[geo] Solar radiation management could be a game changer : Nature Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2360.html Solar radiation management could be a game changer Peter J. Irvine, Stefan Schäfer Mark G. Lawrence Nature Climate Change 4, 842 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2360 25 September 2014 Barrett et al.1 argue that, given the challenges with solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering, “when the use of geoengineering is politically feasible, the intervention may not be effective; and ... when the use of geoengineering might be effective, its deployment may not be politically feasible”. We believe… (and that's all you get without paying. Sorry!) -- 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] Open : A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans
Poster's note : useful for OIF monitoring http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111420?_rdoc=1_fmt=high_origin=gateway_docanchor=md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffbccp=y Progress in Oceanography April 2014, Vol.123:123–144, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2013.12.008 Open Access, A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans David Blondeau-Patissier James F.R. Gower Vittorio E. Brando Abstract The need for more effective environmental monitoring of the open and coastal ocean has recently led to notable advances in satellite ocean color technology and algorithm research. Satellite ocean color sensors’ data are widely used for the detection, mapping and monitoring of phytoplankton blooms because earth observation provides a synoptic view of the ocean, both spatially and temporally. Algal blooms are indicators of marine ecosystem health; thus, their monitoring is a key component of effective management of coastal and oceanic resources. Since the late 1970s, a wide variety of operational ocean color satellite sensors and algorithms have been developed. The comprehensive review presented in this article captures the details of the progress and discusses the advantages and limitations of the algorithms used with the multi-spectral ocean color sensors CZCS, SeaWiFS, MODIS and MERIS. Present challenges include overcoming the severe limitation of these algorithms in coastal waters and refining detection limits in various oceanic and coastal environments. To understand the spatio-temporal patterns of algal blooms and their triggering factors, it is essential to consider the possible effects of environmental parameters, such as water temperature, turbidity, solar radiation and bathymetry. Hence, this review will also discuss the use of statistical techniques and additional datasets derived from ecosystem models or other satellite sensors to characterize further the factors triggering or limiting the development of algal blooms in coastal and open ocean waters. -- 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.
Re: [geo] Solar radiation management could be a game changer : Nature Climate Change
Here's the full wording (letter to editor): To the Editor— Barrettetal.1 argue that, given the challenges with solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering, “when the use of geoengineering is politically feasible, the intervention may not be effective; and… when the use of geoengineering might be effective, its deployment may not be politically feasible”. We believe the first part of this conclusion depends on a relatively narrow definition of efficacy that may not reflect the real concerns that would motivate a potential deployment of SRM, whereas the second part of the conclusion lacks evidence and therefore is speculative at this stage. Although the evidence from model studies about the impacts of SRM geoengineering is, at present, limited, the initial evidence broadly indicates that SRM deployed to cool the climate could potentially reduce many of the physical impacts of climate change as well as the risk of crossing tipping points2–4, as Barrettetal. acknowledge. This is because many climate impact drivers depend directly on temperature, such as high-temperature extremes, the thermal expansion of water, the melting of snow and ice and the intensity of precipitation2–5.Barrettetal. argue that the potential benefits of SRM could not be secured due to political controversy around regionally differentiated effects and fears of becoming ‘addicted’ to SRM. While there are undoubtedly regional differences in the climate response to SRM, the general reversal of temperature increases would be felt worldwide, as would some benefits such as a reduction in sea-level rise2,4,6. To argue that SRM deployment is politically infeasible due to its differentiated regional effects, which will be challenging to predict in detail, it would have to be demonstrated that regional considerations would trump the benefits of an overall reduction of physical climate impacts in shaping states’ preferences. The claim that the fear of becoming addicted to SRM would make SRM politically unfeasible would similarly need to be substantiated by theoretical considerations and evidence from analogous cases. Barrettetal. claim that as a response to crossing a tipping point, SRM would be politically feasible, but ineffective. However, they fail to acknowledge that while SRM may not reverse the changes following the passing of a tipping point, in many cases it could reduce the rate of change and hence reduce some of the harm that the passing of a tipping point would cause7. SRM is no panacea; it would introduce new risks and would shift the overall burden of risks, which might pose substantial political problems, as Barrettetal. indicate. It is also clear that to minimize the risks posed by climate change, mitigation will need to be pursued vigorously. Although much is uncertain about the potential impacts of SRM, should we not at least seriously consider how the world would react if SRM eventually proved to be a highly effective means of reducing the physical risks of climate change? In this case, SRM geoengineering would indeed be a game changer. ❐References1. Barrett, S. etal. Nature Clim. Change 4, 527–529 (2014).2. Irvine, P.J., Sriver, R.L. Keller, K. Nature Clim. Change 2, 97–100 (2012).3. Curry, C.L. etal. J.Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 3900–3923 (2014).4. Kravitz, B. etal. J.Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 8320–8332 (2013).5. Smith, J.B. etal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4133–4137 (2009).6. Irvine, P.J., Ridgwell, A.J. Lunt, D.J. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L18702 (2010).7. Irvine, P.J., Lunt, D.J., Stone, E.J. Ridgwell, A.J. