[geo] Geoengineering, Agent-Regret, and the Lesser of Two Evils Argument | Toby Svoboda - Academia.edu

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.academia.edu/15347808/Geoengineering_Agent-Regret_and_the_Lesser_of_Two_Evils_Argument

Geoengineering, Agent-Regret, and the Lesser of Two Evils Argument
Pre-Print (Pre-Refereed) Version Toby Svoboda (Fairfield University) If
citing, please consult the published version in

Environmental Ethics
37:2 (2015), 207-220, doi: 10.5840/enviroethics201537218

Abstract According to
the “Lesser of Two Evils Argument
,
” deployment of solar radiation
management (SRM) geoengineering in a climate emergency would be morally
justified because it likely would be the best option available. A prominent
objection to this argument is that a climate emergency might constitute a
genuine moral dilemma in which SRM would be impermissible even if it was
the best option. However, while conceiving of a climate emergency as a
moral dilemma accounts for some ethical concerns about SRM, it requires the
controversial claim that there are genuine moral dilemmas, and it
potentially undermines moral action-guidance in emergency scenarios.
Instead, I argue that it is better to conceive of climate emergencies as
situations calling for agent-regret. This allows us coherently to hold that
SRM may be morally problematic even if it ought to be deployed in some
scenarios

-- 
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] Paper: Activated carbon derived from waste coffee grounds for stable methane storage

[Stephen Salter]

Julia

I am an engineer not a chemist but dredging up school chemistry from the 
1950's tell me that a mole of methane weighs 16 grams so I think that a 
mmole weighs 16 milligrams  and 4.2 mmole weighs 67 milligrams.  This is 
not much to store in one gram of coffee grounds. We need  to check on 
how much methane is held in the Arctic and  present world coffee production


Before you publish anything check with a proper chemist and make sure 
that M for mega has not got muddled with m for milli.


This reminds me of the neutrino bomb scare.  A nuclear bomb using 
neutrinos would have a yield of around a pico tonne of TNT.  People 
could be dropping them on you without you evne being aware of the attack.


Stephen

On 03/09/2015 16:11, Julia Calderone wrote:

Hi all,

Has anyone had a chance to read this paper published in 
Nanotechnology? If so, does anyone have thoughts on the feasibility of 
this idea?


"Activated carbon derived from waste coffee grounds for stable methane 
storage"


Link to paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-4484/26/38/385602/article

Any and all thoughts would be appreciated, as always! Thank you!

Best,
Julia

--
Julia Calderone
Science Writer
Cell: (818) 209-0926
Email: juliacalder...@gmail.com 
Web: www.juliacalderone.com 
Twitter: @juliacalderone
--
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-- 
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] Runaway CDR?

[Rau, Greg]

GR – Not sure I believe this. The Trichos will be limited by available P and Fe 
 (very low in the open ocean). So sure, elevated CDR for a while and then back 
to BAU(?) What did Trichos do say 100m years ago when pCO2 and acidity was at 
BAU year 2100 levels?  Or are Trichos the reason the pCO2 of the past 100m 
years has been the lowest  in Earth history?  Biology trumps geochemistry – I 
don't think so, but prove me wrong.
http://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=22425
Climate Change Could Cause Ocean Bacteria Trichodesmium Into Overdrive 
Resulting in Irreversible Damage
Published on September 2, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Imagine being in a car with the gas pedal stuck to the floor, heading toward a 
cliff's edge. Metaphorically speaking, that's what climate change will do to 
the key group of ocean bacteria known as Trichodesmium, scientists have 
discovered.

Trichodesmium (called "Tricho" for short by researchers) is one of the few 
organisms in the ocean that can "fix" atmospheric nitrogen gas, making it 
available to other organisms. It is crucial because all life -- from algae to 
whales -- needs nitrogen to grow.

A new study from USC and the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole Oceanographic 
Institution (WHOI) shows that changing conditions due to climate change could 
send Tricho into overdrive with no way to stop -- reproducing faster and 
generating lots more nitrogen. Without the ability to slow down, however, 
Tricho has the potential to gobble up all its available resources, which could 
trigger die-offs of the microorganism and the higher organisms that depend on 
it.

By breeding hundreds of generations of the bacteria over the course of nearly 
five years in high-carbon dioxide ocean conditions predicted for the year 2100, 
researchers found that increased ocean acidification evolved Tricho to work 
harder, producing 50 percent more nitrogen, and grow faster.

The problem is that these amped-up bacteria can't turn it off even when they 
are placed in conditions with less carbon dioxide. Further, the adaptation 
can't be reversed over time -- something not seen before by evolutionary 
biologists, and worrisome to marine biologists, according to David Hutchins, 
lead author of the study.

