Re: [geo] A Little Question on Marine Cloud Brightening
Michael, Nathan My knowledge of marine biology is slight but CLAW feels right. If we could be kinder to phytoplankton we might not have to work so hard at marine cloud brightening. We can save the Arctic ice without going near it because we are intercepting heat from low latitudes on the way there. I believe that it is impossible to moor wave sinks and so it seems better to let them drift freely round gyres and only adjust the distance from the centre of the gyre. They will probably be quite a long way from the Arctic and along the hurricane breedingtracks. A very large fraction of the world's oceans are a wet desert with marine life only where upwellings or a low density gradient allow nutrients to mix upwards. The wave sinks ought to replicate this effect. Marine cloud brightening would have a smaller effect on nutrients but still in the right direction. I hope that small experiments with multiple superposition of aligned satellite images with give us some numbers for amplification or attenuation of the unknown feedback loops. Meanwhile I have to make some spray. Stephen On 21/05/2014 23:26, Michael Hayes wrote: Steven, Nathan et. al., I believe it would be difficult for anyone to support the view that Arctic wave sinks would have little effect. Beyond the clear biological importance of surface water mixing, the patent clearly shows the use of attached mariculture operations which can support algal/DMS production. Further, wave sinks are deployable at a non-GE scale and thus the empirical biological data can be collected while operating within IMO/CBD guidelines. In short, an Arctic deployment of wave sinks and MCB equipment, on a scale which can produce meaningful data, seems to be technically achievable today without further debate and there are multiple scientific questions that can possibly be answered through a field campaign. Also, it would be highly interesting if the equipment was divided between active methane ebullition fields and non-ebullition areas. The importance of gaining practical working knowledge regarding the reduction of ebullition rates is obvious. Actually demonstrating that the methanogenic (benthic) biota can be protected from over oxygenation while stimulating the methanotrophs in the water column with mixing/oxygenation, while actively cooling the surface water via MCB/Wave Sinks (while not over oxygenating the methanogens), would provide a wealth of information for a wide spectrum of 'experts' to work with. The questions surrounding DMS/CLAW would also be address during the campaign and there are a number of other scientific and technical issues which can be folded into the campaign. Best, On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:57:20 AM UTC-7, Nathan Currier wrote: Hi, Stephen – My speaking of the “the wrong direction” referred to what you had written, which assumed that with added warming DMSP-producing phytoplankton become starved of nutrients, hence leading to less DMS. While certainly true in much warmer regions (and I mentioned in what I first wrote that in such conditions MCB might work better than projected as a result), the Gabric study (thanks for the full paper) as well as others, point in the opposite direction for Arctic conditions – the projection is that DMS will go /up/ in the arctic with warming, not /down/. Indeed, if you looked at the paper, the nutrients are themselves assumed to go up, one stated reason being that the shallow mixed layer depth can increase the concentration (and changes quite sensitively with season, sometimes inversely to actual nutrient content – see paper, 396-398). Now, there are lots of complex links in the chain between organisms making DMSP and the final climate impact – so, grazing of them by other organisms, the turning of their DMSP to DMS by a variety of means, then the conditions altering the flux rate of that DMS into the atmosphere (winds, etc), and then the various other constituents leading to good nucleation (various bio-organics, etc.) with the DMS, or to the “Twomey”-related changes on already existent clouds (i.e., what the clouds are like). The Gabric paper also mentioned another possible complication: the possibility that their modeling could not reflect what will happen because of a new ecological regime with coming warming and the idea of an increasing “Atlantification” of at least parts of the Arctic ocean. Yet even then, the predictions are that there would likely be an influx of big DMS makers like eHux (Emeliana Huxleyi – currently there are more diatoms making DMS in the arctic than elsewhere, but that could change), so still probably an /increase/, not a /decrease/. Perhaps it just seems like too much of a can of worms to bother about, but I would just say simply that 1. DMS is certainly one of the most important CCNs, 2.
