sohttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/geoengineering/GfMt-0jXzDY/amVJ-V1vXQEJhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/JFmkKOWe_wY/dbiJemslrqoJIt was also stated that if we still do not understand (Weather Modification) at small scales (after 60 years), understanding what the impacts of Geoengineering would be at large/global scale, should be seen as a major challenge. [1] ~ Jim Leehttp://climateviewer.com/geoengineering-weather-control.html On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:45:57 AM UTC-4, Josh Horton wrote:This may interest some of you - a recent (brief) WMO report on weather modification including some discussion of GE. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/Doc_3_6_weather_mod_2013_Final_tn.pdf Josh-- 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. 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