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 045109 (2009).Peter J. Irvine*, Stefan Schäfer and Mark G. LawrenceInstitute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Sustainable Interactions with the Atmosphere, Berliner Strasse 130, Potsdam 14467, Germany. *e-mail: peter.irv...@iass-potsdam.de From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:03 AM Subject: [geo] Solar radiation management could be a game changer : Nature Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2360.html Solar radiation management could be a game changer Peter J. Irvine, Stefan Schäfer Mark G. Lawrence Nature Climate Change 4, 842 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2360 25 September 2014 Barrett et al.1 argue that, given the challenges with solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering, “when the use of geoengineering is politically feasible, the intervention may not be effective; and ... when the use of geoengineering might be effective, its deployment may not be politically feasible”. We believe… (and that's all you get without paying. Sorry!) -- 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
[geo] How we can make good decisions about geoengineering | Carbon Brief
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/09/how-we-can-make-good-decisions-about-geoengineering/ How we can make good decisions about geoengineering 30 Sep 2014, 15:15 Dr Rob Bellamy NERC Next month's synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to give the organisation's verdict on geoengineering, a radical set of proposals to use large-scale technologies to tackle climate change. There are two types of geoengineering. Carbon geoengineering seeks to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, for example by capturing it from the air and storing it underground, or by adding iron to the oceans to trigger carbon-absorbing algal blooms. Solar geoengineering is different. It seeks to reflect some sunlight away from the Earth before it can be trapped by greenhouse gases.This can be done, for example, by spraying clouds with sea salt to make them more reflective, or by stratospheric aerosol injection, where reflective particles are pumped into the atmosphere.My colleagues and I have been examining the importance of 'opening up' discussion about geoengineering to alternative options, different perspectives and real world complexity. 'Closing down' assessmentOur earlier research has shown that the ways in which researchers frame assessments of geoengineering have important effects on the conclusions people come to.It's common for such assessments to keep framings narrow. For example, researchers might choose to evaluate one or more geoengineering techniques, but not consider alternative options for tackling climate change, like renewable power or greener lifestyles. Such narrow framings typically involve also leaving out public and stakeholder participation, obscuring social issues under technical criteria, and mishandling uncertainties by oversimplifying complexity. Analysis of the frequency of different geoengineering proposals featured in standard appraisals shows a closing down particular proposals. Source: Bellamy et al., (2012) Take the example of the UK Royal Society's influential 2009 report into geoengineering. It convened a small group of experts to assess geoengineering proposals against four technical criteria: effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety.It's perhaps not surprising then that stratospheric aerosol injection, an apparently cheap, effective and fast acting proposal, came out of the assessment as the best choice. The assessment gave only a token nod to the uncertainties by adding arbitrary error bars. We've found that this is a common theme. Through narrow framings, assessments of geoengineering have served to 'close down' on certain proposals, with stratospheric aerosol injection often coming out ahead.Stratospheric aerosol injection means releasing small particles into the stratosphere which will reflect incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth. Another way? This 'closing down' in assessments of geoengineering is a problem, because it risks locking us in to decisions that are not adequately informed and that will engender conflict between different values and interests. Geoengineering is an issue that is too complex and has too much at stake to be decided by narrow framings that ignore broader concerns. That's why we've suggested a new way to perform such assessments, that can help open up discussion about geoengineering.Developing a technique called Deliberative Mapping (DM), we have assessed geoengineering proposals alongside alternative ways of tackling climate change, like low carbon lifestyles and renewable energy technologies.We convened a small but diverse international groups of academic experts, civil society, government and industry stakeholders, alongside members of the public from Norfolk in the UK. We asked them to come up with a set of criteria that they felt were important when assessing different options to deal with climate change.The criteria they came up with went beyond narrow technical criteria to include social issues such as politics, society and ethics. But they also came up with more in-depth technical criteria on effectiveness, environmental impacts, feasibility and economics. Criteria for assessing geoengineering proposals identified by academic experts, civil society, government, industry stakeholders and the public. Source: Bellamy et al., ( 2014) Where in other research, 'effectiveness' has often been simply equated to global temperature reduction, and 'affordability' to capital investment, our assessment broadened out those criteria to account for carbon dioxide reduction and litigation costs, amongst many other issues. By expanding the criteria used to judge geoengineering and by measuring both the optimistic and pessimistic performance of each option, this method enabled our participants to consider all of the uncertainties in a much more substantive way. A remarkable consistency You might think that adding more options, perspectives, criteria and uncertainty into the mix in this way would
[geo] CDR cheaper than CCS
All in all this [CCS] is pretty impressive technology for mitigating CO2 but we need to seriously question the rationale for spending so much to justify keeping coal-fired power plants in operation. That's because CCS is the most expensive approach we can take to CDR, carbon dioxide removal. http://www.21stcentech.com/cdr-role-mitigating-climate-change/ Confusing CO2 emissions reduction with CDR, but still interesting points. 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.