"Losing the ability to regulate your growth rate is not a healthy thing," said 
Hutchins, professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. 
"The last thing you want is to be stuck with these high growth rates when there 
aren't enough nutrients to go around. It's a losing strategy in the struggle to 
survive."

Tricho needs phosphorous and iron, which also exist in the ocean in limited 
supply. With no way to regulate its growth, the turbo-boosted Tricho could burn 
through all of its available nutrients too quickly and abruptly die off, which 
would be catastrophic for all other life forms in the ocean that need the 
nitrogen it would have produced to survive.

Some models predict that increasing ocean acidification will exacerbate the 
problem of nutrient scarcity by increasing stratification of the ocean -- 
locking key nutrients away from the organisms that need them to survive.

Hutchins is collaborating with Eric Webb of USC Dornsife and Mak Saito of WHOI 
to gain a better understanding of what the future ocean will look like, as it 
continues to be shaped by climate change. They were shocked by the discovery of 
an evolutionary change that appears to be permanent -- something Hutchins 
described as "unprecedented."

"Tricho has been studied for ages. Nobody expected that it could do something 
so bizarre," he said. "The evolutionary biologists are interested in it just to 
study this as a basic evolutionary principle."

The team is now studying the DNA of Tricho to try to find out how and why the 
irreversible evolution occurs. Earlier this year, research led by Webb found 
that Tricho's DNA inexplicably contains elements that are usually only seen in 
higher life forms.

"Our results in this and the aforementioned study are truly surprising. 
Furthermore, they are giving us an improved, view of how global climate change 
will impact Trichodesmium and the vital supplies of new nitrogen it provides to 
the rest of the marine food web in the future." Webb said.

Source: http://www.usc.edu/

-- 
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] A Volcanic Eruption That Reverberates 200 Years Later - NYTimes.com

[Andrew Lockley]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/mount-tambora-volcano-eruption-1815.html?_r=0=

The New York Times

A Volcanic Eruption That Reverberates 200 Years Later

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
AUGUST 24, 2015
In April 1815, the most powerful volcanic blast in recorded history shook
the planet in a catastrophe so vast that 200 years later, investigators are
still struggling to grasp its repercussions. It played a role, they now
understand, in icy weather, agricultural collapse and global pandemics —
and even gave rise to celebrated monsters.

Around the lush isles of the Dutch East Indies — modern-day Indonesia — the
eruption of Mount Tambora killed tens of thousands of people. They were
burned alive or killed by flying rocks, or they died later of starvation
because the heavy ash smothered crops.

More surprising, investigators have found that the giant cloud of minuscule
particles spread around the globe, blocked sunlight and produced three
years of planetary cooling. In June 1816, a blizzard pummeled upstate New
York. That July and August, killer frosts in New England ravaged farms.
Hailstones pounded London all summer.

A recent history of the disaster, “Tambora: The Eruption that Changed the
World,” by Gillen D’Arcy Wood, shows planetary effects so extreme that many
nations and communities sustained waves of famine, disease, civil unrest
and economic decline. Crops failed globally.

The Mount Tambora eruption's profound aftermath influenced the skies of
19th-century paintings like “Chichester Canal,” above, by J.M.W. Turner.
TATE, LONDON 2015
“The year without a summer,” as 1816 came to be known, gave birth not only
to paintings of fiery sunsets and tempestuous skies but two genres of
gothic fiction. The freakish progeny were Frankenstein and the human
vampire, which have loomed large in art and literature ever since.

“The paper trail,” said Dr. Wood, a University of Illinois professor of
English, “goes back again and again to Tambora.”

The gargantuan blast — 100 times bigger than Mount St. Helens’s — and its
ensuing worldwide pall have been the subject of increasing study over the
years as scientists have sought to comprehend not only the planet’s
climatological past but the future likelihood of such global disasters.

Clive Oppenheimer, a volcanologist at the University of Cambridge, who has
studied the Tambora catastrophe, put the chance of a similar explosion in
the next half-century as relatively low — perhaps 10 percent. But the
consequences, he added, could run extraordinarily high.

An early rendering of Frankenstein. In the cold and stormy summer of 1816,
while on holiday in Switzerland, Mary Shelley came up with her lurid tale.
THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD
“The modern world,” Dr. Oppenheimer said, “is far from immune to the
potentially catastrophic impacts.”

Before it exploded, Tambora was the tallest peak in a land of cloudy
summits. It lay atop the tropic isle of Sumbawa, its spires rising nearly
three miles. Long dormant, the mountain was considered a home to gods.
Villages dotted its slopes, and nearby farmers grew rice, coffee and pepper.

On the evening of April 5, 1815, according to contemporary accounts, flames
shot from its summit and the earth rumbled for hours. The volcano then fell
silent.