Re: [geo] A Little Question on Marine Cloud Brightening
Steven, Nathan et. al., I believe it would be difficult for anyone to support the view that Arctic wave sinks would have little effect. Beyond the clear biological importance of surface water mixing, the patent clearly shows the use of attached mariculture operations which can support algal/DMS production. Further, wave sinks are deployable at a non-GE scale and thus the empirical biological data can be collected while operating within IMO/CBD guidelines. In short, an Arctic deployment of wave sinks and MCB equipment, on a scale which can produce meaningful data, seems to be technically achievable today without further debate and there are multiple scientific questions that can possibly be answered through a field campaign. Also, it would be highly interesting if the equipment was divided between active methane ebullition fields and non-ebullition areas. The importance of gaining practical working knowledge regarding the reduction of ebullition rates is obvious. Actually demonstrating that the methanogenic (benthic) biota can be protected from over oxygenation while stimulating the methanotrophs in the water column with mixing/oxygenation, while actively cooling the surface water via MCB/Wave Sinks (while not over oxygenating the methanogens), would provide a wealth of information for a wide spectrum of 'experts' to work with. The questions surrounding DMS/CLAW would also be address during the campaign and there are a number of other scientific and technical issues which can be folded into the campaign. Best, On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:57:20 AM UTC-7, Nathan Currier wrote: Hi, Stephen – My speaking of the “the wrong direction” referred to what you had written, which assumed that with added warming DMSP-producing phytoplankton become starved of nutrients, hence leading to less DMS. While certainly true in much warmer regions (and I mentioned in what I first wrote that in such conditions MCB might work better than projected as a result), the Gabric study (thanks for the full paper) as well as others, point in the opposite direction for Arctic conditions – the projection is that DMS will go *up*in the arctic with warming, not *down*. Indeed, if you looked at the paper, the nutrients are themselves assumed to go up, one stated reason being that the shallow mixed layer depth can increase the concentration (and changes quite sensitively with season, sometimes inversely to actual nutrient content – see paper, 396-398). Now, there are lots of complex links in the chain between organisms making DMSP and the final climate impact – so, grazing of them by other organisms, the turning of their DMSP to DMS by a variety of means, then the conditions altering the flux rate of that DMS into the atmosphere (winds, etc), and then the various other constituents leading to good nucleation (various bio-organics, etc.) with the DMS, or to the “Twomey”-related changes on already existent clouds (i.e., what the clouds are like). The Gabric paper also mentioned another possible complication: the possibility that their modeling could not reflect what will happen because of a new ecological regime with coming warming and the idea of an increasing “Atlantification” of at least parts of the Arctic ocean. Yet even then, the predictions are that there would likely be an influx of big DMS makers like eHux (Emeliana Huxleyi – currently there are more diatoms making DMS in the arctic than elsewhere, but that could change), so still probably an *increase*, not a *decrease*. Perhaps it just seems like too much of a can of worms to bother about, but I would just say simply that 1. DMS is certainly one of the most important CCNs, 2. almost all of this atmospheric sulfur is created by these phytoplankton, and 3. if you are going to geoengineer, it is your moral responsibility to try to think of everything that could possibly go wrong, not to try to simplify the situation and say, well, this is awfully complex and probably doesn’t matter anyhow (which is why we’re in the mess we’re in). Therefore I don’t think that you can ignore this issue of potential entanglement with CLAW. Remember, the real issue is something not mentioned in any of the above – and that’s whether there’s a loop closure, and so whether the production is thus sensitive to the final conditions of the clouds (whether it be in terms of their alterations of surface radiation, changes in sea-surface conditions, etc) – in which case the potentially bad scenario is conceivable in which the DMS producers could adapt by producing less if you’re “doing their work” for them. Even the Quinn and Bates paper does not say, by the way, that this loop does not exist, it just says that it is likely that it does not exist, and that there’s great complexity in all the links of this chain (which is unquestionable). Given the significance of
[geo] RE: Invitation that appears in the Washington Geoengineering Consortium web site for articles and publications, in spanish, on the subject of 'geoingeniería' (geoengineering)
