Re: [geo] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet
According to the ETC website, one of Jim's skills is storytelling. Any more questions? - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: jim thomas Cc: Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering ; David Keith ; Jason J Blackstock Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:16 Subject: Re: [geo] Ngo reaction to ipcc geo meet Let me get this right. You are offended that I said your press release seemed balanced, and you defend yourself by saying, and I paraphrase, don't blame us for being balanced, we were just reporting what the IPCC said. On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:07 AM, jim thomas j...@etcgroup.org wrote: On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: Has ETC adopted a new strategy, and decided to say things that sound more balanced? Hi Ken, I'm not sure what you mean - ETC simply reported on what the IPCC co-chairs reported. Can you or another member of the scientific steering committee (David? Jason?) also confirm that the IPCC is not going to overstep its mandate by making any reccomendations in AR5 on governance of geoengineering, research funding or on experimentation? Our news release is below for others to see. cheers Jim Thomas, ETC Group - ETC Group News Release 22 June 2011 www.etcgroup.org IPCC treads carefully on geoengineering: UN panel says it will review science but take no stand on governance LIMA, Peru – As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wound up its expert meeting on geoengineering in Lima, Peru, which included all three IPCC Working Groups, it committed to remain “policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.” Despite getting off on the wrong foot (no transparency), with some of the wrong experts (scientists with financial interests), on some of the wrong topics (governance), the IPCC has now confirmed that it will not make recommendations to governments regarding research funding for the controversial technologies, governance models or the legality of experimentation. At a press briefing following the close of the expert meeting, the IPCC stated that its focus will be “establishing the scientific foundations for an assessment of geoengineering.” This assessment would include risks, costs, benefits and social and economic impacts, intended and unintended consequences as well as uncertainties and gaps in knowledge and will be based solely on peer-reviewed literature. “Of course, a real assessment of geoengineering will need to be much broader than a scientific peer-review process,” said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group from Lima, though outside the meeting. “Civil society organizations have been clear that we do not want these dangerous technologies developed; they are a new threat from the very same countries that are responsible for the climate crisis in the first place!” Dr. Chris Field, Co-chair of Working Group II (vulnerability, adaptation, impacts), said that while the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) would consider peer-reviewed literature on the question of governance, that debate would take place “at higher levels” – presumably referring to intergovernmental negotiations ongoing at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which adopted a moratorium on geoengineering activities in October 2010. Dr. Ramon Pichs-Madruga, Co-chair of Working Group III (mitigation), stated that all stakeholders would have a chance to comment on the IPCC’s treatment of geoengineering in the regular schedule of IPCC meetings over the next two years, and that civil society input was welcome, particularly given geoengineering’s controversial nature. The CBD is in the midst of holding a series of consultations that have been open to organizations of varying viewpoints. This is in marked contrast to the series of Chatham House chats on geoengingineering governance that have taken place over the past year. Overwhelmingly, those have been invitation-only and dominated by geoengineering advocates (e.g., Asilomar conference on climate intervention, the Royal Society’s Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, the International Risk Governance Council). Last week, 160 organizations from around the world sent an open letter to IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri expressing concerns about the IPCC expert meeting. “The IPCC has assured us it will go forward carefully in this work, and will not overstep its mandate by making governance recommendations. We will be closely following the process,” said Ribeiro. “Geoengineering is too dangerous to too many people and to the planet to be left in the hands of small group of so-called experts. Geoengineering should be an issue at the Rio+20 conference in June 2012.” For more information: Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group, sil...@etcgroup.org; +52 55 5563 2664 cell phone: +52 1 55 2653 3330 Pat Mooney, ETC Group, e...@etcgroup.org; +1 613
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on net carbon, even for largely decarbonized power. All three experts are working on low-pressure-drop systems for this reason. Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, biochar, BECS - maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
to take informed decisions to protect the climate and the environment, he said by telephone. We will look at the advantages and possibilities, but we will also look at the potentially negative aspects. The experts meeting Monday, he added, review the state of scientific knowledge but do not make policy recommendations. [Exactly how this has been described previously.] In the absence of an objective IPCC assessment, the only information available to policy makers would be from quite a diverse range of sources, some of which might have an interest at stake, he said. [Correct, but I would caution that among the people participating are some who have both financial and political interests as well, so that must also be considered in the final evaluation. In general, though, even with these individuals involvement, most scientists are opposed to geoengineering, so anything coming out of Lima resembling we need further research would be considered an endorsement at this point.] Geo-engineering schemes can be as simple as planting trees to absorb CO2 or painting flat roofs white to reflect sunlight back into space, a technique already in use in many sun-baked urban settings. [In spite of efforts to market it as such, the roof whitening really isn't on a large enough scale to have any significant impact on global climate change or even on urban climate. A recent paper published this weekend found that afforestation in the temperate regions is a waste of time. The increased albedo offsets any gain in CO2 capture and the amount of land required impinges on food production. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110619/sc_afp/climatewarmingforestsscience_20110619171818 ] They also include scattering sea salt aerosols in low marine clouds to render them more mirror-like, sowing the stratosphere with reflective sulphate particles, or fertilising the ocean surface with iron to spur the growth of micro-organisms that gobble up CO2. At the sci-fi end of the scale is a proposal -- which exists, for now, only on paper -- for a sunshade positioned at a key point between Earth and the Sun that would deflect one or two percent of solar radiation, turning the planet's thermostat down a notch. In an analysis published in September 2009, the Royal Society, Britain's academy of sciences, judged that planting forests and building towers to capture CO2 could make a useful contribution -- once they are demonstrated to be safe, effective, sustainable and affordable. It also noted that blunting the impact of solar radiation would still not lower atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which is also driving ocean acidification. [Finally, regarding who should participate in these meetings, I had a discussion this weekend regarding the Science Advisory Board of the USEPA, a sort of permanent IPCC and analogous to the Air Resources Board in California. The SAB does provide policy recommendations and its meetings are open to the public and the media. But meetings that are tasked with reviewing the efficacy of scientific information are not open (e.g. grant proposal rerviews), any more than the meetings that the various bodies held internally to prepare their reports on geoengineering or me discussing journal article reviews with the team working on the comments. So Ken and Mike's wishy washy recommendations that observers be present are simply wrong. BTW, would you like to have the AFP reporter in the meeting room? How about reporters sitting in with president Obama as he approves the killing of bin Laden? Of course, there are some areas where full disclosure is desirable and even mandated. The News and Observer, the paper that covers Raleigh, NC and surrounding areas (actual the entire state) recently published a link to a state database where one can see the salaries of all professors at the state universities. Duke is private, so it isn't included. Would like to see a similar database for all states, especially in these budget challenged times. Have fun.] http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/24/1011452/university-employee-salaries.html?appSession=974222361451730 - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com To: agask...@nc.rr.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:42 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather hypocritically, citing funding reasons when that had nothing to do with it. So they had an opportunity to participate in the largest gathering devoted to governance and callously passed it up. I would also note that none of the mainstream environmental groups are making the absurd demands of ETC regarding the Peru meeting. Where is Greenpeace? EDF? NRDC? Sierra Club? World Wildlife Fund? By their silence, they endorse letting the scientists do their job without the circus atmosphere that ETC, the Westboro
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather hypocritically, citing funding reasons when that had nothing to do with it. So they had an opportunity to participate in the largest gathering devoted to governance and callously passed it up. I would also note that none of the mainstream environmental groups are making the absurd demands of ETC regarding the Peru meeting. Where is Greenpeace? EDF? NRDC? Sierra Club? World Wildlife Fund? By their silence, they endorse letting the scientists do their job without the circus atmosphere that ETC, the Westboro Baptist Church of modern technology is sure to bring. And BTW, Mike, the IPCC is not a city council. It answers to the UN, not whoever shows up with an axe to grind. - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:19 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC The IPCC meeting as I understand it, is simply to consider the efficacy of some of the proposed technological alternatives to emissions reductions, i.e., geoengineering. It is not to adopt or endorse action plans based on them. The IPCC has held workshops and published reports on the subject of climate change for nearly 20 years and I don't think it has been their policy or should it be to have every meeting vetted or overseen by people from outside the discipline being considered. Would you like for example, to have someone from the philosophy department at your local university sit in on every discussion you have on development of a research tool? Oh, this could have far reaching implications. Better get the ethics people to sign off on this first. EPA doesn't do this. I am getting ready to review SBIRs again and I don't think that it's necessary to have anyone from ETC or the Guardian drop by to make sure I don't ignore the intergenerational implications of the X technology. That's for later. There have been more than ample opportunities for the non science contributors to make their case against geoengineering and they have already received a disproportionate share of the attention as well as funding. The recent meeting in the UK, the Asilomar conference and most recently, Ken's wrongheaded hand wringing conclusion that the IPCC meeting needs greater transparency just makes the problem worse. There's an old saying that you shouldn't feed stray animals because it will just encourage them to come back for more and bring some friends. Feeding ETC a steady diet of outrage is just what they want. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:25 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement. A We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers and social policy experts involved in the development of geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally: 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions cuts, and never have done. 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate change. 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in the future control of global warming. 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering techniques 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to offer. Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups. Yours sincerely On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's Guardian see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-climate-consideration Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points? Stephen
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
The IPCC meeting as I understand it, is simply to consider the efficacy of some of the proposed technological alternatives to emissions reductions, i.e., geoengineering. It is not to adopt or endorse action plans based on them. The IPCC has held workshops and published reports on the subject of climate change for nearly 20 years and I don't think it has been their policy or should it be to have every meeting vetted or overseen by people from outside the discipline being considered. Would you like for example, to have someone from the philosophy department at your local university sit in on every discussion you have on development of a research tool? Oh, this could have far reaching implications. Better get the ethics people to sign off on this first. EPA doesn't do this. I am getting ready to review SBIRs again and I don't think that it's necessary to have anyone from ETC or the Guardian drop by to make sure I don't ignore the intergenerational implications of the X technology. That's for later. There have been more than ample opportunities for the non science contributors to make their case against geoengineering and they have already received a disproportionate share of the attention as well as funding. The recent meeting in the UK, the Asilomar conference and most recently, Ken's wrongheaded hand wringing conclusion that the IPCC meeting needs greater transparency just makes the problem worse. There's an old saying that you shouldn't feed stray animals because it will just encourage them to come back for more and bring some friends. Feeding ETC a steady diet of outrage is just what they want. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:25 Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement. A We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers and social policy experts involved in the development of geoengineering and its governance. We write with frustration at the sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the press and IPCC. As a result, we would like to express the following views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally: 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions cuts, and never have done. 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate change. 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in the future control of global warming. 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering techniques 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have thus far achieved little or nothing. As such, we believe that further research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to offer. Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit. We argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups. Yours sincerely On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All Pat Mooney of the ETC group repeats much of the IPCC letter in today's Guardian see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/15/geo-engineering-climate-consideration Can we get the Guardian to print Ken's list of points? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 16/06/2011 08:21, Andrew Lockley wrote: You'll have to question them directly I suggest that we circulate a response to each - likely the same as sent to the ipcc A On 16 Jun 2011 02:54, voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting list of groups. I will bet $100 that if each group were to be contacted, that we would find they have no knowledge of this ETC effort. I just randomly picked one... Institute for Social Ecology and searched their website for Geoengineering. This is what I foundhttp://www.social-ecology.org/?s=geoengineeringsubmit.x=10submit.y=9 No Result So, I tried anotherInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. USA and again searched their site for GE. Here is what I found
Fw: [geo] Re: Robert Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (Springer, 2011) | Invitation to Contribute
geoengineering has given rise to heated disputes, even death threats Death threats? I'm certain we all have in mind one or more people we would like to see go away, but I am not aware of any specific cases of death threats being made against those involved in geoengineering. It is true that there are a lot of people running around loose who shouldn't be, but I doubt even any of them have a geoengineer fixation of that magnitude. That no one or group tried to bust up the Asilomar meeting (where you could have taken out most of the people working in the field) suggests a low threat level. Ken and ETC trashed it and blew it off, but that's a different thing. The psycho with the propane cans who took hostages and tried to blow up the Discovery Channel building over his belief about their lack of emphasis on overpopulation probably represents the most likely case to occur. Groups like ETC, the chemtrail nut jobs, etc. are largely in it for publicity or money and aren't going to hurt anybody. Michael Mann claimed some time ago that white supremacists were after him and other climate scientists because they were Jews, but I'm not sure that ever amounted to anything. I think Mann and the others were more likely hiding out from the media because they didn't want to answer questions about the climategate fiasco than out of legitimate fear of being killed. Still, the world is full of unstable people, so you probably shouldn't answer the door unless you know who it is and don't open any FedEx packages that look like they were prepared by Ted Kaczynski. As to your concerns about liability for what you write, the publishers are correct. These are standard waivers, that along with that for copyright that authors have to agree to. Publishers, not authors set the terms and no one is making you submit anything to this company. As their representative alluded, the greater challenge will be in getting anyone to read the 20,000+ words you have written about your theoretical technology than will come after you for fear of its ultimate impact. Perhaps the gold standard for we shouldn't have published this guy's work is the Andrew Wakefield paper in the Lancet about the connection he drew between mercury in vaccines and autism. The research was later judged to be a fraud, he had his medical license revoked, the journal had to retract the paper (more than 10 years after the fact), and several children died because their parents believed this bozo's claim and didn't have their children vaccinated. I'm sure the Lancet had the same kind of liability waiver language in their author's release form and Wakefield and his co-authors (who have curiously gone unpunished for their role) have not been sued for any of this to my knowledge nor has the Lancet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield If you look closely enough at any contract whether it's for a blender you bought at WalMart, for lab testing services or supplies or medicine or practically anything else you will find some kind of liability waiver that you implicity or explicitly have to agree to. This doesn't preclude legal action down the road (the phone book is still full of lawyers), but we also have courts that keep them at bay also. Will anyone be sued for field tests of geoenginnering? You can count on it. Will anyone be sued for what they write about geoengineering? Not unless they do a Wakefield. -- From: Stephen Salter [mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 5/2/2011 11:44 To: Sustainability, Encyclopedia REO Subject: Re: Robert Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (Springer, 2011) | Invitation to Contribute Dear Dr Meyers Following comments from Tim Lenton I have modified and uploaded my contribution to your encyclopaedia. However I have now read the publishing agreement as carefully as I should have done earlier and noticed that in the final paragraph of clause 6 that you want unlimited indemnity for all legal costs that might arise. The probability of litigation is low but geoengineering has given rise to heated disputes, even death threats, and the probability of vexatious litigation is not as low as for general material. I am not willing to take an infinitely large risk. I hope that it will be possible for you to modify the clause. Stephen Salter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering
SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of technologies that future generations might consider anathema. So you have no faith in CDR? Did you just make up the 500-1000 yr time frame? If you want to assume we have to wait until the CO2 and other GHG levels return to pre-industrial on their own, then you'll have to wait a lot longer than a thousand years. The more reasonable assumption about SRM, whatever form it takes is that it would probably need to be used until the end of this century. By then, energy sources to regenerate sorbents will be available, after the needs to supply the grid have been satisfied. As the CO2 level in the atmosphere is gradually lowered, the intensity of the SRM application is also reduced. I don't think lawsuits from the unborn are our greatest worry. It's those people who keep meeting every few months promising, but never delivering on emissions cuts or money to pay for it. BTW, these are the same people who would fast track the methane reduction fantasy that some have fallen prey to of late. So don't blame AEI for binary thinking. It's others who have defined the choices. - Original Message - From: Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:47 Subject: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering Hi Michael, Thanks for responding again. A few more thoughts above. On May 11, 10:47 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for the response. As to 1); The principal aspects of SRM, in that they are both technologically simple and cheap, makes the assumption of failure seem unrealistic. The brakes system in my car is simple and cheap and so I maintain it so as to not kill myself and others. If a deployed SRM effort is shielding a future generation from outright general destruction, maintaining and even improving the system should be expected of future generations. The core understanding, by most knowledgeable people in this area, is that global SRM should not be deployed until climate change becomes a direct threat to the balance of humanity. It is an emergency response. However, waiting for the emergency to happen before developing the means to respond is not rational. Also, there is a large difference between surface SRM efforts and that of stratospheric injection. Lumping them together is a novice's mistake. * Somehow I think we know a lot more about the brake systems of cars, borne out by 100 years of experience, than the effectiveness of SRM technologies. Beyond the fact that a number of experts have acknowledged potential diminution of effectiveness (and yes, including feedback mechanisms) or downright failure, this issue can't be blithely dismissed. Plus, I think you miss the larger issue, which is the fact that a future generation might wish to no longer be under the yoke of SRM given potentially very negative impacts (e.g. impacts on monsoons or ozone depletion), yet it would be compelled to do so because of termination effects that far exceed business as usual warming impacts (that's why your argument below, that we're already geoengineering the climate via our current policies is not entirely compelling from my perspective). The point is that intergenerational equity requires us to provide future generations with free choices in terms of policymaking. SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of technologies that future generations might consider anathema. The notion of un-known/hypothetical feedbacks denuding SRM efforts is interesting. In that, it is injecting a double-false conditional into the debate. This is more of a media tool than a scientific one. As to 2); We are currently doing just that! The technology which is currently visiting great harm on certain vulnerable populations is the use of fossil fuels. The sudden stoppage of that technology would have a grave termination effect. SRM will be needed in providing an important transitional phase to greener energy. FF are far worse than SRM! * Not true, see analysis above. And, again, that's an infirm argument from an ethical perspective. It's an argument that gives succor to the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, who has embraced geoengineering, arguing that our choices are binary: a future ravaged by climatic effects from unstinted initiatives or the magic bullet of geoengineering. There is a third way, which is substantive reductions in emissions, using both short-term stop gap measures, e.g. a focus on reducing black carbon, and policies designed to effectuate a longer term structural decarbonization of the world economy; see McKinsey and Tellus's analyses in recent years for a highly cost-effect vision of the way forward. However, the siren song of geoengineering provides cover for entrenched fossil fuel interests to resist such policy prescriptions; we shouldn't permit this to happen. As to 3) I believe reductionism is important if I
Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering
Even, assuming you're right, we could utilize SRM simply for a century long transition to CDR, suppose it results in massive droughts in Southeast Asia and the Amazon, as some have argued, are you fine with that from an ethical perspective? Yes, some of those regions will face serious climatic impacts under a business as usual scenario, but many ethicists would view the intentional infliction of such impacts via deployment of SRM technologies far differently than incidental impacts related to the use of fossil fuels. I'm glad many ethicists aren't going to make the decisions about which technologies to use, since massive droughts in the tropical regions would not be considered by most as incidental impacts related to the use of fossil fuels. Thanks for the references. This one sounds particularly balanced: Dumanoski, Resisting the Dangerous Allure of Global Warming Technofixes, 62 Environment 360 (2009). I don't see why it should take a millenia to draw down the CO2 level by 1000-1500 Gt once the power is available. If it does, we can all go home, since the CO2 already there will melt a lot of ice in the next 1000 years all by itself. In that case, mitigation is simply a waste of time and we should enjoy the party for as long as we can. - Original Message - From: Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:39 Subject: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering Dear Alvia, 1. We're not talking about CDR, just SRM, at least in terms of the focus of the article you're discussing; 2. I don't appreciate you accusing me of making up stuff,: a responsible approach, assuming arguendo, you want to carry on a colloquy and not resort to ad hominem, would be to ask for citations for the 500-1000 year timeframe. Here you go: Naomi E. Vaughan Timothy M. Lenton, A Review of Climate Geoengineering Proposals, CLIMATIC CHANGE, Online First, Mar. 22, 2011; Victor Brovkin, et al., Geoengineering Climate by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: Earth System Vulnerability to Technological Failure, 92 CLIMATIC CHANGE 243, 252 (2009); Dumanoski, Resisting the Dangerous Allure of Global Warming Technofixes, 62 Environment 360 (2009); 3. I'm fascinated that some (certainly not all, or most, fortunately) folks in the geoengineering community have embraced it as a religion, i.e. they legitimately point out the serious governance issues associated with climatic policy, but magically place their faith in technologies fraught with massive uncertainties in terms of potential effectiveness and huge potential intergenerational and intragenerational equity issues, strange double standard; 4. Beyond the intergenerational issues that I point out, which you simply swat outside in a conclusory fashion without confronting the legal or ethical issues that are proffered, you ignore the serious intragenerational equity issues that inhere to this approach. Even, assuming you're right, we could utilize SRM simply for a century long transition to CDR, suppose it results in massive droughts in Southeast Asia and the Amazon, as some have argued, are you fine with that from an ethical perspective? Yes, some of those regions will face serious climatic impacts under a business as usual scenario, but many ethicists would view the intentional infliction of such impacts via deployment of SRM technologies far differently than incidental impacts related to the use of fossil fuels. The former is also likely to engender far higher levels of animus by affected parties. If you take the time to read the article, which I suspect you did not, you'll see that I acknowledge the exigencies that might counsel in favor of SRM approaches, but there's also a prescriptive section that outlines the circumstances under which I think such deployment would comport with the principle of intergenerational equity. wil On May 12, 11:53 am, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: SRM would require 500-1000 year deployments of technologies that future generations might consider anathema. So you have no faith in CDR? Did you just make up the 500-1000 yr time frame? If you want to assume we have to wait until the CO2 and other GHG levels return to pre-industrial on their own, then you'll have to wait a lot longer than a thousand years. The more reasonable assumption about SRM, whatever form it takes is that it would probably need to be used until the end of this century. By then, energy sources to regenerate sorbents will be available, after the needs to supply the grid have been satisfied. As the CO2 level in the atmosphere is gradually lowered, the intensity of the SRM application is also reduced. I don't think lawsuits from the unborn are our greatest worry. It's those people who keep meeting every few months promising, but never delivering on emissions cuts or money to pay for it. BTW, these are the same people who would fast track the methane reduction
Re: [geo] Plan C?
Sonny beat him to it, but the heathen unbelievers have their doubts. Would this be a violation of ENMOD? Is Gov. Perry attempting to unlilaterally affect the weather? What kind of governance procedures are needed to ensure the proper use of prayer in weather modification? Should Congress and the British Parliament (after THE wedding) hold hearings? Will $10 million be enough to reduce the risk associated with faith-based geoengineering? The sky's the limit. No kidding. It really is. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-08-19/ In this week's eSkeptic, Gary J. Whittenberger investigates whether the prayer of Georgia State Governor Sonny Perdue correlates to an increase in precipitation and how likely it was to have actually caused the increase. Gary Whittenberger is a free-lance writer and psychologist, living in Tallahassee, Florida. He received his doctoral degree from Florida State University after which he worked for 23 years as a psychologist in prisons. He has published many articles on science, philosophy, psychology, and religion, and their intersection. A Governor's Prayer for Rain An Empirical Analysis of a Supernatural Claim by Gary J. Whittenberger On Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Sonny Perdue, the Governor of Georgia, led a group of approximately 250 persons, including many state officials, in a prayer for rain on the steps of the state capitol in Atlanta.1 Georgia had been suffering an extreme drought, and the level of Lake Lanier, an important water reservoir near Atlanta, had been decreasing dramatically over several months. Governor Perdue believed that a divine intervention was necessary and so he boldly asked God to bring rain. Fully expecting his prayer to be effective, Perdue said Hopefully we will be better conservators of the blessings God's given us as he gives us more [rain].1 At the time and place when the state's highest ranking officer pleaded to the Almighty, it was cloudy, but it did not rain. However, sure enough, the next day there was light rain in Atlanta and much rain came to the area over the next couple of months. Many Georgians considered Perdue a hero and thought that his prayer had influenced God to increase rainfall to the drought stricken vicinity of Atlanta. But did it? Although there may have been constitutional problems with the Governor's prayer,2 the purpose of this investigation is to determine whether the prayer was correlated with an increase in rain, and if so, how likely it was to have caused the increase. Methodology When asked by reporters what outcome he expected from his prayer, Governor Perdue replied God can make it rain tomorrow, he can make it rain next week or next month.1 Although this is rather vague, I decided to give Perdue some leeway and use his own words to help define a time period to be assessed. The Governor presented his prayer on November 13, 2007, so next month was December 2007. It seemed reasonable to examine the amount of rainfall during the 48 days after the day of prayer, from November 14 through December 31, 2007, which I shall call the post-prayer period. For comparison, a pre-prayer period was defined as the 48 days from September 26 through November 12, 2007. The day of prayer itself was not included in either of these pre- and post-periods since part of that day fell before the prayer and part of it fell after the prayer, and only daily rainfall totals, not hourly totals, were selected for use in this study. Because the Governor presented his prayer on the steps of the capitol in Atlanta and he was especially concerned with that city and the surrounding area, I decided to use rainfall data from one site - the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Rain is collected and measured at numerous sites in and around Atlanta, but I thought that the data from the airport site would be as good or better than the data from the other sites since accurate weather information is essential to the safety of airline traffic. I obtained daily rainfall totals from a well-respected website, The Weather Source,3 for a time period of a little more than ten years from August 30, 1997 through January 27, 2008. There were no missing data points for this time period. The daily rain totals from the website are reported to the nearest hundredth of an inch, and for some days a T is recorded to indicate a trace amount. In order to ensure that every day had a numerical value, each T was converted to .005 inches. The total amount of rain during any 48-day period was calculated by simply summing the daily totals for the time period. Thus, the amounts of rainfall during the 48-day pre-prayer period (A) and during the 48-day post-prayer period (B) were determined. From these two numbers, two change scores were then calculated: (1) the amount of rain in the post-prayer period minus the amount of
[geo] CDR on PBS
NOVA tonight on Public TV at 9pm. Power Surge. Includes segment on air capture. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers
topic. I do not object to separating CDR and SRM - which are apples and oranges. Ron (Disclosure - I was a AAAS Congressional Fellow [in that program's first year]. I love this sort of discussion. If we want additional Congressional activity in this area [and I do], we are better off with a wide umbrella.) - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: kcaldeira-gmail kcalde...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:13:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers The actual bill is here: http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/S_757.pdf My reading is that the performance requirements are to be specified (by the DOE Secretary). I don’t think there are any specifications (yet) on what flavors of CDR might qualify, so head-to-head competition between dilute CO2 --- inorg/org C vs dilute CO2--- conc CO2 could be a distinct possibility, assuming the bill goes anywhere. On 4/9/11 3:27 PM, kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: Agree that it would be much better if politicians would define the problem and allow engineers to find good solutions. Having politicians pick the technological winners is a sure path to disaster. --- Incidentally, I was going to illustrate this point with a famous quote from Van Buren about canals and trains, but this quote is apparently false !! see: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.asp --- On a similar note, DOE has largely abandon its hydrogen car effort. Who remembers FreedomCar? http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/freedomcar_partnership.html Do they learn and decide to define the research by the problem it is supposed to solve (e.g., affordable carbon-neutral personal transport)? No, now we have the next technology pick in the transportation sector: http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/1_Million_Electric_Vehicle_Report_Final.pdf On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Alvia, Joshua, etal: I do no know whether the bill will go anywhere. But I think it would have a lot more support if it was all-inclusive. That is, support for all forms of CDR. This is like calling for support of vertical-axis wind machines or CdTe photovoltaics. Picking winners is not what Congress is good at. I can partially understand leaving Biochar out - as that word is still less than 4 years old. But anyone wishing to see CDR pushed would find plenty of Biochar activists (lots of farmers and foresters) with a (probably) small modification of the S. 757 language. Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: It's not part of a combined air/source capture strategy. These are both considered separately and the emphasis is on ambient air and lower concentration sources like oil refineries and not mentioned, but applicable, natural gas where the flue gas level is usually around 3% vs. 10 for CO2. Since this bill has been around for at least 4 years, it doesn't seem likely to get anywhere, especially in the next few months. http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/11/12/2?page_type=print CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman float legislation to promote CO2 capture (EENews PM, 11/12/2009) Katie Howell, EE reporter A key Senate Democrat and a leading Republican critic of cap-and-trade legislation today introduced a new bill that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) last week introduced the bill, S. 2744, which would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) is a co-sponsor of the legislation. Our proposal takes a fresh look at climate change, Barrasso said in a statement. We want to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Scientists and engineers are currently scaling up methods to capture CO2 from industrial sources, like coal-fired power plants. The bill would promote development of additional technologies to scrub the gases from the air or from sources, like oil refineries, that have lower concentrations of the greenhouse gas than power plants and factories. If we could capture carbon dioxide emitted by low-concentration sources, or even the atmosphere, it would be a major step toward a cleaner energy future, Bingaman said. A federal prize to inspire inventive solutions to this technical challenge could help us get there quicker. The bill
Re: [geo] House - BAU on GHG/Climate
House - BAU on GHG/ClimateThe rules for the government contractors (as of this afternoon) is that they get to continue working until officially notified by the agency they are working for that work must stop, much like a soccer game in extra time. The contractors get paid for their work during this gray period. Of course, unlike the good old days, the notification is likely to come via e-mail and not a letter typed on a manual typewriter by a secretary in a dark office and delivered by the post office six weeks later. I am especially impressed with the admonition that volunteering is illegal. This may be the first time anyone has expressed concern about government employees working too much and not too little. - Original Message - From: Rau, Greg To: Rau, Greg Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:28 Subject: [geo] House - BAU on GHG/Climate BUDGET: Climate riders invite a midnight shutdown (04/08/2011) Evan Lehmann, EE reporter Urgent efforts to avert a government shutdown at midnight faltered yesterday over Republican initiatives to freeze climate rules, a challenge to the president's environmental priorities at the outset of his re-election bid. Controversial policy provisions meant to defund U.S. EPA's rulemaking for greenhouse gas emissions and abortion programs are the key obstacles to negotiating a government funding package through September, Senate Democrats and administration officials said yesterday. The numbers are basically there, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said of the $33 billion that Democrats are willing to cut over the next six months. The only thing holding up an agreement is ideology. Federal agencies are running on funding fumes, and the White House issued a stark warning to public employees that using BlackBerrys is forbidden during a shutdown. EPA officials, meanwhile, carved out a four-hour window for workers to rescue plants and other personal belongings from shuttered public buildings. It is illegal to volunteer, Jeffrey Zients of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who's overseeing shutdown plans, said of an estimated 800,000 public employees. If there is a shutdown, it would have very real effects on the services the American people rely on, as well as on the economy as a whole. Amendments to H.R. 1 included by the House AmendmentSponsor(s) Cutting $8.4 million from the U.S. EPA greenhouse gas registry.Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) A seven-month freeze on EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.Ted Poe (R-Texas), Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Carter (R-Texas) The defunding of salaries for czars overseeing climate change and green jobs.Steve Scalise (R-La.) Striking funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate service.Ralph Hall (R-Texas) The removal of funding to support the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) Restricting funds to implement and enforce an EPA rule limiting mercury levels in cement.John Carter (R-Texas) A $10 million reduction in EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants that would defund sewer improvement work in Tijuana, Mexico.Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) Preventing funds to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board to consider or reject permits issued for outer continental shelf sources along the Arctic coast. Don Young (R-Alaska) Blocking EPA from instituting a waiver increasing the ethanol content in gasoline.John Sullivan (R-Okla.) Prohibiting funds for constructing ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) Stopping EPA from denying proposed and active mining permits at the Spruce Mine in West Virginia.David McKinley (R-W.Va.) Prohibiting EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from procedures that would delay the review of coal mining permits.Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) Preventing funds to maintain a limited access privilege program for fisheries under the South Atlantic, the mid-Atlantic, New England or the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.Walter Jones (R-N.C.) Striking support to study the Missouri River.Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) Preventing funds to allow EPA to enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards.Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) Preventing funds for EPA to monitor and enforce total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) Stopping efforts to eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone rule.Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) Blocking funds to implement the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study in California.Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) Striking $1.5 million for the Greening of the Capitol initiative.Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) Both political parties blamed the other for pushing agencies to the brink of closing. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) denied that the
