[geo] Ocean Iron Fertilization and the Southern Ocean- Hype or hope? Wil Burns | WGC
Poster's note : apologies for borked formatting. It's fine online. http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/05/19/ocean-iron-fertilization-and-the-southern-ocean-hype-or-hope-wil-burns/ WGC The Washington Geoengineering Consortium: Unpacking the social and political implications of climate geoengineering Ocean Iron Fertilization and the Southern Ocean- Hype or hope? Wil Burns In recent weeks, there have been a number of publications touting the alleged effectiveness of the iron fertilization experiment conducted by Russ George and his team of researchers off the coast of Vancouver in 2012. The most prominent of these pieces, by Robert Zubrin in the National Review, focused on the huge uptick in salmon stocks allegedly stimulated by creation of a phytoplankton bloom in the region as a consequence of the fertilization. Pertinent to climate geoengineering observers, Zubrin also argued that the experiment helped to demonstrate the merits of ocean iron fertilization (OIF), concluding that “since those diatoms that were not eaten went to the bottom, a large amount of carbon dioxide was sequestered in their calcium carbonate shells.”However, an “inconvenient truth” for proponents of ocean iron fertilization is that stimulation of phytoplankton blooms is only the first step in any successful ocean fertilization effort. As researchers concluded in a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters, ocean iron fertilization can only prove successful as a climate geoengineering approach if, in addition to phytoplankton bloom stimulation, “a proportion of the particulate organic carbon (POC) produced must sink down the water column and reach the main thermocline or deeper before being remineralized . . . and the third phase is long-term sequestration of the carbon at depth out of contact with the atmosphere.”The researchers, from the University of Southampton and the National Oceanography Centre of Southampton, sought to investigate the long-term fate of carbon that reaches the deep ocean, employing an ocean general circulation model to conduct particle-tracking experiments. They injected 24,982 Lagrangian particlesacross the Southern Ocean (identified as the most propitious region for deployment of ocean iron fertilization) at a depth of 1000 meters and 2000 meters to assess water mass trajectories over a 100-year simulation and the long-term fate of carbon that allegedly can be sequestered at great depths.Among the conclusions of the study:Of the 24,982 Lagrangian particles injected into the Southern Ocean at a depth of 1000 meters, 66% were advected (in an average of 37.8 years) above a designated mixed layer depth boundary that the researchers deemed to be “a key boundary to separate failed and successful carbon sequestration.” By the end of the 100-year experiment, only 29% of the particles injected at a depth of 2000 meters had breached this boundary;97% of the carbon brought back into contact with the atmosphere in the 1000 meter simulation was upwelled into the Southern Ocean. The authors concluded that “such a ‘leakage’ within the vicinity of the fertilization patch questions whether the [Southern Ocean] is as good a location for OIF as initially thought;”At the end of the 100-year simulation, only 46% of sequestered carbon injected at 1000 meters remained within the Southern Ocean, and only 56% in the 2000 meter experiment;The “global-scale dispersal” of more than 50% of sequestered carbon would make monitoring very difficult; as well ascribing ownership that would be critical for potentially allocating carbon credits;While it may be critical to sequester ocean carbon at depths greater than 1000 meters, this might prove extremely difficult given very high rates of respiration of particulate matter and remineralization by bacteria, resulting in only 1-10% of sinking particulates reaching depths below 1000 meters. Of sinking material only an estimated 14% made it to 1000 meters and 8% to 2000 meters;One important caveat is that climate change may increase oceanic vertical stratification in the future, which could decrease the amount of carbon that is re-exposed to the atmosphere.This study is a clear shot across the bow against some previous research showing higher potential rates of oceanic sequestration, all of which used coarser resolution models that may not have accurately simulated critical variables, including particle circulation. It is yet another warning that the mainstream media’s exuberance about climate geoengineering options as a silver bullet may be belied by evidence on the ground. -- 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
[geo] Opinion Article by Szerszynski on Climate Engineering and Religion
Dear colleagues, For the *Geoengineering Our Climate?* Working Paper Series, Bronislaw Szerszynski (Lancaster University) has written an Opinion Article (1500 words) arguing that how we conceive of climate engineering is entangled with enduring themes about human agency and nature in Western cultural history. Entitled: *Geoengineering and Religion: A History in Four Characters*, it can be read alongside Wiley Carr's Opinion Article (April 29) on geoengineering as influenced by contemporary religious beliefs. The article can be read and downloaded at: http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2014/05/20/geoengineering-and-religion-a-history-in-four-characters-opinion-article/ Best wishes to all, Sean Low -- 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/d/optout.