What do your newspapers say about geoengineering? Note: This is the english form of the article ¿Que dicen tus periódicos sobre la geoingeniería? http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2014/05/que-dicen-tus-periodicos-sobre-la.html *“Typically, surveys of public opinion find that less than 5 % of respondents claim any substantive knowledge about the issue, although a somewhat higher number are able to offer a broadly accurate definition of the term ‘climate engineering’ (Mercer et al. 2011).”* From: Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineeringAdam Corner Nick Pidgeon (May 2014) [1] Although there is a very short and incomplete definition for ‘geoingeniería’ or ‘ingenieria climatica’ in Wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoingenier%C3%ADa (written by me) the term ‘geoingenieria’ has no meaning in the dictionary from the ‘Real Academia Española’ (RAE) A search in (RAE) results in a message saying that the word is not in the dicctionary. . Given that the concept itself has no official ‘word’ and much less a definition in the spanish language I would think that for spanish speaking societies the number of people with* ‘any substantive knowledge about the issue’ *would be far below 5%. Searches on Google ngram viewer for the term ‘geoingenieria’ and the term ‘captura de carbono’ also yield zero results. These terms (‘geoingenieria’ and ‘captura de carbono’) and their concepts may appear in some articles, studies or books. But searches on various Spanish speaking written newspapers in the majority of cases yield zero returns; with very few exceptions e.g. El País (Spain) [2], ABC (Spain) [3], El Universal (Mexico) [4]. It is notable that carbon capture and sequestration (captura y almacenamiento de carbono) technologies are being developed in some Ibero-American countries e.g. Mexico, [5] Brazil [6] and in Spain [7] as well, but the term geoengineering (geoingenieria) is being carefully avoided, no doubt for fear of negative backlash, and aided by the lack of official language concepts. But to be fair, here in the United States, ‘news purveyors’ of high profile e.g. The Drudge Report also seem to be involved in a concerted effort to not-to-inform the public. Over the past two years repeated searches on the Drudge Report web site with the term ‘geoengineering’ netted zero results. This continues to be the case as of today May 21, 2014 Searching for the term ‘geo engineering’ yields 2 results: STUDY: Geo-engineering solutions for 'global warming' ineffective... ^ From the February 25, 2014 19:20:47 GMT edition of the Drudge Report. STUDY: Geo-engineering proposals for 'global warming' ineffective... ^ From the February 25, 2014 18:20:28 GMT edition of the Drudge Report. Alas, following the links, a message indicating that the page does not exist or it is unavailable. Searching for ‘carbon capture’, ‘carbon sequestration, ‘beccs’, ‘biochar’or ‘afforestation’ also yields zero results. A search for ‘biofuel’ yielded 14 results dating from 2007 to 2014. *16:20 pm May 21, 2014 Update-* Searching for 'climate engineering' nets 1 result with an active link: 'Human Engineering' Could Combat Climate Change... ^ From the March 12, 2012 21:20:35 GMT edition of the Drudge Report. *End of update. * Efforts like these by the fossil fuel industry, or entities supportive of it and from its detractors as well, to keep the public ‘un-informed’ reek of manipulation. This should be unacceptable. It is for that reason that efforts to not only ‘open up’ the global-public’s participation in the geoengineering debate, but to also intelligently inform that debate should be welcomed, regardless of how averse ‘we’ may feel towards the issue. *Thus, even though no single technology has been scientifically proven to be safe and feasible, climate engineering has moved from the realm of science fiction to concrete political, academic and economic considerations.**“Climate engineering thus warrants attention from Pacific island and other states for two reasons. First, given the possible severity of climate impacts, a sober and serious consideration is needed regarding the potentials, limits and risks of climate engineering. Second – and perhaps more importantly **–** to be informed and able to make sound decisions should the Pacific island states be approached by governments, business people, activists, or others (including scientists in search of research platforms) with regard to the topic.”* Workshop Report - Perspectives on Climate Engineering from Pacific Small Island States [9] So, let us hope for the vigorous, civil and well informed ‘climate geoengineering’ debate! And in all languages! Conscious of my limitations as a ‘lay person’ but hoping to contribute to the debate in a positive way, I have written this post, prompted by a
[geo] It's a bit like a tree: How comparing geoengineering to the natural world bolsters support | Carbon Brief
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/it%E2%80%99s-a-bit-like-a-tree-how-comparing-geoengineering-to-the-natural-world-bolsters-support/ It’s a bit like a tree: How comparing geoengineering to the natural world bolsters support 22 May 2014, 10:49 Ros Donald Katie Walker Using pipes to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and storing it underground: doesn't sound very natural. But what if you were encouraged to think of the process as similar to the role trees perform in nature? A new study finds likening geoengineering to bits of the natural world is more likely to make people feel supportive of technologies that change the climate.Most people are very attached to nature, and strongly opposed to processes that appear to tamper with it - like so-called geoengineering, which aims to artificially cool the climate. Working from this starting point, a new study from Cardiff University tests whether likening geoengineering to natural processes might reverse some of that negative feeling.Because geoengineering is a relatively new idea, researchers talking about it have to find ways to explain what it is. Using analogies is one easy way, as Dr Adam Corner, a co-author of the research, says:Scientists