Re: [geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting
You know, given the way things go, it's much more likely that if anything is done at all, other nations will come begging the U.S. to do something, rather than the scenarios commonly presented by the scaremongers at this conference. Did you see how other nations jumped right on that Libyan thing, telling the U.S. to MYOB, we can handle it? Of course, after the Arab League (joke) and the Security Council approved the No Fly Zone and people actually started getting killed (happens when you fire missiles at the ground where people are), then they decided it wasn't really what they had approved. So when the little countries beg the bad old USA to do something about the global warming in 2050 cause they're too hot or too hungry and it doesn't turn out exactly like they wanted it to or imagined it should, one can expect they will be upset. Buyers remorse is always the worse kind. Especially when the buyer is wearing rose-colored glasses. - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:20 Subject: [geo] AP Story on SRMGI Meeting AP reports on the recent SRMGI conference here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option Any thoughts or impressions from those of you who might have attended? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
Wind and wave energy are the result of the conversion of solar energy into kinetic energy, i.e. the motion of molecules. Once converted into kinetic energy it's a use it or lose it proposition. Extracting kinetic energy from the atmosphere or the ocean doesn't mean it won't be replaced by more energy from sunlight. Planting more trees will also intercept winds, albeit without the electricity generation. Who funded this research? The same people who want to prevent contact with alien civilizations? I note that the Royal Society was also a party to that one too. Note to Royal Society. When you actually find something under the bed I should be afraid of, wake me up. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:10 Subject: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all a.. 30 March 2011 by Mark Buchanan b.. Magazine issue 2806. Subscribe and save c.. For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuels and Climate Change Topic Guides Editorial: The sun is our only truly renewable energy source Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels and we could do as much damage to the climate as greenhouse global warming WITNESS a howling gale or an ocean storm, and it's hard to believe that humans could make a dent in the awesome natural forces that created them. Yet that is the provocative suggestion of one physicist who has done the sums. He concludes that it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are truly renewable. Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he says, and we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change. Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says that efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources. His logic rests on the laws of thermodynamics, which point inescapably to the fact that only a fraction of the solar energy reaching Earth can be exploited to generate energy we can use. When energy from the sun reaches our atmosphere, some of it drives the winds and ocean currents, and evaporates water from the ground, raising it high into the air. Much of the rest is dissipated as heat, which we cannot harness. At present, humans use only about 1 part in 10,000 of the total energy that comes to Earth from the sun. But this ratio is misleading, Kleidon says. Instead, we should be looking at how much useful energy - called free energy in the parlance of thermodynamics - is available from the global system, and our impact on that. Humans currently use energy at the rate of 47 terawatts (TW) or trillions of watts, mostly by burning fossil fuels and harvesting farmed plants, Kleidon calculates in a paper to be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. This corresponds to roughly 5 to 10 per cent of the free energy generated by the global system. It's hard to put a precise number on the fraction, he says, but we certainly use more of the free energy than [is used by] all geological processes. In other words, we have a greater effect on Earth's energy balance than all the earthquakes, volcanoes and tectonic plate movements put together. Radical as his thesis sounds, it is being taken seriously. Kleidon is at the forefront of a new wave of research, and the potential prize is huge, says Peter Cox, who studies climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, UK. A theory of the thermodynamics of the Earth system could help us understand the constraints on humankind's sustainable use of resources. Indeed, Kleidon's calculations have profound implications for attempts to transform our energy supply. Of the 47 TW of energy that we use, about 17 TW comes from burning fossil fuels. So to replace this, we would need to build enough sustainable energy installations to generate at least 17 TW. And because no technology can ever be perfectly efficient, some of the free energy harnessed by wind and wave generators will be lost as heat. So by setting up wind and wave farms, we convert part of the sun's useful energy into unusable heat. Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere, says Kleidon. Because we use so much free energy, and more every year, we'll deplete the reservoir of energy. He says this would probably show up first in wind farms themselves, where the gains expected from massive facilities just won't pan out as the energy of the Earth system is depleted. Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a
Re: [geo] Contrails bad?
There was even a paper suggeting that commercial flights should be limited to 20,000 feet. I cant remember why. Because engine exhaust contrails are formed above 20,000 ft. The atmosphere has to be cold enough to rapidly freeze the water vapor into ice crystals before it can evaporate. If flights were restricted to below 20,000 ft, the increased use of fuel would offset some of the benefit gained by not having the contrails, but the main disadvantage would be the longer travel time required. The flights would also be a lot bumpier and the skyways more crowded. Time still equals money. Global warming is not yet part of that equation. In the TV series Fringe, the people of a parallel universe avoided all this by not ever developing air transportation for mass transport. Instead, they rely on airships. A quaint, but impractical idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail The main byproducts of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. At high altitudes this water vapour emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can push the water content of the air past saturation point. The vapour then condenses into tiny water droplets and/or deposits into ice. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the vapour trail or contrails. The vapor's need to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft's engines. At high altitudes, supercooled water vapor requires a trigger to encourage deposition or condensation. The exhaust particles in the aircraft's exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to rapidly turn to ice crystals. Exhaust vapour trails or contrails usually occur above 8000 metres (26,000 feet), and only if the temperature there is below ?40 蚓 (?40 蚌).[3] - Original Message - From: John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com To: johnnissen2...@gmail.com; Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:06 Subject: Re: [geo] Contrails bad? My idea for stratosheric aerosol generated from aircraft fuel (1) came from reading papers showing the warming during the three day period after 9-11 when there were no contrails over the US. That was long before I had heard the word geoengineering or about volcanoes, SO2, Alan Robock or Paul Crutzen. -or this group! I later heard that there were other papers suggesting that contrails caused warming. I put some effort into trying to work out which was correct but eventually gave up , concluding that there were equal numbers of papers suggesting that contrails caused warming or cooling. I very much doubt that this has added more than one bit of paper to one side of the balance. There was even a paper suggeting that commercial flights should be limited to 20,000 feet. I cant remember why. john gorman (1) www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm - Original Message - From: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk To: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:04 PM Subject: [geo] Contrails bad? http://planetark.org/wen/61626 John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Budyko's Wet Blanket Analysis
Should be titled: Everything That Could Possibly Go Wrong and Some Things That Couldn't Because the Author is Unable to Think Straight http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-blotting-out-sun What Could Possibly Go Wrong: Blotting Out the Sun Geoengineering could cause more problems than the global warming it aims to stop By David Roberts Posted 02.03.2011 at 10:46 am 22 Comments Sun Shade Filling the stratosphere with sulfur aerosols could cool the globe, but it could also cause widespread drought and destruction Jamie Sneddon [picture that would not load shows elephants freezing to death.] Engineering the atmosphere to forestall the worst results of global warming was once considered too hubristic to seriously contemplate. The grim prospects for passing an international climate-change treaty have changed that. Last year the National Academies of Science in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K. both convened meetings on geoengineering. The schemes generally fall into two categories—CO2 capture (pulling carbon dioxide from the air) or solar-radiation management (reflecting sunlight)—but it’s a form of the latter, which involves using airplanes or long hoses to pour sulfate aerosols into the lower stratosphere, that’s the most audacious. Once in the stratosphere, the theory goes, the aerosols would reflect some solar radiation and prevent a devastating rise in the average global temperature. The theory is not crazy. In 1991, after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, the average global temperature dropped by about 1° F from 1991 to 1993. But administering such a program well would require an unprecedented degree of international coordination and funding, and the odds of miscalculation are high. And the potential negative consequences are, in the worst case, extreme. Consider a hypothetical scenario in the year 2030. Severe storms and floods, prolonged droughts and wildfires have become commonplace. China has become the world’s largest economy, and two decades of coal-fired hyper-growth have overwhelmed the country’s advances in clean energy and efficiency. It is losing nearly 2,000 square miles a year to desertification, at a cost of $10 billion annually. Its eastern agricultural regions, which once fed a substantial fraction of the world’s population, have seen water tables decline precipitously from drought and overuse. Food shortages have become widespread. Under pressure to address climate change yet unable to slow growth without risking domestic unrest, the Chinese government pressures the U.S. and the European Union to cooperate on a program of geoengineering. It proposes launching military aircraft into the lower stratosphere to release several million tons a year of sulfur-based gases, with the intent of reflecting sunlight and blunting the rise in global temperature. The U.S. and E.U. balk, and China goes ahead alone. Lacking the power to stop it, Western countries look on in dismay as Chinese jets take to the sky. [Or, Western countries tell the bosses in Beijing no more parts for those planes we sold you! Or, we/they won't buy cheap Chinese toys and goods anymore, except they won't be that cheap by 2030. Or we could shoot down their planes, which might lead to nuclear war, which I doubt they would find acceptable. China could develop a large air force for this purpose in 20 years, but that's not likely.] The U.S. soon has no choice but to step in as a partner, if only to stabilize the delivery and geographic dispersal of the particles. [Hey, if the program the Chinese are running is ineffective, why should the U.S. get involved if we don't want to? Not logical!] With the world’s two most powerful nations now perceived as “in charge” of the climate, other countries suspect that they are manipulating the weather to their own benefit. Every flood or fire is seen as a Sino-American responsibility. [With unchecked global warming that might be the case anyway.] After about five years, scientists begin to realize that blocking sunlight causes far worse side effects than anticipated. Less heat has meant less evaporation and less water entering the hydrological cycle. The Asian and African monsoons bring less and less rain, leading to droughts that disrupt food supplies for billions of people. [In just 5 years! Now that's some effective program, when the models showed it took decades to achieve this.] Meanwhile ocean acidification, which sun-blocking does not mitigate, has begun to shut down major fisheries. [In just 24 years from present day.] After 10 years, pressure from battered countries is overwhelming. To avert war*, China and the West [The West? I thought it was just the U.S.] abandon their geoengineering programs, [Now it's more than one program!] despite the frantic protests of their scientists. And
[geo] Re: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
From this fascinating paper that also addresses, not intentionally, some of the concerns about impacts on aviation from man-made sulfate aerosols. http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/publications/Carn_Krueger_Krotkov_NaturalHazards2008.pdf 1. The number per year is actually more than I stated, although the S quantity is not mentioned: Volcanic plumes generated by intermediate-scale eruptions have the potential to reach altitudes up to 25 km (Newhall and Self 1982), well within the stratosphere at all latitudes, and may occur several times a year, compared to roughly once per decade for events of VEI 5 or above (Simkin and Siebert 1994). 2. Here are 3 such eruptions over just a 2 year period. Manam, Papua New Guinea, January 2005, 21-24Km, 118,000 tonnes S (http://www.bom.gov.au/info/vaac/manam05.shtml) Soufriere Hills, Montserrat, May 2006, 20Km, 100,000 tonnes S Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, October 2006, 18Km, 115,000 tonnes S 3. Regarding the 150,000 tonnes figure, I said on the order. The annual total is closer to 500,000 to 1,500,000 tonnes. For those who forgot or never knew in the first place, 1 Tg = 1 million metric tonnes. Any kind of human generated field experiment approaching these levels would have to be done over a period of months to years, not requiring pulses on the order of hundreds of thousands of tons over a few days as is the case with volcanoes. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/4657/2007/acpd-7-4657-2007.html On average, volcanoes are believed to inject 0.5-1.5 Tg(S) per year into the stratosphere (Halmer et al., 2002); with a large portion of this due to fewer than 2-3 events each year, but this is highly variable. Halmer, M. M., Schmincke, H.-U., and Graf, H.-F.: The annual volcanic gas input into the atmosphere, in particular into the stratosphere: a global data set for the past 100 years, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 115, 511-528, 2002. Thus, my conclusion is valid that field tests up to 150,000 tonnes of S per year would not exceed the arbitrary biodiversity impacts limits set by ETC and the CBD. I don't know how you missed this, since this work was also discussed in your own paper I have linked from your wesbsite: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: joshuahorton...@gmail.com; Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:31 Subject: Re: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan Dear Alvia, You are completely misinformed about volcanic eruptions. There are no such eruptions that you claim. If there are, please name the last 10 that occurred in the past decade. Please do not invent facts. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On 10/29/2010 10:25 AM, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Because the language defines geoengineering in terms of having an effect on biodiversity, it should be noted that volcanic eruptions injecting on the order of 150,000 tons of S into the Overworld Stratosphere (53,000 ft) occur regularly, about one per year with no effects on biodiversity. As these eruptions have been occurring for thousands of years, including the last 10,000 when humans began impacting biodiversity through land use, it is evident there would be no problem with such manmade experiments up to and potentially exceeding these limits. If ETC or someone else would like to provide proof from the scientific literature that such natural events reduce biodiversity, then they should do so. Similar estimates on the effect on biodiversity from enhanced OIF and artificial cloud brightening can probably be made. The definition also does not include the use of wave sink devices to transfer heat from the surface of the ocean below the thermocline. There is also no documented proof that reducing the CO2 mixing ratio in the Troposphere would negatively impact biodiversity. In fact, the evidence available is to the contrary. The number of species lost would decrease and not increase. The language also appears to limit geoengineering that might lead to increased biodiversity, in conflict with the stated purposes of the CBD. This is what happens when leftwing human and technology hating environmental groups are given a free hand with public policy decisions. As the COP process itself seems endless and impotent, recommendations from an ancillary body like the CBD are little more
[geo] Re: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
Because the language defines geoengineering in terms of having an effect on biodiversity, it should be noted that volcanic eruptions injecting on the order of 150,000 tons of S into the Overworld Stratosphere (53,000 ft) occur regularly, about one per year with no effects on biodiversity. As these eruptions have been occurring for thousands of years, including the last 10,000 when humans began impacting biodiversity through land use, it is evident there would be no problem with such manmade experiments up to and potentially exceeding these limits. If ETC or someone else would like to provide proof from the scientific literature that such natural events reduce biodiversity, then they should do so. Similar estimates on the effect on biodiversity from enhanced OIF and artificial cloud brightening can probably be made. The definition also does not include the use of wave sink devices to transfer heat from the surface of the ocean below the thermocline. There is also no documented proof that reducing the CO2 mixing ratio in the Troposphere would negatively impact biodiversity. In fact, the evidence available is to the contrary. The number of species lost would decrease and not increase. The language also appears to limit geoengineering that might lead to increased biodiversity, in conflict with the stated purposes of the CBD. This is what happens when leftwing human and technology hating environmental groups are given a free hand with public policy decisions. As the COP process itself seems endless and impotent, recommendations from an ancillary body like the CBD are little more than noise. In reporting on this, media have a responsibility to present the counter arguments I have made above, rather than just parroting the ETC press releases. Otherwise, they are little more than tabloid magpies, crying wolf in order to be heard over the din of the Internet. - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:22 Subject: [clim] Re: ETC Group news release: Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan There is more than a little irrational exuberance in the ETC Group press release. The reality is that the CBD, a well-meaning but relatively insignificant agreement, is preparing to adopt a conditional moratorium filled with qualifications and exceptions. This conditional moratorium will apply to a narrow field of activities in ways that are hardly clear, and its international legal status is unsettled (to put it charitably). News release aside, this does not add up to a UN ban on geoengineering. I think it's fair to view this as a normative win for ETC Group and its allies, but not much else. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Oct 29, 1:29 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: Of course, ETC's claim of a de facto moratorium is misleading, at best. The CBD has provided a consistent definition of *geoengineering*. The language is *any technologies that deliberately** reduce solar insolation or **increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity** (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) **should be considered as forms of geo-engineering* Since large-scale reforestation would *deliberately increase carbon sequestration on a large scale and affect biodiversity*, large-scale reforestation would be considered a form of geo-engineering under this definition. My understanding is that this was discussed in Nagoya, but it was felt that large-scale reforestation would fall under the exception when * there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts* Thus, it appears to me that* for the first time in history, a recognized international body (the CBD) has considered a form of geoengineering and found it acceptable for deployment. * Beyond the spin-doctoring efforts of ETC, the underlying principles behind the adopted language -- that we want to protect biodiversity, diminish environmental risk, and develop appropriate safeguards governing experiments that could potentially have significant adverse impact on biodiversity -- are exemplary. The main problem is that the adopted language is a bit sloppy. For example, there is the phrase may affect biodiversity, but of course everything affects everything so one could say that anything and everything *may affect biodiversity* (even silly press releases from ETC). However, if this phrase is understood to mean *may significantly and adversely affect biodiversity*, then we are close to being on the same page.