Five days later, the peak exploded in a deafening roar of fire, rock and
boiling ash that was heard hundreds of miles away. Flaming rivers of molten
rock ran down the slopes, destroying tropic forests and villages. Days
later, still raging but by then hollow, the mountain collapsed, its height
suddenly diminished by a mile.

A harbor scene by Caspar David Friedrich, painted after the Tambora
eruption, depicts a vivid sky.
ERICH LESSING / ART RESOURCE, N.Y.
Locally, an estimated 100,000 people died. Sumbawa never recovered.

The repercussions were global, but no one realized that the widespread
death and mayhem arose from an eruption halfway around the world. What
emerged was regional folklore. New Englanders called 1816 “eighteen hundred
and froze to death.” Germans called 1817 the year of the beggar. These and
many other local episodes remained unknown or unconnected.

It was scientists who began to stitch together the big picture, especially
the peculiar link between fiery volcanism and icy weather. An overarching
goal was to separate natural climate fluctuations from those of human
origin. One after another, studies came back to New England and its frigid
summer of 1816.

Dr. Wood expanded the portrait in his book, which is due out in paperback
next month. It draws on hundreds of scientific papers as well as Dr. Wood’s
knowledge of 19th-century literature to lay bare three years of planetary
mayhem as well as the origins of fictional demons.

“My interest was to understand a global event,” Dr. Wood said in an
interview, “and that meant serious detective work in lots of unfamiliar
archives.” Five years of inquiry took him to China, Europe and India.

It also transported him to Tambora, where he 

[geo] Walter Munk: Aspiring geoengineer

[Greg Rau]

"Munk, 97, said if he were younger, he would study the emerging field of 
geoengineering."

GRau - Walter, welcome to the fold. You're never too old to aspire to help save 
the world.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/walter-munk-einstein-of-the-oceans-at-97.html?_r=0

"'Einstein of the oceans' weighs in on research
Published: Monday, August 24, 2015
Walter Munk, a scientist known as the "Einstein of the oceans," built his 
reputation for thoroughness and fortuitous timing through decades of work.

Munk, now a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the 
University of California, San Diego, while serving as a military scientist 
during World War II performed research showing that waves in northwestern 
Africa were too high for boats carrying the Allies' troops to reach the beaches 
safely.

Though his superiors at first ignored Munk's warnings, he called in a mentor at 
the Scripps Institution to back up his claims.

Eventually, the pair developed calculations to plan beach invasions so ships 
landed during relative calm. The science was crucial for planning the future 
D-Day landings two years later.

Munk's colleagues describe him as curious and with a penchant for finding 
scientific problems at just the right time. Munk, 97, said if he were younger, 
he would study the emerging field of geoengineering.

Munk, who colleagues say took advantage of emerging computer analysis tools to 
perform research, said he's concerned young scientists today fail to ask 
fundamental questions or take enough risks because they are hamstrung by 
technology.

"Computers are a lot cheaper than boats, and a lot more comfortable," Munk 
said. "And I'm a little worried about so many people doing computer experiments 
and losing their ability, the American leadership, in measurements at sea" 
(Kate Galbraith, New York Times, Aug. 24). "


A brief listing of Prof. Munk's awards:
Munk was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1956 and to the Royal 
Society of London in 1976. He has been both a Guggenheim Fellow (three times) 
and a Fulbright Fellow. He was also named California Scientist of the Year by 
the California Museum of Science and Industry in 1969. Among the many other 
awards and honors Munk has received are the Arthur L. Day Medal, from the 
Geological Society of America in 1965, the Sverdrup Gold Medal of the American 
Meteorological Society in 1966, the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical 
Society in 1968, the first Maurice Ewing Medal sponsored by the American 
Geophysical Union and the U.S. Navy in 1976, the Alexander Agassiz Medal of the 
National Academy of Sciences in 1977, the Captain Robert Dexter Conrad Award 
from the U.S. Navy in 1978, the National Medal of Science in 1983, the William 
Bowie Medal of the American Geophysical Union in 1989, the Vetlesen Prize in 
1993, the Kyoto Prize in 1999, the first
 Prince Albert I Medal in 2001, and the Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish 
Academy of Sciences in 2010 “for his pioneering and fundamental contributions 
to our understanding of ocean circulation, tides and waves, and their role in 
the Earth's dynamics”.

Munk gave the 1986 Bakerian Lecture at the Royal Society on the Acoustic 
monitoring of ocean gyres.

In 1993 Munk was the first recipient of the Walter Munk Award given "in 
Recognition of Distinguished Research in Oceanography Related to Sound and the 
Sea."[37] This award is given jointly by the Oceanography Society, the Office 
of Naval Research and the US Department of Defense Naval Oceanographic 
Office.[37]

-- 
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.