and researchers talking about geoengineering are looking for analogies to describe their research. They may describe sucking carbon dioxide out of the air as similar to the workings of an artificial tree, or pumping particles into the air to reflect heat away in terms of how volcanoes work. These analogies can be suggested by the way some geoengineering processes are supposed to work, he says: Lots of this language makes sense in some ways - for example, the idea of pumping sulphate particles into the air comes from the study of volcanoes, which naturally cool the climate. Our question was that given people care so much about nature - and they see natural things as less of a threat than artificial things - how do these analogies affect our perception of geoengineering? Finding ways to talk about geoengineering Geoengineering technologies broadly take two forms: either they suck carbon dioxide out of the air, or they reflect the sun's heat away from the earth. So far, geoengineering technologies haven't been tested on a large scale, but even with the limited research that has taken place, there are already some high-profile examples of public backlash against geoengineering trials. That's perhaps not surprising. Research looking at geoengineering and other nature-modifying technologies such as genetic modification suggests people have a strong instinctive response to them. As the new paper says, people tend to be fearful of the unintended consequences of climatic intervention and wary of the possibility that the risks of geoengineering will be greater than those of the problem they are designed to solve. It adds that while there appears to be limited support for the idea of careful, incremental and transparent research into geoengineering, most people are especially concerned about deploying more drastic-seeming technologies. Putting numbers to the researchTo gain a better understanding of people's feelings about geoengineering and nature, the researchers asked a nationally-representative group of 412 participants to take part in an online survey. Respondents answered questions about their views on climate change. They also answered whether or not they knew much about geoengineering. Next, they read factsheets drawn up by the researchers that either likened geoengineering processes to natural ones, like the actions of trees or volcanoes, or used more neutral technical language.After reading the descriptions, the respondents answered questions about their attitudes to geoengineering, rating each statement from one to five - the mean of these ratings is given on the Y axis on the graph below. As the graph shows, the researchers found that using the natural analogies gave a small but significant increase in support for geoengineering, especially among those who are less skeptical about climate change. (The left-hand column.)They were also asked to give some more nuanced views, for example, answering whether geoengineering would help the climate more than hurt it and whether the risks of geoengineering would outweigh the benefits.They were also asked whether they believed global temperatures were just too complex to be altered by humans, whether they believed geoengineering was natural, and whether it was simply wrong to manipulate nature.In all cases, the paper suggests that the more people associated geoengineering with natural processes, the more likely it was that people would say they were supportive of geoengineering.It adds that the results are quite subtle, but that effects outside of the lab may be more dramatic. If people in the real world heard natural analogies to describe geoengineering, they may be significantly more likely to support it.Corner says: This finding is important for
Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice
I¹m a bit baffled (and late in responding. The sea water temperatures are typically very near freezing. The idea might work in the fall but I don¹t see how it works the rest of the year (ocean temperatures too near freezing in the winter; air temperatures too high in spring and summer). Mike On 5/17/14 5:57 PM, ecologist ecologi...@gmail.com wrote: Greg, Ron, Peter, Geo-group The technology proposed by Zhou and Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_ Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf to ³re-ice the Arctic² during the winter uses snow cannons powered by wind turbines floating on barges. In his doctoral thesis of Dr. Denis Bonnelle proposed a similar technology called ³Polar air and water freezing towers² for Polar Regions like in northern Norway or Alaska, where high mountains are close to the sea. The scheme of the thermal device proposed by Bonnelle (pages 120-125 http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf ) consist in transporting sea water till the top of northern mountains where the air is very cold, have a heat exchange between the cold air and the water which is carried back downhill to the ocean just before freezing, where floating ice and saltier water are released. The water is transported up and down in an open conveyor, cooled at the top of the mountain under a tall chimney, where the air that cooled the water has been warmed up and rises. The buoyancy of this hotter air than ambient warms drives turbines at the bottom of the chimney, producing renewable energy. There are multiple benefits provided by this thermal device: at the tower output moist air is released, which can favor snow falls, and thus increase the polar albedo replacing old ice on glaciers, probably polluted with soot and black carbon by whiter and fresher snow with high albedo. The ice released in the sea increases sea ice content, and increases Earth albedo. The saltier water released helps to the preservation of downwelling ocean currents and, last but not least, carbon-free electricity is produced. The capacity of these ³Polar air and water freezing towers² and ³ice-producing barges² to re-ice the Arctic, increase Earth albedo and to prevent methane hydrates destabilization deserves more scientific studies to prove the concept, which is worth being evaluated in light of the potential multiple benefits. Many other similar concepts are proposed in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-736FYU1t7Xc/U3falM8NXvI/ACA/XW0kZ4 G3FeA/s1600/snow-cannons+for+Refreezing+the+Arctic.jpg Scheme of the ³snow-cannons to re-ice the Arctic² proposed by P. Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_ Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf Image: A.Naeg/AFP/Scanpix. The ³ice-producing barges² are powered by wind turbines. https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Bmz8Oj_8bLE/U3fasZsHqGI/ACI/SqtcuL SbqEA/s1600/sea+ice+Polar+Device+from+Bonnelle.jpg Scheme of the ³water freezing towers² to re-ice the Arctic proposed by D. Bonnelle [2] http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf , also in [3] [1] S. Zhou P.C. Flynn. Geoengineering downwelling ocean currents: a cost assessment https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Hurricanes/Flynn%20downwelling.pdf , Clim Change, 71 (1-2) (2005), pp. 203-220. [2] D. Bonnelle. Solar chimney, water spraying energy tower, and linked renewable energy conversion devices: presentation, criticism and proposals. Doctoral thesis, July 2004 at University Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, France http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf (Registration Number: 129-2004) [3] D. Bonnelle. Vent artificiel OETall is Beautifull¹. Cosmogone Ed. 2003, ISBN: 2-914238-33-9 http://www.cosmogone.com/e_cosmogone/?fond=produitid_produit=100id_rubrique =26 , Lyon, France [in French]. Le mardi 13 mai 2014 17:07:43 UTC+2, peter.flynn a écrit : -- 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] Nature's OIF
Move over Russ George. the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica. Governance that. Greg RESEARCH: Glacial melt pouring iron into the ocean -- study Christa Marshall, EE reporter Published: Thursday, May 22, 2014 Call it natural geoengineering. Scientists report in a new study this week that glacial melt may be funneling significant amounts of reactive iron into the ocean, where it may counter some of the negative effects of climate change by boosting algal blooms that capture carbon. The paper, published in Nature Communications, adds to a body of research suggesting that melting ice at both poles may have widespread consequences beyond rising sea levels. The theory goes that the more iron you add, the more productive these plankton are, and thus the more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in photosynthesis, said Jon Hawkings, a doctoral student at the University of Bristol and lead author of the studyhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html. Plankton 'fix' CO2 much like trees. The work could help improve climate models of the future and fill in data holes about major climate transitions and ice ages in the past, he said. The effects on Antarctica in particular will need additional examination, he said, as iron currently is limited in the Southern Ocean. Hawkings and a research team from four United Kingdom-based universities tested meltwater collected from the Leverett glacier in Greenland during summer 2012 and detected large amounts of iron nanoparticles known as ferrihydrite. Ferrihydrite is considered to be bioavailable iron because it is easily used by plankton in lab experiments, Hawkings said. Through the detected iron mineral levels in their samples, the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica. That means that polar regions may rival wind-blown dust as a source of ocean iron. The contribution from Greenland alone could range from 8 to 50 percent of the global ocean flux of bioavailable iron, Hawkings said. The iron ore counter-effect A decade ago, a common hypothesis was that rivers and dust supplied the ocean with most of its iron. Since then, scientists have reported in several papers that icebergs and deep-sea hydrothermal vents also may be significant contributors. A study last year found that a Greenland glacier was releasing iron, but it did not assess as large an area and for as long of a period of time as his study, Hawkings said. The studied area of the Leverett glacier, for instance, is more than 600 kilometers squared, while earlier work assessed a glacier about 5 kilometers squared, he said. Our study is the first to date to follow a whole melt season and the first to have looked at a large glacial catchment, he said. Matt Charette, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of an earlierpaperhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1746.html on Greenland-supplied iron, said although the new study overlaps somewhat with his prior work, it provides new details. A case could be made that a larger system like the one they studied is more appropriate for scaling up to the entire ice sheet, he said. Kenneth Coale, a scientist at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, said the paper was nicely done and added to understanding of how iron may provide a counter-effect to climate change. The Greenland iron originates from stored subglacial meltwater that gets flushed out by surface