Re: [geo] Federal Research Program in 2012?
Late 2012? Just after the presidential election where Barack Obama wins another 4 years of 10% unemployment and the endless winless war in Cavemanastan? Have you been following the recent news, Josh? Republicans will be taking over Congress soon. And these aren't the make deals behind closed doors Republicans we have all come to love and respect. Sen. Joe Miller, AK and Sen. Sharron Angle, NV. They want to eliminate Social Security. Sen. Joe Buck, CO. Sen. Linda McMahon, CT (she and I were born in the same small town, possibly the same hospital and our fathers may have worked together at one time), Sen. Carly Fiorina, CA (she was McCain's economic advisor until she told reporters he wasn't qualified to run a corporation. HP said the same about her). And there are others in both the House and Senate that are on the way. Little wonder Bart Gordon is running for the exits. You aren't a physical scientist, so as you have told me, you have to take the science at our word. But as a social scientist and I'm guessing, political scientist, you should be able to see the handwriting or is it handwringing on the wall. Liberals or progressives as they now want to be called, won't support any kind of research program that offers an alternative even for a short time to a cap and trade program. Cap and trade is dead for the next few years, unless they want to pass a bill that applies to one power plant and run it as some kind of fantasy league video game. I'll trade you one Tampa Electric for one AEP Mountaineer and a Shearron Harris nuclear, Josh. How about it? The Republican Party will be run by the tail wagging Tea Party faction that will be against spending of any kind, especially wasting money on their non-existent global warming problem. You're right, we have been down this road before, sort of. September 2001, Bush says no to geo and Kyoto and yes to endless wars. June 2004, DOE tells me and MacCracken and Caldeira and LBL to get lost. Three times in the last 5 years a bipartisan bill to get $10 million for cloud seeding research (for rainmaking in the parched SW U.S.) never made it out of committee. 2006, Pete Worden, on his own, authorized a meeting on geo. FOIA obtained e-mails showed that his bosses in Washington were not amused. 2008, Dave Schnare's bold attempt to get funding via a supplemental ended when the Sierra Club's rep redlined it out. All the senior managers at DOE and NASA need is some political cover and the hundred millions start to flow. Read the polls, boys. Read the polls. Of course, we all know that things in Washington sometimes move very slowly. Tom Davis, VA, now retired, remarked in 2008 that hearings on geo might be held in 2009. He was only off by one year. It may not matter. Isn't the world supposed to end in December 2012 anyway? Or was that the Kyoto Protocol. - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:46 Subject: [geo] Federal Research Program in 2012? (from http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/) One of the featured speakers at yesterday's Future Tense Event in Washington, D.C., was Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN). As Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Gordon oversaw a series of groundbreaking hearings on geoengineering over the past year. At the conference Monday, Gordon raised the possibility of introducing a bill to authorize a federal geoengineering research program, perhaps in late 2012. Apart from Ehsan Khan's abortive attempt to initiate research at DOE during the Bush Administration, this would constitute the first federal proposal to sponsor and support research into the feasibility of climate intervention strategies. I would like to see more details about this proposal. What funding levels? Which technologies? Which agencies? How does this reconcile with Gordon's plans to retire after this session of Congress? This is potentially a very important development. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC
This is hardly conclusive, but the information seems to suggest that some of the deep water exiting the GOM just goes around in a circle, with some of it eventually reaching the Atlantic and the coldwater part of the THC. Thus, the lifetime of CO2 that was released from biomass deposited on the floor of the GOM must be much longer than the 250-years it would take to leave the GOM, perhaps approaching the 1000-year time given for the overall ocean. Even with some of the CO2 returned to surface waters by uwpelling, this still keeps most of the carbon out of the atmosphere for hundreds of years, time enough to perfect air capture and lower atmospheric CO2 levels so that regardless of the fate of the biomass, it won't have an impact on future CO2 levels. If I remember correctly, your maximum use of CROPS would only remove the equivalent of about 10% of present day emissions, decreasing annually with increases in fossil fuel emissions. Thus, CROPS could offset a significant portion of CO2 from the emission inventory, but not enough to change the outcome of a BAU approach to emissions. If 3 billion tons of CO2eq were removed annually to the deep ocean in the GOM by CROPS or by using wood or some combination, then after 100 years, 300 billion tons would be on the bottom of the Gulf or present as dissolved CO2, about 10 years of present day emissions, not enough to cause a catastrophe if it were to be slowly vented to the atmosphere. The impact of depositing the biomass elsewhere would need to be studied to see if upwelling would hasten the transport to the surface. http://www.myroms.org/applications/ias/intro/circulation.php Much less is known about the deep circulation of the region. To the east of the Antilles, a Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC) forms part of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. From timeseries of DWBC observations at 26.5°N just east of Abaco, Bahamas, Lee et al. (1996) found that the mean DWBC transport was ~ 40 Sv, some 2-3 times larger than the accepted value, indicating that a significant fraction of DWBC flow must recirculate in the North Atlantic. Model studies suggest that this occurs primarily along f/h contours associated with local bathymetric features. Lee et al. (1996) also found significant variations in DWBC transport as large as 60 Sv associated with offshore excursions and meanders of the current. The local transport variability in this region is well correlated with the strength of the Bermuda High. The deep flows in this region are also dominated by eddies, perhaps a result of baroclinic instability, as evidenced by float data (Leaman and Vertes, 1996). The deepest island passages are Anegada (1900 m) and Windward Passage (1700 m), and ventilation of the Venezuelan, Colombian, Cayman and Yucatan basins occurs via these passages (~ 0.2 Sv). In the central Caribbean Sea, the deep flow is apparently dominated by a cyclonic circulation as inferred from inverse calculations (Roemmich, 1981; Joyce et al., 2001), and is perhaps to be expected based on dynamical arguments (Sou et al., 1996). There is also observational evidence for deep eastward flow along the entire southern boundary of the Caribbean Sea (Andrade et al., 2003), and numerous estimates of ventilation, deep flow pathways and transports have appeared in the literature (e.g. Morrison and Nowlin, 1982; Joyce et al., 2001). - Original Message - From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Cc: xbenf...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:48 Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC Thanks, Alvia, for pointing this out. On second examination of the paper, I was in error in thinking that the deep Gulf of Mexico is ventilated to surface waters. I confused the deep flow with the Yucatan and Loop Currents of the upper water and got the impression that deep waters rose and exited to the Atlantic through the Straits of Florida. That is not correct. As the Rivas paper shows, deep waters from the Gulf exit back through the Yucatan Strait into the Carribean, which is deeper that the GoM, but where it goes from there I am uncertain; the Anegada-Jungfern Passage, perhaps. It looks like I have more homework to do... = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014, Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ -Original Message- From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:10 PM To: Stuart Strand; z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Cc: xbenf...@aol.com Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC
Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC
I think there is some confusion about the term ventilation rate as it is used here. The work that apparently forms the basis for the 250-year ventilation rate for the GOM discusses it in terms of how long the deep water in the Gulf stays there before being carried back out into the Caribbean Sea. If you look at Figure 15 from the linked reference, it shows that the deepest water exits over the Yucatan Sill at 2040 meters. What happens to it after that is unclear. The ventilation rate referred to here is how long it takes the water to make it out of the Gulf, not how long it would take CO2 from decomposing bales of crop waste to re-enter the atmosphere. The relatively high oxygen levels at the bottom, around 5 mg/L could accelerate oxidation of the waste, but over long periods of time it would probably become buried in sediment and would be in an anoxic environment, also limiting any transport of CO2 to the surface. So I would encourage you to research this a little more before giving up on the Gulf of Mexico. http://oceanografia.cicese.mx/personal/jochoa/PDFS/Rivas_etal_JPO_2005.pdf - Original Message - From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu To: agask...@nc.rr.com; z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Cc: xbenf...@aol.com Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:50 Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of the Gulf of Mexico is such that the half life of water there is about 250 years. One of the major advantages of CROPS over terrestrial burial options is that the biomass carbon separated from the atmosphere by the ocean thermocline, so that if CO2 is released from the biomass it will not be released to the atmosphere for 1000 years (the ventilation rate of the world ocean). Thus we no longer view burial in the GoM as desirable (except perhaps in hypersaline pools in the western gulf). As it happens the carbon cost of transport to the Atlantic abyss is not much greater than our previous estimates. = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014, Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ Alvia Gaskill wrote You might also consider the use of deep ocean disposal as Strand and Benford did for crop waste. Wood chips can be sluiced and compressed together might sink without any weights. Of course, this is probably not a good time to be recommending doing this in the Gulf of Mexico. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC
1. Power generation is possible, but there are better sources and only a small percentage can at present be used this way. Their papers addressed some of the alternative uses. 2. Yes, one would have to get permits to do this and perhaps the case can be made this is carbon sequestration and not disposal. 3. Regarding the methane issue, while the temperature and pressure would allow for hydrate formation (remember the problems with the Deepwater Horizon containment vessel, the Top Hat?) and there are known hydrate deposits nearby that are actively producing the hydrates via microbial activity (the Bush Hill site), there are other factors that would mitigate against this occurring for the CROPS type disposal scenario or for wood itself. The bottom water above the sediment layer has a relatively high oxygen content. The plant waste and wood also contain high levels of lignocellulose such that the lignin protects the cellulose from attack by the bacteria. Unlike marine snow, this material would take much longer to decompose and wouldn't necessarily produce methane. And, since the disposal areas would likely be subject to intense monitoring, the rate of methane production would be known and the addition of crop/wood waste could be stopped if necessary. Field trials would have to be undertaken first and these would identify whether or not methane or something else is a potential problem. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:20 Subject: Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC Isn't the main problem with CROPS that you're burying something which is flammable, at the same time that similar flammable materials are being dug up elsewhere ? There seems little point collating and transporting all that crop waste, then just throwing it into sea, when you could generate power with it instead. Ironically it might be more efficient to use the electricity so generated to power carbon air capture technologies. With a bit of luck there would still be enough electricity left over to sell, even after you'd captured more carbon than was in the original crop waste. A second problem is, as previously mentioned, the legal restriction on dumping at sea. Finally, an issue which appears not to have been studied in detail is the risk of the CROPS scheme causing large gas hydrate deposits, which are then later destabilized as the oceans warm. This could potentially create a forcing far greater than that of the avoided CO2. Hopefully someone can calculate these effects, as I don't know how to. A On 10 Sep 2010 20:10, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: I think there is some confusion about the term ventilation rate as it is used here. The work that apparently forms the basis for the 250-year ventilation rate for the GOM discusses it in terms of how long the deep water in the Gulf stays there before being carried back out into the Caribbean Sea. If you look at Figure 15 from the linked reference, it shows that the deepest water exits over the Yucatan Sill at 2040 meters. What happens to it after that is unclear. The ventilation rate referred to here is how long it takes the water to make it out of the Gulf, not how long it would take CO2 from decomposing bales of crop waste to re-enter the atmosphere. The relatively high oxygen levels at the bottom, around 5 mg/L could accelerate oxidation of the waste, but over long periods of time it would probably become buried in sediment and would be in an anoxic environment, also limiting any transport of CO2 to the surface. So I would encourage you to research this a little more before giving up on the Gulf of Mexico. http://oceanografia.cicese.mx/personal/jochoa/PDFS/Rivas_etal_JPO_2005.pdf - Original Message - From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu To: agask...@nc.rr.com; z...@atmos.umd.edu; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Cc: xbenf...@aol.com Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:50 Subject: RE: [clim] Re: [geo] Carbon sequestration workshop Sep 9-10, Heinz Center, Washington DC After our publication it was pointed out to me that the ventilation rate of the Gulf of Mexico is... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: [clim] Record temperature despite recent solar minimum
And here is the AP's obituary for Stephen Schneider, although the picture they used is of a Kansas doctor of the same name. Stephen was definitely an in-your-face kind of guy and whether you liked him or his ideas or not, he will definitely be missed. His views on geoengineering swung widely, first against, then perhaps in favor and finally supporting an effort as yet unfulfilled to stop sea ice melting in the Arctic by use of some kind of plastic or nylon mesh. He was a member of both the climate intervention and geoengineering groups, although he didn't post any messages and his journal, Climatic Change served as the launching point for the current round of geo activities with the publication of Paul Crutzen's 2006 paper. For those looking for a more general tribute, I would recommend renting or buying the DVD, video or oil painting (it was from 1993) of the movie The Fire Next Time, a gloomy prediction (not projection) of unchecked climate change in the year 2017 based in part on the early IPCC work and for which Schneider served as a technical advisor and who appears briefly in the film as himself. It features all the usual suspects: hurricanes destroying New Orleans, drought-borne out-of-control fires in the western U.S., territorial boundary conflicts over water and the plight of climate refugees, in this case, Americans trying to sneak into a future Canada, which in the film, unlike the present day U.S., seems to have its border under control. Adaptation is portrayed by Amish farmers living off the grid, wealthy survivors living it up in a select community in upstate NY and enviro cultists who worship the sun and pledge rather forcefully not to reproduce by having themselves castrated. Talk about reducing one's carbon footprint. Ouch! Spoiler alert: the family in the film is ultimately reunited in Canada with relatives, but climate change follows them. The takeaway: there is no escape. A message Stephen Schneider would perhaps leave us with if he didn't already do so. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105998/ http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Next-Time-Craig-Nelson/dp/B0007GP7LE/ref=sr_1_4/186-9194502-2455602?ie=UTF8s=dvdqid=1279579003sr=8-4 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obit_schneider;_ylt=ArzjBIBcPpCMsw9yV529j8ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsa2pwYjJsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzE5L3VzX29iaXRfc2NobmVpZGVyBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNARwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2NsaW1hdGVzY2llbg- By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press Writer Jason Dearen, Associated Press Writer - 9 mins ago SAN FRANCISCO - Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University scientist who served on the international research panel on global warming that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, has died. He was 65. Schneider died of an apparent heart attack Monday while on a flight from Stockholm to London, Stanford officials said. Schneider studied climate change for decades and wrote a number of books charting its effects on wildlife and ecosystems in the United States, and later chronicled its effect on the nation's politics and policy. He advised every presidential administration from Nixon to Obama. A prolific researcher and author, co-founder of the journal Climatic Change, and a wonderful communicator, his contributions to the advancement of climate science will be sorely missed, Gore said in a statement. Schneider was an influential, and at times combative, public voice in arguing the manmade causes of climate change, and appeared on news and science television programs, wrote articles and blogged. Through his books, his extensive public speaking, and his many interactions with the media, Steve did for climate science what Carl Sagan did for astronomy, said Ben Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. As a co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that earned a share of the Nobel, Schneider defended the panel's work when it came under attack from critics after some unsettling errors were discovered, including how fast Himalayan glaciers are expected to melt. The errors were made in a subsection of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, and were found to be insignificant to its overall findings that glaciers are melting faster than ever. In 1992, he received a genius grant from the MacArthur Foundation for his research. Steve, more than anything, whether you agreed with him or not, forced us to confront this real possibility of climate change, Jeff Koseff, Schneider's colleague at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment, said in a statement. Schneider also was a leader in research seeking to quantify future effects of climate change on various areas - from the insurance industry to farming - to help guide policy decisions, said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. In recent years he was most interested in communicating with the