Fwd: [geo] Open : A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans
Many interesting developments in here. 1) We're getting better at real time observation of algal blooms thanks to multi sensor multi band and multi platform devices (ARGO + satellite is a potent combination) but not there yet. 2) Of particular note for the geoengineering community is the importance of supporting long-term decadal planning to ensure continuity of global remote sensing services: [there was a]10-year gap between CZCS and SeaWiFS (Fig. 4). This lack of data affected the possibility of answering many environmental questions, one of which was whether the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 caused large phytoplankton blooms. The 10 cubic kilometers of material ejected by Mount Pinatubo contained trace metals (Gabrielli et al., 2008), especially iron, that were spread by the winds over the world’s oceans. These atmospheric depositions are likely to have generated large-scale phytoplankton blooms, but no ocean color satellite records for those events exist. Continuity of the global satellite record cannot be taken for granted and in fact is regularly imperiled everytime a satellite fails or a mission is delayed or cancelled. It would be good if some of the visionaries and venture capitalists who watch this space threw their weight behind backing civil scientific space missions. Without the satellite record for climate science, geoengineering is guessing in the dark. ᐧ On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : useful for OIF monitoring http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007966111420?_rdoc=1_fmt=high_origin=gateway_docanchor=md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffbccp=y Progress in Oceanography April 2014, Vol.123:123–144, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2013.12.008 Open Access, A review of ocean color remote sensing methods and statistical techniques for the detection, mapping and analysis of phytoplankton blooms in coastal and open oceans David Blondeau-Patissier James F.R. Gower Vittorio E. Brando Abstract The need for more effective environmental monitoring of the open and coastal ocean has recently led to notable advances in satellite ocean color technology and algorithm research. Satellite ocean color sensors’ data are widely used for the detection, mapping and monitoring of phytoplankton blooms because earth observation provides a synoptic view of the ocean, both spatially and temporally. Algal blooms are indicators of marine ecosystem health; thus, their monitoring is a key component of effective management of coastal and oceanic resources. Since the late 1970s, a wide variety of operational ocean color satellite sensors and algorithms have been developed. The comprehensive review presented in this article captures the details of the progress and discusses the advantages and limitations of the algorithms used with the multi-spectral ocean color sensors CZCS, SeaWiFS, MODIS and MERIS. Present challenges include overcoming the severe limitation of these algorithms in coastal waters and refining detection limits in various oceanic and coastal environments. To understand the spatio-temporal patterns of algal blooms and their triggering factors, it is essential to consider the possible effects of environmental parameters, such as water temperature, turbidity, solar radiation and bathymetry. Hence, this review will also discuss the use of statistical techniques and additional datasets derived from ecosystem models or other satellite sensors to characterize further the factors triggering or limiting the development of algal blooms in coastal and open ocean waters. -- 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. -- 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] Natural olivine beaches
Hi The proposal for olivine weathering on beaches seems to pass a common sense test. However, there's been a lack of detailed discussion about the occurrence and function of natural olivine beaches, as far as I'm aware. There are a lot of beaches in the world. Olivine is pretty common. How much of a sink is natural beach chemical and mechanical weathering of olivine? It should be easy to find at least one location where there's massive quantities of olivine sand, and take detailed measurements on the carbon sink. I know there's at least one such beach in the literature, but I can't recall discussions of others, nor detailed quantitative research on erosion and sequestration rates at this site Can someone enlighten me as to why this has seemingly been overlooked for detailed study? A -- 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.