waters carried through tunnels and cracks in ice during the melt season, Hawkings said. It's not fully understood how far the iron travels once in the ocean, but it likely stays near both poles. Evidence exists for transport a few 100 kilometers out to sea, but only limited amounts will reach the open ocean, he said. It's also not fully understood how the iron will interact with polar ecosystems. Scientists have long known that iron-fueled algae can eat up carbon, leading to speculation that iron fertilization might be a geoengineering option to cool the planet. It also holds the possibility of boosting marine life that feed on plankton. A community in Canada two years ago, for instance, dumped large amounts of iron dust into the ocean to try to boost salmon stocks. In the case of natural iron fertilization via ice sheets, the positive likely outweighs the negative, in the sense that carbon will be removed in an area highly vulnerable to warming, and extra algae may help polar marine life threatened by warming, Hawkings said. He noted that algae can boost krill, which can in turn can feed fish, whales and seals. However, he pointed to a
Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice
Mike During winter if you suck the water up fast from a bit below the surface you should be able to pump it some distance before it is frozen especially if we can use insulted pipes. You would not be able to stop but you could back away from the edge of the extending ice. We need to do the sums about latent heat and heat transfer from air to a moving jet. The ideal would be freezing shortly after landing but, if the ice is fairly flat, the rate of draining will be quite slow. If there is any chance of a break in energy supply we would need to warm up frozen pumping equipment but I understand that Canadians have to do this every winter morning to start their cars so it is not a show stopper. Stephen On 22/05/2014 15:46, Mike MacCracken wrote: Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice I'm a bit baffled (and late in responding. The sea water temperatures are typically very near freezing. The idea might work in the fall but I don't see how it works the rest of the year (ocean temperatures too near freezing in the winter; air temperatures too high in spring and summer). Mike On 5/17/14 5:57 PM, ecologist ecologi...@gmail.com wrote: Greg, Ron, Peter, Geo-group The technology proposed by Zhou and Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf to /re-ice the Arctic/ during the winter uses snow cannons powered by wind turbines floating on barges. In his doctoral thesis of Dr. Denis Bonnelle proposed a similar technology called /Polar air and water freezing towers/ for Polar Regions like in northern Norway or Alaska, where high mountains are close to the sea. The scheme of the thermal device proposed by Bonnelle (pages 120-125 http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Energy-towers_etc.pdf ) consist in transporting sea water till the top of northern mountains where the air is very cold, have a heat exchange between the cold air and the water which is carried back downhill to the ocean just before freezing, where floating ice and saltier water are released. The water is transported up and down in an open conveyor, cooled at the top of the mountain under a tall chimney, where the air that cooled the water has been warmed up and rises. The buoyancy of this hotter air than ambient warms drives turbines at the bottom of the chimney, producing renewable energy. There are multiple benefits provided by this thermal device: at the tower output moist air is released, which can favor snow falls, and thus increase the polar albedo _replacing old ice on glaciers, probably polluted with soot and black carbon by whiter and fresher snow with high albedo_. The ice released in the sea increases sea ice content, and increases Earth albedo. The saltier water released helps to the preservation of downwelling ocean currents and, last but not least, carbon-free electricity is produced. The capacity of these /Polar air and water freezing towers/ and /ice-producing barges/ to *re-ice the Arctic, increase Earth albedo and to prevent methane hydrates destabilization* deserves more scientific studies to prove the concept, which is worth being evaluated in light of the potential multiple benefits. Many other similar concepts are proposed in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-736FYU1t7Xc/U3falM8NXvI/ACA/XW0kZ4G3FeA/s1600/snow-cannons+for+Refreezing+the+Arctic.jpg /Scheme of the snow-cannons to re-ice the Arctic**proposed by P. Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf /Image: A.Naeg/AFP/Scanpix. The /ice-producing barges /are powered by wind turbines. https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Bmz8Oj_8bLE/U3fasZsHqGI/ACI/SqtcuLSbqEA/s1600/sea+ice+Polar+Device+from+Bonnelle.jpg Scheme of the /water freezing towers/ to re-ice the Arctic**proposed by D. Bonnelle [2] http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Energy-towers_etc.pdf , also in [3] [1] S. Zhou P.C. Flynn. Geoengineering downwelling ocean currents: a cost assessment https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Hurricanes/Flynn%20downwelling.pdf https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs/Hurricanes/Flynn%20downwelling.pdf , Clim Change, 71 (1-2) (2005), pp. 203--220. [2] D. Bonnelle. Solar chimney, water spraying energy tower, and linked renewable energy conversion devices: presentation, criticism and proposals. Doctoral thesis, July 2004 at University Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, France http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Energy-towers_etc.pdf (Registration