[geo] What Lies Beneath-the Plan to Find Out
My attempt to send this to the groups failed yesterday as I was informed today that messages must be less than 4Mb. So I try once more. Here is the attachment that blew Google's gasket: http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/Schoof-TechnicalPlan.pdf - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: ira.lei...@bubbleology.com ; Jayanty, R. K. M. ; rev...@nytimes.com Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:23 Subject: What Lies Beneath-the Plan to Find Out I read the plan this afternoon. It is well conceived and if carried out would provide valuable information on not only the fate and transport of hydrocarbons from the well, but also on what we might expect from large natural releases of methane from sediment hydrates, although the mechanisms involved here are different. They note that formation of hydrates seems to take place higher up in the water column in the form of flakes, but these can be seen emerging from the column of gas and oil in the TV camera videos as white particles. They form as soon as the water temperature is cold enough, which is immediately above the riser pipe. Whether additional hydrates continue to form is unknown. In a recent posting (June 18), I presented some arguments about the possible fate of the hydrates and the methane: http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention/browse_thread/thread/154df5baa7e7e85e?hl=en The results from previous studies including the deliberate release of oil and methane 10 years ago off the coast of Norway as part of an experiment (hadn't heard about that one before) seem to agree with what little is known from this incident. One experiment I would include is the determination of methane in the water just below the surface and above it as this would tell how much does make it into the atmosphere. NOAA and others have supposedly been taking water samples at varying depths, but I am not aware of how close to the site these have occurred or if this matters as the plume seems to become shifted horizontally at the thermocline (~600 ft). The proposed plan discusses sampling of water for methane, but isn't clear about the depths or whether atmospheric samples will be taken. One of the researchers claims that the spill is so large compared to previous ones that it has altered the boundary conditions, affecting how the slick moves. I doubt this is enough to impact evaporation or weather (the idea of coating the surface to affect tropical storm development), but it would be interesting to see the results and how they might relate to this proposal. The rising oil also appears to bring with it colder more anoxic water. Unfortunately, this plan is about 60 days too late, but given the haphazard way the response and the scientific research has been conducted, it seems unlikely they will be given the go ahead to do this important work, especially if BP is able to clamp the shut off valve onto the riser pipe over the next few days. However, since a lot of people associated with government agencies and the petroleum industry will get this message, consider this an opportunity. After all, BP has been known to be wrong. http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/Schoof-TechnicalPlan.pdf http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100708/sc_mcclatchy/3560950 Scientists propose big experiment to study Gulf oil spill By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers Renee Schoof, Mcclatchy Newspapers Thu Jul 8, 6:18 pm ET WASHINGTON — Frustrated with limited data on the BP oil gusher, a group of independent scientists has proposed a large experiment that would give a clearer understanding of where the oil and gas are going and where they'll do the most damage. The scientists say their mission must be undertaken immediately, before BP kills the runaway well. They propose using what's probably the world's worst oil accident to learn how crude oil and natural gas move through water when they're released at high volumes from the deep sea. Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank into the Gulf of Mexico in late April, more than 200 million gallons of oil have gushed from the blown well. The scientists also want to see how the oil breaks down into toxic and safer components in different ocean conditions, information that would help predict which ocean species are most at risk. The experiment also could provide data that would help in dealing with any future spills. Without this understanding, we're no better off when the next one occurs, said Ira Leifer , a researcher at the Marine Science Institute of the University of California at Santa Barbara who's leading the team that's proposed the experiment. The plan calls for about two weeks of experiments with two research vessels and robotic vehicles at a cost of $8.4 million . The scientist would use monitoring equipment and sampling
Re: [geo] Re: Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 3 Topics
Don't the representatives to these various international bodies have to vote the will of their governments? For example, it would be unlikely that country A's rep to the LC or LP would have a different response to OIF than its rep to the UNFCCC. And since there is such overlap between the two organizations, then in theory, they should come to the same conclusion. If OIF is to be used to generate carbon credits, UNFCCC should have some say so over it, at least the part dealing with credits. Remember, the idea behind OIF is that it will remove CO2 from the air, albeit indirectly, by adding something to the water. Albedo enhancement strategies have nothing to do with ocean disposal, so I don't see a role for the LC or LP in that area, unless it involves increasing the whiteness of the seawater itself by adding some chemicals for which there is no technology proposed. Having all existing bodies like the UNFCCC, the LC/LP and others, Arctic Council, etc. involved in approving field trials and full scale deployments makes sense in that each one has its own expertise, but as the UNFCCC is the largest of all by number of members, it would seem that it should be the final arbiter. Countries who don't like the outcome can then run to the Security Council and demand redress there. And like an appeals court, the Security Council is not obligated to hear their petition. - Original Message - From: Chris chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:01 Subject: [geo] Re: Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 3 Topics Wil raised an interesting question What would happen in a case where the LC deemed an experimental approach safe under the risk assessment protocol being developed and the parties to the UNFCCC did not?. I assume Wil was referring to a marine environmental issue but I find it difficult to conceive how the UNFCCC could come to such a view since the issue would be outside its remit and area of expertise. However. in my personal view the LC/LP view should prevail in such circumstances. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is of course the pre-eminent legal instrument in matters to do with the sea and might be seen as the ultimate arbiter in such disputes. The LC/LP should only permit operational geoengineering activities for climate mitigation purposes if they have been clearly approved by the UNFCCC. While some may see the LC/LP as a North/corporate regime, developing countries make up about half the contracting parties to one or both instruments. It is true that we do not get widespread attendence at meetings from developing countries, probably main due to the cost of travelling to the meetings. However, if a country is a member of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), then there there is no membership fee to join the LC/LP - preferably the latter as the more modern instrument - but there are clearly costs in setting up legislation and licensing regimes in the countries to meet the requirements of the instruments as well as travelling to meetings. Chris Vivian, Chairman of the Scientific Groups of the London Convention and Protocol chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk On Jun 8, 4:53 pm, Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com wrote: With reference to Chris's response to my messages about the proper province for governance, I think co-governance is an interesting idea. There hasn't been a lot of precedence in this context, but it might be an extremely effective approach, so many thanks for expanding my horizons in this context! One question I would ask is how this would work empirically should a conflict arise between the regimes. As you point out, many developing countries view the LC as largely a North/corporate regime, fairly or not. I guess we would have to agree in advance that the LC's assessment should prevail given its expertise in assessing impacts of stressors on the marine environment, but it might be hard sell. wil On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:34 AM, geoengineering+nore...@googlegroups.comgeoengineering%2bnore...@googlegroups.com wrote: Today's Topic Summary Group:http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics - New study on cloud albedo enhancement#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_0[1 Update] - New Clive Hamilton piece on geoengineering#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_1[1 Update] - Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 4 Messages in 4 Topics#129172064e1bd9f8_group_thread_2[1 Update] Topic: New study on cloud albedo enhancementhttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/t/a4dbf849f6b0ecb7 Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com Jun 07 11:52AM -0700 ^#129172064e1bd9f8_digest_top For those of you haven't seen this yet, there's an interesting recent study in Atmospheric Chemistry Physics ( http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/4133/2010/acp-10-4133-2010.pdf) assessing the impacts of marine cloud albedo enhancement using a global aerosol
Re: [geo] TR: Hurricane paper.
Icebergs will take too long to melt and hence, any freshwater released will be well mixed. As you note, it is not possible to move icebergs, so the idea has no practical basis. The liquefied air idea has also been discussed before as well as using liquid nitrogen. It would have no impact due to the size of the storms. Hurricanes are constantly replenishing their energy through the evaporation and condensation of water. A temporary cooling of the atmosphere in the middle layers of the atmosphere from the release of a cold gas would have no lasting effect. - Original Message - From: Bonnelle Denis To: Geoengineering Cc: pranjalimardhe...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:39 AM Subject: [geo] TR: Hurricane paper. Dear group, A friend of mine has received the attached paper, which deals with a problem you have discussed some times: how control hurricanes? The proposed idea is to let some liquefied air tanks (100,000 tons each) inject a large quantity of coldness into selected points of a hurricane in order to control / weaken it (other details about vapour volume / latent heat don't seem to bring much added value). My opinion is that liquefied air is pretty expensive and energy-consuming, when really huge quantities of coldness (probably much more than 100,000 tons of it) would be required to have any noticeable effect on a big hurricane. But the idea could be interesting. You know about the idea of dragging large icebergs towards desert-neighbouring towns and converting them to fresh water. Doing the same but in order to let these melting icebergs (or parts of ice sheet), near a populated tropical coast, just during the hurricane season, face a hurricane by cooling the sea water down by some degrees down to a some-meters depth, so that the hurricane begins to behave like over the continent (i.e. begin to weaken) rather than still over the warm sea (still strengthening itself), could it make some sense? The idea is that this freshly melted water is fresh water, i.e. it can float over the salted heavier sea water, so that this cold layer (or any mix of this cold fresh water and warm salted water) would rather efficiently stay between the warm sea water and the air. Then, it would behave as a thermal isolation which would slow down the heat transfer from the sea to the air (this heat transfer is a latent heat transfer, as water evaporates: less evaporation would take place from this cold water layer). Mechanical ways of breaking an iceberg into smaller pieces just before a hurricane comes in the neighbourhood, would still have to be developed. Best regards, Denis Bonnelle. Dear prof, My name is Pranjali and I came to you the other day after our Thurs morning class to request you to read a paper that my father wrote on Hurricanes. I realised today that it hadn't reached you so here's another attempt at sending it! :) My father and I would really appreciate some feedback on it. My ENTG hasn't been working for a while, kindly make note of this e-mail address. (pranjalimardhe...@gmail.com) Hoping to hear from you soon. Best regards, Pranjali -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: The Nexus of Cows and Roofs
The 4-mil plastic weighs 8.7Kg/1000SF. At 3Kg CO2 per Kg plastic, then this results in 26Kg CO2 per 1000SF. Using the revised figures for Akbari et al., 1000SF of whitened roof offsets 8 tonnes or 8000Kg. 26/8000 = 0.3%. If new plastic had to be installed annually for 20 years, without any recycling, the emissions increase to 6% of the total offset. I doubt other sources of CO2 from transportation, installation, disposal, etc. would add significantly to the total. I agree that life cycle costs need to be determined if any of these covers were to be used to generate credits, including the CO2 from methane oxidation. I have no estimates on the spray on or membrane coatings, other than some of them produce a thicker film which would translate into larger CO2 emissions from production. Due to their long lifetimes, however, I doubt the externalities would be significant. - Original Message - From: jim thomas To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering ; Arthur Rosenfeld ; Haider Taha ; has...@hashemakbari.com ; Derek Fiddler ; Jayanty, R. K. M. Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Nexus of Cows and Roofs Alvia Have you dug up any figures on embedded energy costs (and hence co2 emissions) for white paint/PVC/tio2 and polyethylene production per square meter - i see the industry claims polyethylene has a 1-3 kg co2 carbon footprint per kg of production (depending on density) but haven't checked if that includes disposal .. i don't know how much your membranes weigh but i guess there is something there. That and something on transport of materials and energy sots of applications for thsoe sprayers would be helpful to throw into the calculations. I accept it might be small and with new-build one can argue that there is no additional production since there would have been some sort of cover/paint anyway but if you are proposing basing tradable, countable credits on this 'solution' then it could be additional production and those sort of externalities might all really add up. Maybe Akbari et al have already taken this into account but it doesn't show up in your presentation anywhere. best Jim On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Alvia Gaskill wrote: After extensive revisions and additions, another version of the powerpoint on using roof whitening to generate CO2 and CH4 (as CO2) credits has been prepared and is attached. Dr. Jayanty presented an earlier version in India this month. I would appreciate any comments. Responding to some of the comments received, the statement that cooler (NIR reflective) shingles would cost more than the standard ones came from the Rosenfeld memo to the State Dept. The memo says $2/square meter and I used $2/SF in the previous version, so the actual difference is about $0.18/SF or $180 for a 1000SF roof. The slide in question, no. 45 has been corrected. I haven't been able to confirm this myself, but whether they are more expensive or the same, the cost differential with the plastic sheeting is still quite large. There is something wrong with the way I calculated the offsets for CH4 using the Myhre equations. Anyone who can explain this, please do so. I alternatively calculated the CH4 offsets based solely on the differing lifetimes of CH4 and CO2 in relation to the roof lifetimes. In doing so, CH4 provides for 4 times the offset, so there is a clear advantage to pairing it with roof whitening in a trading scheme. The offsets calculated by Akbari et al. have been reduced by about 20% due to the use of the correct CO2 perturbation lifetime schedule. The photo slides now have captions, one benefit coming out of this study that I now know how to add them. I would also be interested in finding out how the proposals from Art and Hashem were received in Copenhagen. Good luck in your retirement, Art. You've already done your part to brighten up our troubled world, but don't stop now. - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Arthur Rosenfeld ; Haider Taha ; has...@hashemakbari.com ; Derek Fiddler Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 11:04 AM Subject: The Nexus of Cows and Roofs This presentation was slapped together in 24 hours so don't hurt yourself laughing over the mistakes. The other author, Dr. Jayanty is presenting this in various places in India during November and December, hence the lack of identified locations on this draft. It is aimed for an audience of university students, so I included all the background information about global warming. The picture slides aren't labeled. Slide 37 shows an aged white roof for a Sam's Club in Durham, NC, 2009. Slides 50, 51 show elastomeric coatings applied or being applied to roofs. Slide 57 shows the 4-mil plastic next to the 8-mil on a tennis court, Slide 58 shows 4-mil alone
Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right?
Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right?From Lenton and Vaughn (2009): First we consider the calculation of effects on atmospheric CO2 (deltaCatm) over time. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere or removing CO2 from the atmosphere triggers responses from the ocean and land reservoirs that are continuously exchanging CO2 with the atmosphere. The result is that any perturbation to atmospheric CO2, whether an increase or a decrease, decays over time towards around 20% of its original size on a millennial timescale. The fraction of the original perturbation remaining after a given time, deltat (in years), is called the airborne fraction, f (deltat). It is a complex function containing multiple decay timescales, related to multiple land and ocean carbon reservoirs. For relatively small perturbations, it can be approximated, from the Bern carbon cycle model (Joos et al., 1996) by: f (deltat)=0.18+0.14e-deltat/420+0.18e-deltat/70 +0.24e-deltat/21+0.26e-deltat/3.4 (15) According to this formula, for an instantaneous removal of carbon from (or release to) the atmosphere, 92% is still removed (or present) after 1 year, 64% after 10 years, 34% after 100 years, and 19% after 1000 years. This is a little confusing when compared with observations over 1960-2007 that the increase in atmospheric CO2 in a given year was only ~50% of the total emissions that year. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that in any given year, the natural land and ocean carbon sinks represent an integrated response to all previous years of emissions. So as noted in my draft presentation from a week ago, CO2 emitted today has a variable lifetime and this must be considered in assigning which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and by what process. Considering CO2 emitted this year, one can think of it as somewhat like a warehouse where all of the inventory arrives at the same time, but is sold and leaves the warehouse at different rates, the last 20% taking more than 1000 years. And it's not Copenhagen, it's Copouthaven. - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken To: Peter Read ; Martin Hoffert ; David Keith ; Greg Rau ; Geoengineering ; John Nissen ; Ron Larson ; David Hawkins Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right? Hi Peter--Problem with your analysis is that biosphere also gives off something like 60 GtC as well. Preindustrial with steady CO2, as much was being taken up and given off. The net uptake, driven by the gradient created by emissions is now something like 1 GtC/yr and would equilibrate well before all of the perturbation is removed for this net uptake is occurring mainly as the new emissions are distributed among the fast reservoirs (atmosphere something like 50%, upper ocean that is well mixed 20-25% (and this includes the maybe 1 GtC/yr or less headed to the deep ocean), and terrestrial biosphere something like 25-30%. My upper ocean and terrestrial biosphere numbers may be off a bit, but close. You are counting the gross flux--sort of like saying how much cash is going into the stock market by only counting the dollars used to buy the stocks without subtracting off the money coming out due to sales. Mike On 11/21/09 3:20 AM, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: I must be off the map somewhere I guess, but in my view you guys have got it wrong This is because the calculations pertain exclusively to atmospheric physics/chemistry. In fact the biosphere fixes about 60 Gt C annually plus another 20 including oceanic photosynthesis So with less than 800 GT in the atmosphere, incremental CO2 stays in the atmosphere for around 10 years, not 10,000 Of course, if natural and anthropogenic fixation is exactly balanced by decay for 10,000 years then the physical-chemical processes are all that matters. But is that likely?? An increment of CO2 will cause an increment of CO2 fertilization, allowing for which would lead to a smaller lifetime I suspect [can anyone do the sum please?]. But an increment of CO2 will cause incremental warming and incrementally hasten decay, possibly lengthening the 10,000 years . However, I am much more concerned with the presentational aspect of the 10,000 years number. This lends credence to the overwhelming importance of reducing emissions [[unless, that is, you happen to think that shorter term climatic impacts, like the risk of Greenland collapsing, are important]]. I believe the science should be stated in a way that emphasizes the carbon cyle as a whole, and the ease of getting CO2 out of the atmosphere, not the very difficult (costly) problem of stopping it being emitted. Peter - Original Message - From: Marty Hoffert mailto:marty.hoff...@nyu.edu To:
[geo] Re: OTW @ COP15
Any takers? We have a lot of amateurs at geoengineering. As for pros, I'm not so sure. Schneider is endorsing a project that involves putting some kind of floating plastic or styrofoam all over the Arctic ocean, so he could fall in the pro category, although he is not known as a strong supporter of geoengineering in general. All three you listed were in the film. You should have a large turnout. I hear the rest of it is already a bust, a big COP out. Here's a thought. Go with the panel idea, but have a polygraph examiner on hand to fact check the answers. He may be very busy. - Original Message - From: Robert Greene rob...@4throwfilms.com To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: OTW @ COP15 Hi Alvia, We are having a major screening of OWNING THE WEATHER in Copenhagen at the COP15 event in December that will feature a panel afterward about ethical implications of geoengineering. Stephen Schneider, James Fleming, someone from the ETC Group and a danish moderator are expected to appear, but we need someone who can articulate the pro side of geoengineering research. We've reached out to Caldeira and MacCracken, but neither will be in Copenhagen. The question for you is: do you know anybody who will be at COP15 that can represent a pro-geoengineering perspective? Is there anyone you would recommend? The event in Copenhagen will be a part of the launch of the film on cable VOD and for digital download, so we are hoping to make a big splash... Thank you for the help. Hope you are well. Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
[geo] Re: Bogus names
Geo engineering inventor who sparked the recent interest in who is who at the geo group is actually pro...@worldnet.att.net who is also Neil Farbstein, a former presidential candidate and candidate for governor of NY who seems to have a lot of issues with the establishment: http://governorfarbstein.tripod.com/ Neil Farbstein ran as a candidate in the New York Governor's race. He is an inventor. He was born in Brooklyn and he has been living on Long Island most of his life. He is a member of the New York Society Of Professional Inventors and Americans For Legal Reform. He is unmarried and has no children. Contact Neil at pr...@att.net Given the recent political history of the Empire State, he might want to try again. If you want to know who posts messages, all you have to do is click on their profile, play Google's fill in the blank game successfully and look it up on Google. When the membership list was publicly available, I was able to ID about 75% of the members. Most are legitimate scientists, engineers, journalists, economists, members of environmental organizations and policymakers. Given that a handful of people post all of the messages and these people do give their real names, making new members give their real name is rather pointless. While this guy may have had other reasons for registering twice, most of the double sign-ups are due to people forgetting that after a certain time period, you have to re-enter your name and password and because most have more than one e-mail address, they forget which one they registered with and are induced to register again. So there are actually about 15 less unique members than the group info states. - Original Message - From: Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:03 PM Subject: [geo] Bogus names Dear Group, I would like see the real names attached to each post associated with this group. I think it fair to know who is contributing to the discussions here. Sincerley, Oliver Wingenter --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: paintphotoforsinglesads.jpg.w180h135.jpg
[geo] Re: Geoengineering the Sahara
Nor might it have to take as long as several centuries to get things going. From reading both of the papers, it is clear that the surface albedo has an important role in the strengthening and weakening of the monsoon which in turn supplies the rainfall for the plants. Revegetation of the Sahel has been a work in progress for decades, with the fluctuations in climate usually drowning out any man-made efforts. And as the other paper pointed out, the water requirements for a man-made greening of the entire Sahara are unacceptably large. I might add that there have been numerous proposals/patents over the years to vegetate the Sahara, the one that started this discussion just the most recent. The authors or someone else sent it to Holdren as it appeared in the OSTP/FOIA dump I reported on a while back. I proposed whitening parts of the Sahara to increase the surface albedo. But it is the relatively high natural albedo of 0.3-0.4 that is the end product of the natural desertification observed since the humid period ended rather abruptly 5500 years ago. Someone should look into seeing what the inpact of applying a BLACK cover to the region just outside the Sahel would be on the monsoon. Black plastic lasts much longer under solar radiation than white due to the fact that the carbon black that gives it the black color absorbs most of the UV that breaks down the polymer. I've seen pieces of black plastic in Durham that have been outside for more than a decade and are still intact! Since the black plastic surface would absorb much more solar radiation than the existing natural surface or even green vegetation, it would give a much more enhanced effect. Of course, the black plastic can't evaporate any water, but it could be applied concurrently with tree planting, the land around the trees covered with the plastic. I would predict that a much smaller area would have to be covered to get things going in terms of the feedback effects. We can't make the sun stronger, but we can make the land warmer. The additional GHG forcing from the plastic vs. the carbon sequestered by the vegetation would have to be factored in. I would think it would be much less once a sufficient area is revegetated. While some water would be required for the tree or shrub planting, irrigation via desalination or other means would not be necessary as the monsoon would supply the water. The area in question stretches about 2400 miles from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea. A 10-mile North/South band of black surface would cost around $15 billion to install and could be completed in a few years. The concerns expressed about impacts on dust/nutrient flows would need to be addressed, but it appears that iron and phosphorous are in excess now for the Amazon and also for the Atlantic, so a decrease could be tolerated. Since it would likely take more than a century to complete the revegetation, there would be ample time to determine any impacts. Only a few tropical waves are affected by dust storms, so the effect on hurricane development would be minimal. The alteration of the surface and strengthening of the monsoon might also offset some of the weakening predicted from use of stratospheric aerosols. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: oemor...@googlemail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; lenor...@pipeline.com; Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:34 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering the Sahara Hi All The Sahara ploy may not be that hard. A very interesting paper at the techie Copenhagen meeting was from Kerry Cook. She has a climate model that lets you plant trees. If she plants them in Africa from the present forests up to 17.9 deg north they quickly die back. But if she grows them slightly further north they spread all the way up to the Mediterranean, just as they used to be 5500 years when the Sahara was packed out with hippos. This means that you do not have to provide water for the whole area or go on paying the $2 Trillion every year. Some papers are attached. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Oliver Morton wrote: I blogged this last week http://heliophage.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/terraforming-the-sahara/ Text An interesting paper in Climatic Change: Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming by Leonard Ornstein, Igor Aleinov and David Rind Doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y. (Mason Inman has a nice write up with some background and comment over at ScienceNow; [update] and corresponding author Len Ornstetin chronicles the idea’s rocky research road on his own site). The
[geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
Peter Ward raised an important, yet to date unanswered question about the efficacy of man-made sulfate aerosols. Whereas water is not limited in their formation from volcanic eruptions because large amounts of water are also injected into the stratosphere, he is correct about the stratosphere being very dry in the absence of significant volcanic contributions. In fact, the water content is fairly consistent, around 5ppmv from the tropical tropopause (53,000 ft) all the way up to the stratopause (168,000 ft). Aerosol formed below 53,000 ft has a lifetime measured in days and weeks, not months and years as would be necessary for a global climate modification scheme. The Lowermost Stratosphere, the part of the atmosphere between the troposphere and the tropical tropopause has varying amounts of water vapor and clouds and isn't part of this analysis. This means that any injections of SO2 or its precursor H2S will depend entirely on this low level of water to produce the H2SO4 and the hydrated form of this that is the aerosol. Most of the concerns, objections, problems with the man-made aerosol strategy have been concentrated on whether or not the sulfuric acid will have reached a point of supersaturation whereupon new particles of aerosol (I prefer to call them droplets, but the convention is to refer to them as particles, in part because of their size and in part because they also consist of a particle of solid material of meteoritic or crustal origin. Today's cookout or forest fire could produce next year's aerosol droplet as some of the soot will eventually reach the stratosphere.) There is still some uncertainty as to the exact reaction path from SO2 to hydrated H2SO4, but it seems to follow this order: SO2 reacts with OH radical to form HOSO2 radical. O2 then reacts with the HOSO2 to form HO2 radical and SO3. So far, no water has been consumed. The SO3 then reacts with two molecules of H2O to form H2SO4 in a multi-step reaction. However, a net of one water molecule is consumed. The H2SO4 particle then adsorbs more water vapor until a ratio of 75% H2SO4/25% water is achieved. This aerosol particle is then stable until it runs into other ones (coagulation) or sediements (falls out of the stratosphere). The conversion of 6 Mt of S (similar to Pinatubo) would result in 24Mt of sulfate aerosol. S to SO2 a doubling and SO2 to H2SO4 (~ 2H2O) another doubling. So you need one molecule of water to produce the H2SO4 and two more to make the aerosol. Water's contribution to the total aerosol formation is 40%, not 3 times. Then, to make the 24 Mt of aerosol, around 10 Mt of water are required. Is there 10 Mt of water in the stratosphere? The volume of the Earth's atmosphere up to 100Km is 51 trillion cubic meters. The stratosphere ranges from 16Km to 50Km or about 34% of the total volume or 17 trillion cubic meters. 5 ppmv of water vapor is about 50 ug/m3 (based on a temperature of -40C and an air pressure of 8 mm Hg at 100,000 ft). Thus, in the entire stratosphere, the total mass of water vapor is 850 trillion ug which is the same as 850 billion mg or 850 million g. One million g = 1 ton, so the stratosphere contains 850 Mt of water vapor, 90X that required to produce a Pinatubo-scale aerosol burden. However, since only a fraction of the stratosphere would be used for aerosol formation, most likely from 20 to 30Km, the total being from 16 to 50Km, the water vapor would have to come from 30% of the stratosphere or a total water vapor content of 260 million tons. Hence, to achieve a Pinatubo loading of the stratosphere by man-made injection of aerosol precursor would use 3.5% of the available water vapor. Thus, water vapor is not a limiting factor in aerosol formation. I hope these calculations and the underlying assumptions are correct, but if not, please inform as this is an important part of the puzzle we need to understand going forward. It won't be possible to directly inject pure sulfuric acid or a 75/25% mixture with water, so either the gases work or we can forget about it. - Original Message - From: Veli Albert Kallio To: Andrew Lockley ; John Nissen Cc: Geoengineering FIPC ; Professor William McGuire ; pew...@wyoming.com Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:04 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming Hi All, During the second day of the Hazards Colloquium, during the evening dinner venue , I had opportunity to discuss with Peter L. Ward about the much-talked-about geoengineering idea of using stratospheric sulphur dioxide to bring down the athmospheric temperatures. According to Peter the cooling effect of sulphur dioxide in isolation from water in high stratosphere does not work very well because of the stratospheric dry surroundings. Instead of sulphur dioxide, it would have to be sulphuric acid that is shipped up into high athomosphere. The
[geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming
The only way that frequent volcanic eruptions could cause a warming effect is if enough CO2 were emitted to change the radiative balance of the atmosphere. As this is the Anthropocene and not the Cretaceous, I think that unlikely. I still fail to see the risk to or threat from Canadian Newfoundland as it has no glaciers and hasn't had any for 8,000 years. The use of stratospheric aerosols would have no impact on volcanic eruptions or earthquakes since it wouldn't increase the amount of ice significantly. You can't make up for hundreds of years of melting in a few. I am interested in Song's experiments supposedly demonstrating the potential of glacial earthquakes to cause tsunamis. Are these the results of models or are there field measurements to back them? Once again, my call for a comprehensive risk assessment of the structural stability of the ice sheets. Of course, since we don't seem to give a rip about the stability of bridges until there is a crack in a major part big enough to see from the highway (Oakland Bay Bridge) why am I not surprised no such study has been undertaken? And if we did find that a large crack was developing in the Greenland or Antarctic Ice Sheets, what would we do about it? This comes back to MacCracken's argument about waiting until it's too late to take action, my analogy of the patient with diabetes (wait until the heart attack for intervention) and society's requirement for a crisis before doing anything. You can't put the ice back on the ice sheet via enhanced precipitation and you sure as hell can't do it once it's floating in the water and NYC and London are destroyed. This just in. Man-made CO2 emissions will not be stabilized in the next five years. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Bill McGuire w.mcgu...@ucl.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:02 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Colloquium report: hazards from global warming This raises interesting points about the limits of SRM geoengineering. Perhaps the experts on the list could explain why frequent volcanic eruptions cause a warming effect? Can we be sure that H2S geoengineering techniques we propose cannot result in this 'blowback'? A 2009/9/17 John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk: This is a press report on the first day of the Hazards Colloquium, organised by Bill McGuire, at UCL, London. http://planetark.org/wen/54708 Global Warming May Bring Tsunami And Quakes: Scientists Date: 17-Sep-09 Country: UK Author: Richard Meares LONDON - Quakes, volcanic eruptions, giant landslides and tsunamis may become more frequent as global warming changes the earth's crust, scientists said on Wednesday. Climate-linked geological changes may also trigger methane burps, the release of a potent greenhouse gas, currently stored in solid form under melting permafrost and the seabed, in quantities greater than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) in our air today. Climate change doesn't just affect the atmosphere and the oceans but the earth's crust as well. The whole earth is an interactive system, Professor Bill McGuire of University College London told Reuters, at the first major conference of scientists researching the changing climate's effects on geological hazards. In the political community people are almost completely unaware of any geological aspects to climate change. The vulcanologists, seismologists, glaciologists, climatologists and landslide experts at the meeting have looked to the past to try to predict future changes, particularly to climate upheaval at the end of the last ice age, some 12,000 years ago. When the ice is lost, the earth's crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis, said McGuire, who organized the three-day conference. David Pyle of Oxford University said small changes in the mass of the earth's surface seems to affect volcanic activity in general, not just in places where ice receded after a cold spell. Weather patterns also seem to affect volcanic activity - not just the other way round, he told the conference. LONDON'S ASIAN SUNSET Behind him was a slide of a dazzlingly bright orange painting, London sunset after Krakatau, 1883 - referring to a huge Asian volcanic eruption whose effects were seen and felt around the world. Volcanoes can spew vast amounts of ash, sulphur, carbon dioxide and water into the upper atmosphere, reflecting sunlight and sometimes cooling the earth for a couple of years. But too many eruptions, too close together, may have the opposite effect and quicken global warming, said U.S. vulcanologist Peter Ward. Prior to man, the most abrupt climate change was initiated by volcanoes, but now man has taken over. Understanding why and how volcanoes did it will help man
[geo] Re: Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now?
Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now?I submitted this one and it appears it went through. The blog doesn't tell you if your comment has been submitted. I learned this after repeatedly hitting the submit key until it told me I would have to wait to submit another comment. Another gliche for the seer of computer science at NYT to solve. BTW, at realclimate, you can review and edit your comment before posting, so maybe adding that feature would help. - As I commented on a related article the other day at the geoengineering group, http://www.adn.com/news/environment/warming/story/924593.html, the opening up of the NW passage(s) is still only a benefit to the petroleum and mining industries, regional trade and tourism. The opening of these passages are of minor significance to international commerce, but of more importance to Russia. You asked at the geo group for comments about whether Russia would object to attempts to control or restore Arctic sea ice by geoengineering. You didn't specify sea ice, but that's what you meant. The greater benefit to Russia from reduced sea ice is access to petroleum and minerals below the sea floor. So there might be some resistance on their part decades from now if these resources become important to them. Nations will always make decisions that they believe are in their self interest. In the case outlined above, Russia and perhaps Canada and the U.S. would find benefits in reduced sea ice. But the risks and downsides of unmitigated global warming will be much greater. If the food supply is impacted by climate change that could be prevented by restoring the sea ice, the answer is easy. You can't eat oil. Not in Russia. Not in Canada. And definitely not in the U.S. Any geoengineering strategy will have to be approved and I believe will be approved by international consensus and will include the support of Russia. Climate change has the potential to destabilize nuclear armed nations on Russia's borders and that alone represents a greater threat to them than inconvenience in shipping or access to oil. The groups or people that keep arguing much to the delight of leftwing bloggers and reporters that unilateral attempts at geoegineering are possible or likely, either don't understand the complexity of the technologies involved or do and and are simply scaremongering. The most prominent of these early trick or treaters has been the Council on Foreign Relations which assembled a scare panel last year for this purpose. Say, didn't the CFR help George and Dick warn us of the dangers of WMD in Iraq? Like the chimps and the million typewriters, I guess they will eventually produce some Shakespeare if given enough time. And enough chimps. And enough typewriters. Your question, though, dealt with the opposite scenario. What if all the other countries agreed on a geoengineering strategy and the Russians didn't. This is the argument that Alan Robock keeps making, that geoengineering could never be used because countries could never agree on a global temperature. I guess Alan et al. never heard of Kyoto and the 2 degrees goal for 2050. The Russians, however, I am sure have heard of India, Pakistan and China. Original Message - From: Andrew Revkin To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:53 AM Subject: [geo] Will Russia resist geo-eng efforts now? The big question remains, who gets to set the planet's (or even Arctic's) temperature. Given this news, will Russia resist? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/science/earth/11passage.html comments welcome here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/asia-europe-voyage-via-arctic-nearly-done/ -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: on monsoons and warming
You initially used the word catastrophic to describe the impact on food and water supplies for India and China. Tom Wigley noted that in his comments: - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu Cc: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New geoengineering article submitted Dear Alan, I too would advise against the use of the word catastrophic. I do not think we know enough about the impacts of any change in the monsoon (changes in interannual variability may be more important than changes in the mean) to use any definitive adjective. This is clearly an area where more research is needed. Peter Webster has done relevant work. Tom. Here is the revised text from your paper: Both tropical and Arctic SO2 injection would disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people. Catastrophic without any qualifiers certainly implies lots of dead people. You also used a loading of 5Mt of S for the tropical aerosol modeling, a level pretty close to what would be needed to offset a doubling of CO2. As to your comment about peer reviewed scientific papers, note that I was one of the reviewers for your paper. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GeoengineeringJGR7.pdf http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/7942e72bc0ae303c# Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NSF grant ATM-0730452. We thank Phil 335 Rasch, Ben Kravitz, Alvia Gaskill, and Tom Wigley for valuable comments. Model 336 development and computer time at GISS are supported by NASA climate modeling grants. I don't know which is worse, your memory or your attitude. - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: on monsoons and warming Dear Alvia, If you are going to comment on my work, I wish you would read it first. I never did a calculation to offset a doubling of CO2. I never said everyone would starve to death. By the way, if there are 2 billion people in India and China together, and people are not just affected by weather changes in their own local neighborhoods. If you want to make serious comments on peer-reivewed scientific literature, please submit a comment or another paper to the journal, and have your writings peer reviewed, too. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Alvia Gaskill wrote: Tom is correct about the models and the analogy with tropospheric aerosols. Robock looked at a very limited number of conditions applied to the extreme to offset a doubling of CO2 and the natural events where monsoons were impacted were also extreme cases. I know that the modelers say they have to use the extreme conditions to see above the noise, but CO2 hasn't doubled yet, no aerosols have been employed and no monsoons have been impacted. Discussing options is not the same as exercising them and in no way is a form of denial. In an earlier posting, Sharma said that 2 billion would be affected. That figure is a little mysterious and seems to have come from Robock's original paper where he initially said these people would all starve to death and was convinced to back off from it. If you total the entire population of Eastern China and the parts of India and Africa that might be affected by a REDUCTION in the monsoons (there is more than one monsoon, even for India, another common misconception by lay people and the media and some scientists), I doubt if the total comes close to 2 billion. Reducing the monsoon is not the same as no rainfall at all, another horror story without a basis. In the early discussions on Robock's modeling (see group archives), I found evidence that 50% annual swings in monsoonal precipitation are not unusual for India and the Indian meterological service, trained by the detail obsessed British are well aware of historical variations. This year's lower than average probably fits right in with the historical results. Remember the flooding a few years ago with the Indian Army having to rescue people? As to how to address what might be a real problem, a prolonged reduction in rainfall (large parts of India receive less than 30 inches per year, so that 9-10 from the monsoons in the summer
[geo] Glenn Beck, the Information Train Wreck
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30130/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkzFAxnpOAk (relevant part begins at APX 2:30min). Sponsor and factually starved TV host Glenn Beck can now add geoengineering and dinosaur extinction to his long list of non understood topics with last night's sermon on Obama science advisors. He ran an excerpt from the Borenstein AP video where John Holdren says he wouldn't rule out using geoengineering to stop global warming and refers to placing particles in Earth orbit to block sunlight. Beck then frantically says this is the same as creating a massive volcanic eruption like the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, implying it could lead to our extinction as well, another reckless policy decision! The dinosaur extinction is generally thought due to an asteroid impact 65 million years ago. More proof that Glenn Beck doesn't know his asteroid from a hole in the ground! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: we're engineering the arctic now
I registered for Dot Earth, but for some reason, the message on this particular one won't allow me to log in. So I ask for you to post it if you wish. Without human interference, the interglacial would still take at least several thousand years to end and the ice sheets to return to cover the northern hemisphere. With it, the interglacial continues. Most likely, the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere will have been removed by some form of air capture in 100-200 years (sorry to disappoint David Archer et al.). Thus, we will have had no impact on preventing the return of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and related ones in Europe and Asia. UNLESS we take the lessons learned from our inadvertent intervention into the climate system and use it to our benefit. One of the definitions of geoengineering that is often used is that of deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability. The needs of the present are to stop the effects of global warming before the planet becomes uninhabitable for humans. Geoengineering in this instance is the use of technologies that stop global warming without reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But once we can can control the CO2 level in the atmosphere, do we really want it to return to the pre-industrial level? Probably so. That was the level that allowed a stable climate and for human civilization to develop. At some point, probably thousands of years from now, we will want to counteract the natural cycle and prevent the interglacial from ending. By then, we will have developed far more advanced technologies of all types than today and adjusting the climate will be relatively simple. Assuming we survive our current experience with global warming, we will be able to build on it and develop the technologies to modify climate to our needs, back to the first definition. Not surprisingly, there are those on the environmental left who would welcome the return of the ice sheets. One poster at the geoengineering group even said he thought we should allow the ice sheets to cover Canada and the northern U.S. again because the glaciers would scrape up more minerals that could be used. Like we are expecting a shortage of iron and nickel in 8000 AD? He then went on to imagine that the survivors (NY Times won't be able to publish under 2 miles of ice, sorry Andy, must change name of blog to Dot Ice) could all go and live in the tropics, where, of course, food will still be limited due to changes in precipitation and in the subtropics, winds will howl most of the time. The ice age was no picnic, even in the southern U.S. How people come to view humans, their own species as the enemy beats me. We've made some mistakes and they have cost us and other species. But at least we are on the path to the 12 step recovery program by recognizing we have a problem. Is the answer to alcoholism to shoot all the drunks? An even more extreme view shared by many, but voiced by few (for understandable reasons) is that humans are an invasive species that should be eliminated from the planet! Moi kudzu? Do I look like a zebra mussel to you? For this select crowd, I have come up with a suitable name. Cutterites. After the character in the BBC TV series Primeval, Helen Cutter, who became such a misanthrope she went back in time and tried to eliminate all the early humans. I'm sure Helen would not be in favor of continuing the interglacial either. And what happened to her experiment in preventative extinction? She was crushed by a dinosaur that followed her through one of her time portals. Gotta watch out for that technology. It'll get you when you least expect it. Alvia Gaskill Pro-Human Lobbyist - Original Message - From: Andrew Revkin anr...@nytimes.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:40 PM Subject: [geo] we're engineering the arctic now http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/science/earth/04arctic.html http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/humans-may-have-ended-long-arctic-chill/ we may be able to 'skip' the next ice age in fact. would love your thoughts in the comments section. -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Lifting sulfur
1. Fireproof nets. Prohibited under the International Convention Banning Fireproof Net Sulfur Burning to Stop Global Warming. Ever burned any elemental sulfur? Burns slow. With a blue flame. Probably not enough O2 to support sustained combustion without added oxidizers at 80,000-90,000 ft. 2. Artillery shells. I agree that it might just produce a dust cloud. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:28 AM Subject: [geo] Lifting sulfur Could balloons lift fireproof nets containing ground elemental sulfur and burn it by ignition? Can anyone advise whether the atmosphere is sufficiently dense at that height to sustain a flame? Alternativley, could elemental sulfur be fired as shells? The atmospheric friction, plus the heat from the propellant, should cause it to burn like tracer rounds. With the right trajectory, the rounds would dwell for a while in the stratosphere. However, I see two significant disadvantages to this: 1) The mechanical strength of sulfur is quite low. It might emerge from the barrel as sulfur dust. 2) The frictional heating of the round would be much greater in the troposphere due to the denser atmosphere. The above problems could potentially be solved by using a sabot or similar. The end result could be a much lighter, and hence easier way to get the sulfur up there than taking it up as a compound (H2S, SO2) A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Bubble Trouble
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_re_ca/cn_climate_09_troubling_bubbles In this Aug. 10, 2009 photo, one of many mounds called a 'pingo'by the Inuvialuit, or Eskimos, in the Mackenzie River Delta Northwest Territories, Canada.(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent Mon Aug 31, 5:03 am ET MACKENZIE RIVER DELTA, Northwest Territories – Only a squawk from a sandhill crane broke the Arctic silence — and a low gurgle of bubbles, a watery whisper of trouble repeated in countless spots around the polar world. On a calm day, you can see 20 or more `seeps' out across this lake, said Canadian researcher Rob Bowen, sidling his small rubber boat up beside one of them. A tossed match would have set it ablaze. It's essentially pure methane. Pure methane, gas bubbling up from underwater vents, escaping into northern skies, adds to the global-warming gases accumulating in the atmosphere. And pure methane escaping in the massive amounts known to be locked in the Arctic permafrost and seabed would spell a climate catastrophe. Is such an unlocking under way? Researchers say air temperatures here in northwest Canada, in Siberia and elsewhere in the Arctic have risen more than 2.5 C (4.5 F) since 1970 — much faster than the global average. The summer thaw is reaching deeper into frozen soil, at a rate of 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) a year, and a further 7 C (13 F) temperature rise is possible this century, says the authoritative, U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2007, air monitors detected a rise in methane concentrations in the atmosphere, apparently from far northern sources. Russian researchers in Siberia expressed alarm, warning of a potential surge in the powerful greenhouse gas, additional warming of several degrees, and unpredictable consequences for Earth's climate. Others say massive seeps of methane might take centuries. But the Russian scenario is disturbing enough to have led six U.S. national laboratories last year to launch a joint investigation of rapid methane release. And IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri in July asked his scientific network to focus on abrupt, irreversible climate change from thawing permafrost. The data will come from teams like one led by Scott Dallimore, who with Bowen and others pitched tents here on the remote, boggy fringe of North America, 2,200 kilometers (1,400 miles) from the North Pole, to learn more about seeps in the 25,000 lakes of this vast river delta. A puzzle, Dallimore calls it. Many factors are poorly studied, so we're really doing frontier science here, the Geological Survey of Canada scientist said. There is a very large storehouse of greenhouse gases within the permafrost, and if that storehouse of greenhouse gases is fluxing to the surface, that's important to know. And it's important to know if that flux will change with time. Permafrost, tundra soil frozen year-round and covering almost one-fifth of Earth's land surface, runs anywhere from 50 to 600 meters (160 to 2,000 feet) deep in this region. Entombed in that freezer is carbon — plant and animal matter accumulated through millennia. As the soil thaws, these ancient deposits finally decompose, attacked by microbes, producing carbon dioxide and — if in water — methane. Both are greenhouse gases, but methane is many times more powerful in warming the atmosphere. Researchers led by the University of Florida's Ted Schuur last year calculated that the top 3 meters (10 feet) of permafrost alone contain more carbon than is currently in the atmosphere. It's safe to say the surface permafrost, 3 to 5 meters, is at risk of thawing in the next 100 years, Schuur said by telephone from an Alaska research site. It can't stay intact. Methane also is present in another form, as hydrates — ice-like formations deep underground and under the seabed in which methane molecules are trapped within crystals of frozen water. If warmed, the methane will escape. Dallimore, who has long researched hydrates as energy sources, believes a breakdown of such huge undersea formations may have produced conical hills found offshore in the Beaufort Sea bed, some of them 40 meters (more than 100 feet) high. With underwater robots, he detected methane gas leaking from these seabed features, which resemble the strange hills ashore here that the Inuvialuit, or Eskimos, call pingos. And because the coastal plain is subsiding and seas are rising from warming, more permafrost is being inundated, exposed to water warmer than the air. The methane seeps that the Canadians were studying in the Mackenzie Delta, amid grassy islands, steel-gray lakes and summertime temperatures well above freezing, are saucer-like indentations just 10 meters (30 feet) or so down on the lake bed. The ultimate source of that gas — hydrates,