[geo] Advancing Transnational Governance of Geoengineering Research - Guest Post - Alex Hanafi and Andy Parker | WGC
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/05/14/advancing-transnational-governance-of-geoengineering-research/ The Washington Geoengineering Consortium: Unpacking the social and political implications of climate geoengineering Advancing Transnational Governance of Geoengineering Research – Guest Post – Alex Hanafi and Andy Parker Informed citizens and civil society organizations around the world can guide next steps on geoengineering research governance. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released its last report in a three-part series assessing the latest data and research on climate change. The new report discusses actions we can take to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change, while previous reports focused on the scientific basis for climate change, and on potential ways to reduce vulnerability to the risks presented by our rapidly changing climate. For the first time, these IPCC reports also include significant attention to the topic of “solar radiation management” or SRM. Also known as “solar geoengineering,” SRM describes a controversial set of theoretical proposals for cooling the Earth, and thereby potentially counteracting the temperature-related impacts of climate change, by reflecting a small amount of inbound solar energy back into space.With the impacts of rising temperatures already being felt and the IPCC drawing into sharper focus the range of impacts expected in the coming decades, SRM is attracting increasing attention as a potential cheap, fast-acting, albeit temporary response to some of the dangers of climate change.The morning sun reflects on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean as seen from the Apollo 7 spacecraft during its 134th revolution of the Earth on Oct. 20, 1968. Image Credit: NASA SRM’s potential effects are only poorly understood, however. And most discussions to date on SRM research governance, as well as most research activities, have taken place in developed countries. Yet people in developing countries are often most vulnerable both to climate change, and any potential efforts to respond to it. The scientific, ethical, political, and social implications of SRM research are necessarily global. Discussions about governance of SRM research should be as well.Recognizing these needs, in 2010 the Royal Society,Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences) launched the SRM Governance Initiative (SRMGI), an international NGO-driven initiative, to explore how SRM research could be governed. SRMGI’s activities are founded on a simple idea: that early and sustained dialogue among diverse stakeholders around the world, informed by the best available science, will increase the chances of SRM research being managed responsibly, transparently, and cooperatively.SRMGI is neither for nor against SRM. Instead, it aims to foster inclusive, interdisciplinary, and international discussion on SRM research and governance.SRMGI is neither for nor against SRM. Instead, it aims to foster inclusive, interdisciplinary, and international discussion on SRM research and governance.Much of the work of SRMGI concentrates on bringing in new voices and perspectives, particularly from the developing world. For example, in late 2013, SRMGI and the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) published a report on a series of SRM research governance workshops held around Africa in 2012 and 2013. These workshops were made possible by funding from the IAP(the global network of science academies) andUNESCO. The workshops took place in Senegal, South Africa, and Ethiopia in 2012 and early 2013, bringing in over 100 participants from 21 different African countries.The workshops followed the same approach developed by SRMGI at previous meetings held in China, India, Pakistan and the UK, with three factors perhaps most important to their success:First, local partnerships have been crucial. As with previous local SRMGI partners (such as the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Pakistan, or the Council on Energy, Environment and Water in India), AAS’s convening power, networks of experts, and reputation were invaluable assets.Second, participant interaction is prioritized over expert lectures. After introductory talks on the science of SRM and the range of socio-political concerns it raises, discussion turns to local participants drawn from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. Quickly breaking down into small groups, they are encouraged to explore and express their own concerns, hopes and ideas regarding SRM research and governance.A third important element of SRMGI’s success has been the decision to avoid identifying preferred or consensus options among different governance arrangements. Instead, SRMGI aims to ‘open up’ discussions of SRM governance by exploring and recording the different perspectives and options that participants express—from no special governance to complete prohibition of research activities. Knowing that
[geo] Wil Burns on the inclusion of Climate Geoengineering in UN IPCC AR5 | WGC
http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/04/16/wil-burns-on-the-inclusion-of-climate-geoengineering-in-un-ipcc-ar5/ wil burns on the inclusion of climate geoengineering in un ipcc ar5 On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Working Group 3, “Mitigation of Climate Change,” report, as part of its 5thAssessment of climate change science. That report can be found here.As part of a Washington Geoengineering Consortium (WGC) event to assess this report the day of its release, Wil Burns, Director, MS Program in Energy and Climate at Johns Hopkins University and WGC co-founder, presented his assessment of the inclusion of climate geoengineering in all three working groups of the IPCC AR5.Listen to that presentation below.00:0100:00A written analysis of AR5’s relevance to the climate geoengineering discussion is forthcoming, along with video of the panel discussion from the event. -- 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/d/optout.
[geo] More on geo megaprojects to adapt to vs avoid AGW
We apparently can't afford to avoid AGW, but we can afford to adapt to it? Greg CLIMATE: National strategy needed for historic sites at risk from warming -- report Emily Yehle, EE reporter Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 By the end of this century, rising sea levels will likely leave Jamestown under the ocean, almost 500 years after it became the first permanent English settlement in the Americas. In a new reporthttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/national-landmarks-at-risk-from-climate-change.html released today, the Union of Concerned Scientists warns that the landmark is only one of hundreds of historic sites at risk due to climate change. Some will be swallowed by rising seas, others destroyed by frequent wildfires and still others washed away in floods, according to the report. UCS joined archaeologists and local officials at a congressional briefing today to underscore the importance of creating a national plan to preserve such sites -- and establishing the funding to go along with it. Their efforts come as Congress considers how to best pay the increasing costs of wildfire suppression, as fires burn longer, hotter and more frequently on public lands. Such fires destroy more than trees and vegetation -- they damage historical sites that have withstood centuries of less extreme weather. At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, for example, fires have impacted more than 1,000 archaeological sites, including the Ancestral Puebloan ruins. What's been remarkable is to see how quickly things have been changing, said Adam Markham, director of climate impacts at UCS. It's really been quite shocking to see all the damage. The report details 17 case studies, in what its authors emphasized was just the tip of the iceberg. They range from Annapolis, Md.'s historic district, where severe flooding threatens 18th-century buildings, to the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve in Alaska, where archaeological sites documenting the first human migration to North America are threatened by coastal erosion. But at today's briefing, Jeffrey Altschul, president of the Society for American Archaeology, warned against the Save Our Lighthouse approach, where sites are saved individually as they become threatened. That is more expensive in the long run, he said, and ignores the reality that some sites are more worth saving than others. It's time to engage in a different conversation, he said. What sites do we want to save? What are we willing to let go? Email: eye...@eenews.netmailto:eye...@eenews.net -- 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/d/optout.