Re: [geo] Nature's OIF
Whether that's a positive or negative feedback depends on the albedo impact of the species promoted. This is the subject of my current research. A On 22 May 2014 17:37, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Move over Russ George. the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica. Governance that. Greg RESEARCH: Glacial melt pouring iron into the ocean -- study Christa Marshall, EE reporter Published: Thursday, May 22, 2014 Call it natural geoengineering. Scientists report in a new study this week that glacial melt may be funneling significant amounts of reactive iron into the ocean, where it may counter some of the negative effects of climate change by boosting algal blooms that capture carbon. The paper, published in *Nature Communications*, adds to a body of research suggesting that melting ice at both poles may have widespread consequences beyond rising sea levels. The theory goes that the more iron you add, the more productive these plankton are, and thus the more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in photosynthesis, said Jon Hawkings, a doctoral student at the University of Bristol and lead author of the studyhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html. Plankton 'fix' CO2 much like trees. The work could help improve climate models of the future and fill in data holes about major climate transitions and ice ages in the past, he said. The effects on Antarctica in particular will need additional examination, he said, as iron currently is limited in the Southern Ocean. Hawkings and a research team from four United Kingdom-based universities tested meltwater collected from the Leverett glacier in Greenland during summer 2012 and detected large amounts of iron nanoparticles known as ferrihydrite. Ferrihydrite is considered to be bioavailable iron because it is easily used by plankton in lab experiments, Hawkings said. Through the detected iron mineral levels in their samples, the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica. That means that polar regions may rival wind-blown dust as a source of ocean iron. The contribution from Greenland alone could range from 8 to 50 percent of the global ocean flux of bioavailable iron, Hawkings said. The iron ore counter-effect A decade ago, a common hypothesis was that rivers and dust supplied the ocean with most of its iron. Since then, scientists have reported in several papers that icebergs and deep-sea hydrothermal vents also may be significant contributors. A study last year found that a Greenland glacier was releasing iron, but it did not assess as large an area and for as long of a period of time as his study, Hawkings said. The studied area of the Leverett glacier, for instance, is more than 600 kilometers squared, while earlier work assessed a glacier about 5 kilometers squared, he said. Our study is the first to date to follow a whole melt season and the first to have looked at a large glacial catchment, he said. Matt Charette, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of an earlierpaperhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1746.html on Greenland-supplied iron, said although the new study overlaps somewhat with his prior work, it provides new details. A case could be made that a larger system like the one they studied is more appropriate for scaling up to the entire ice sheet, he said. Kenneth Coale, a scientist at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, said the paper was nicely done and added to understanding of how iron may provide a counter-effect to climate change. The Greenland iron originates from stored subglacial meltwater that gets flushed out by surface waters carried through tunnels and cracks in ice during the melt season, Hawkings said. It's not fully understood how far the iron travels once in the ocean, but it likely stays near both poles. Evidence exists for transport a few 100 kilometers out to sea, but only limited amounts will reach the open ocean, he said. It's also not fully understood how the iron will interact with polar ecosystems. Scientists have long known that iron-fueled algae can eat up carbon, leading to speculation that iron fertilization might be a geoengineering option to cool the planet. It also holds the possibility of boosting marine life that feed on plankton. A community in Canada two years ago, for instance, dumped large amounts of iron dust into the ocean to try to boost salmon stocks. In the case of natural iron fertilization via ice sheets, the positive likely outweighs the negative, in the sense that carbon will be removed in an area
[geo] EGU GE post mortem
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 Selected quotes: If it's enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it's enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices--power plants, automobiles--that make the problem worse. We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the atmosphere before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as SRM... Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary emergency right now? If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere--at least the ones that I am aware of--you have to account for very long time scales, generally in decades, before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he said. We can't count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future. H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done? Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