[geo] Daily Briefing
While we await the Emperor's report (good thing they didn't schedule this in January), I thought I'd share this attachment I slapped together recently for the producers of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The Daily Show is a comedy/news program hosted by Jon Stewart and has quite a following and has spawned spin offs like the Colbert Report, a sort of parody of Bill O'Reilly, if he wasn't a parody enough all by himself. You may not agree with all of my analyses, but I think I'm correct about most of them. This was prepared for a general audience in a great hurry as you will see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show They called me several weeks ago and wanted me to appear in an interview segment on global warming. In case you wonder why me, they got my name from the 2006 NY Times article that seems to serve as the first recorded document from the Age of Geoengineering, the PC or Post Crutzen era. It seems that the old Gray Lady still carries some weight amongst the NYC TV elites at least. The Daily Show producers were quite knowledgable about many of the approaches that have been proposed, more so than most of the media people I've crossed paths with. And this is partly because they do seem to get much of their news from the Times. An Iowa professor was interviewed by them about whether reforestation was reducing wind speeds in the U.S., also after they read about his paper in the NYT. So forget about posting to the geo group or publishing in a scholarly journal, just get in the Times and you become immortal. The plan was for me to bring a bunch of props illustrating the various technologies to NY. I had essentially no notice and they changed the schedule twice in two days, finally canceling the entire thing because Stewart, the executive producer decided he didn't like the segment. In the course of preparing, I was planning on FedExing (a) model planes (I have F-15c, KC135, Russian MIG), (b) the big inflatable globe you have seen, (c) a small artificial XMAS tree (getting desperate on that one), (d) white plastic sheeting (still have 1500 SF from 2004), (e) a plastic pipe (the ocean pipes), (f) corn (ocean crop sequestration) and (g) a spray bottle to demonstrate the aerosols and the cloud whitening (It's a spray bottle, it's a cloud whitener, it's an aerosol generator--it praactically sells itself!) and had I the time, probably some other mockups of geo technologies. The balloon was going to be a problem. Can't take it on the plane. Can't FedEx it either. My options there were to buy it at LaGuardia or in Manhattan. In the end, it may have been for the best the interview was cancelled. In the course of talking to the producers, all they wanted to discuss was problems with the technologies. I also learned from reading about the show that the segment I was to be in was generally one where the subject or subject matter is ridiculed. The sit down interviews with Stewart, like the one with Steven Chu are usually more balanced, unless the guest is the hyperbolic stock promoter Jim Cramer (Bear Stearns anyone?). Still, it would be nice to introduce the audience for this show (around 1.5 million, mostly under age 35) to options to stopping global warming as they are much more likely to die from it than the people currently charged with preventing such a catastrophe or as is actually the case, just talking about doing that. The public is woefully underinformed about global warming and geoengineering and how they get better informed is a problem unto itself. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- Geoengineering Options-Daily Show.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document
[geo] Re: [clim] Re: Fwd: geoengineering and hydrological cycle
I looked up several articles about humidity, relative, absolute and dew points by altitude and was not able to resolve this issue to my satisfaction. How about we try this one: When clouds form over the ocean that temporarily creates an area of lower humidity below them. This in turn causes the water to evaporate and raise the humidity level back to some equilibrium. The temperature of the water and air all contribute, but the reason you don't have humidity of 100% over the ocean surface most of the time is that the air does rise and takes the water vapor with it and the wind can blow it around as well. I added some water to some terrariums I have this morning. The tanks are mostly sealed to limit evaporation for the benefit of the residents and so I don't have to replace the water every day. Within a few minutes, water vapor had condensed on the insides of the glass. The ocean and the air above it is not sealed like the tanks. Thus, the humidity shouldn't approach 100%. I would be interested to see humidity readings by altitude over the ocean with and without cloud cover at the same temperatures. Regarding the rainfall issue and the marine stratocumulus clouds, these are low clouds, generally topping out at below 5000-7500 ft. To produce rain, you need clouds closer to 15000-20,000 ft and to produce monsoonal rains you need clouds that go all the way up to the tropopause, 50,000 ft. These are generalizations and I know that some rainfall is possible from low clouds, but these low clouds just aren't a major rain producer and the marine stratocumulus have no inpact on rainfall in India or practically anywhere else regardless of what you might do to them. I doubt that enhancing of marine stratocumulus cloud whiteness will increase the Indian monsoon unless done in the waters immediately surrounding the subcontinent. It certainly wouldn't be expected to decrease it. BTW, did anyone notice that rainfall in India is 25% below normal this year? So wide swings are typical. What is to be avoided is a long term significant diminution in rainfall. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: bala@gmail.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [clim] Re: Fwd: geoengineering and hydrological cycle Alvia I very much hope that treating low level clouds is not going to affect rainfall but people have said it will and wanted to have the possibility out in the open rather than be accused of covering it up. Perhaps I should have written ' . . . might happen . . '. However I am puzzled about how moving air can dry it especially as it seems to be harder to move it past the top of the boundary layer. I can see that this might happen for a while but not forever. Can you explain where it goes? Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Alvia Gaskill wrote: It is known that rain is less likely if there are too many small drops due to smoke and fine dust. This will happen as a result of cloud albedo control. It was my understanding that marine stratocumulus clouds, the target for the spray vessels, seldom produce much rain and that the concerns about the cloud whitening strategy were instead related to indirect impacts on other types of clouds in that they are the ones that are the source of most of the rainfall. The ocean does evaporate quite efficiently. That's where the clouds come from over the ocean and also the source of hurricane energy. The reason the air above the water isn't 100% saturated is because the wind moves it around, allowing it to dry out. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: bala@gmail.com Cc: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: [clim] Re: Fwd: geoengineering and hydrological cycle Dear Professor Bala I will need lots of time to study your most important paper but could you tell me what you think would happen if we slowly increased the spray quantity used for cloud albedo modification to keep pace with a hopefully reducing but probably increasing emission rate and were able to exercise choice over where the spraying was done. We know that la Nina and el Nino work in opposite directions and we might be able to copy them. With all the ignorance of an engineer new to this field I have identified the following possible mechanisms. 1. The production of rain is very complicated but we know that it needs some large drops to fall through deep clouds fast enough to coalesce with drops in their path so that they grow large enough
[geo] Re: [clim] Re: Fwd: geoengineering and hydrological cycle
It is known that rain is less likely if there are too many small drops due to smoke and fine dust. This will happen as a result of cloud albedo control. It was my understanding that marine stratocumulus clouds, the target for the spray vessels, seldom produce much rain and that the concerns about the cloud whitening strategy were instead related to indirect impacts on other types of clouds in that they are the ones that are the source of most of the rainfall. The ocean does evaporate quite efficiently. That's where the clouds come from over the ocean and also the source of hurricane energy. The reason the air above the water isn't 100% saturated is because the wind moves it around, allowing it to dry out. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: bala@gmail.com Cc: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: [clim] Re: Fwd: geoengineering and hydrological cycle Dear Professor Bala I will need lots of time to study your most important paper but could you tell me what you think would happen if we slowly increased the spray quantity used for cloud albedo modification to keep pace with a hopefully reducing but probably increasing emission rate and were able to exercise choice over where the spraying was done. We know that la Nina and el Nino work in opposite directions and we might be able to copy them. With all the ignorance of an engineer new to this field I have identified the following possible mechanisms. 1. The production of rain is very complicated but we know that it needs some large drops to fall through deep clouds fast enough to coalesce with drops in their path so that they grow large enough to fall fast enough to reach the ground without evaporating in the dry air below a cloud. It is known that rain is less likely if there are too many small drops due to smoke and fine dust. This will happen as a result of cloud albedo control. 2. However if more small cloud drops means that there is less rainfall /over the sea/ it follows that there will be more water left in the air mass when it reaches land. The air mass will travel further inland before the original drop numbers are restored by coalescence. Rain inland is more valuable than rain at the coast. 3. Any reduction in sea temperature will tend to reduce evaporation and increase condensation from air back to the sea surface and this will reduce the water content of the atmosphere. 4. But cooling the sea means a larger difference between the temperatures of sea and land and so more monsoon effect with stronger winds bringing more water to land masses. 5. Wind is caused by differences in pressure which are a result of local temperature gradients. Wind causes turbulence in the marine boundary layer. The relative humidity is very high in the stagnant layer of air at distances of millimetres above the sea surface but falls to around 65% a few metres above. Turbulence has a much greater influence on evaporation rate than water temperature. 6. Wind makes waves steeper. Spilling breakers mix the thin top layer of water that has been chilled by evaporation. Plunging breakers drive bubbles below the surface and throw spray above it to transfer more water vapour in the air. 7. Finally we know that the regions with the most severe drought problems are dry because air which has been dried by being high in the atmosphere is subsiding and moving out to sea. This means what we do at sea cannot affect the very driest land. We could accept large reductions in rainfall over the sea provided that we could control the rates, up or down, over land. Local effects would then be much more important than the mean global change. I am also intrigued at why the evaporation of the sea is so slow when the relative humidity a fer metres above the surface is quite low. I feel that it should be possible to modify this by increasing turbulence close to the surface to break through the stagnant layer in immediate contact. Perhaps two controls are better than one. With best wishes Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Govindasamy bala wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: *Govindasamy bala* bala.gov http://bala.gov@gmail.com http://gmail.com Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:10 PM Subject: geoengineering and hydrological cycle To: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com mailto:climateintervent...@googlegroups.com The attached paper gets into the details of why the climate system has different hydrological sensitivity to CO2 and Solar forcing. It turns out that the slow response of the system is the same for the two forcing
[geo] Time for Geoengineering?
I guess Brian didn't get the memo about acid rain not being a problem or bother to learn the difference between reflection and diffraction. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916965,00.html Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009 Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming? By Bryan Walsh As we pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we're doing more than warming the planet and scrambling the climate. We're also conducting what climatologist James Hansen has called a vast uncontrolled experiment. In effect, we're on our way to engineering a world very different from the one we were handed. Belatedly, we're trying to turn off the carbon spigot, hoping that by incrementally reducing the emissions we've spent a couple of centuries pouring into the air we can stop the climate slide before it's too late. But what if we can't do that? What if it turns out that slashing carbon emissions enough to make a difference — and it seems that means cutting output at least in half by midcentury — is economically and politically impossible? Do we need a Plan B? (See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.) A small but growing number of researchers are beginning to say yes. If we geoengineered the earth into a mess with our uncontrolled appetite for fossil fuels, maybe we have to geoengineer our way out of it — in effect, directly cooling the planet via a controlled experiment to counteract our uncontrolled one. Indeed, according to a just-published paper for the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate — a think tank studying inexpensive solutions to climate change — geoengineering might not only be a good way to bring rising temperatures under short-term control while we wait for the longer-term fix of cutting carbon emissions to take hold, it might be the only way. The potential benefits of geoengineering are really very large, says Lee Lane, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a co-author of the paper. There are a number of potential approaches to geoengineering, but the most popular ones focus on controlling the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth's surface. Climate — in its simplest terms — is the rough relationship between the amount of solar energy that strikes the earth and the amount that is retained by the atmosphere, as opposed to being radiated or reflected back into space. In this sense, the greenhouse effect is not all bad. Without a little bit of it, the earth would be a cold, dead place, with an average temperature as low as -0.4°F. Unfortunately, by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we have, in a sense, thrown another quilt on the planet when we were perfectly comfortable to begin with. (Watch TIME's video The Truth About Solar Power.) One way to turn down the thermostat would be to spread sulfur particles into the atmosphere, either through artillery or with airplanes, thickening the air enough so that it would bounce some sunlight back. We know that process does reduce global temperatures: when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it threw millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures over the following months to drop by nearly 1°F. Geoengineering would work much the same way — only it would need to be done continuously, to keep up with the intensifying greenhouse effect. Other methods include spraying seawater mist from ships toward low-lying clouds, which would then reflect more sunlight. Another more extreme but oft-discussed option would involve putting mirrors into the earth's orbit. If those ideas have the disadvantage of sounding convoluted, they have the real advantage of being cheap — at least in relative terms. According to the new paper by Lane and J. Eric Bickel of the University of Texas, the seawater-mist method could counteract a century's worth of warming for $9 billion. Compare that to the political complexity and the economic unknowns associated with a meaningful and enforceable global climate accord. The benefits are so great, at a low cost, that at the very least it makes sense to invest in a real research program for this, says Lane. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.) But before we start creating man-made volcanoes, we should worry about the side effects. For one thing, increasing sulfur in the atmosphere would increase acid rain, with all the damage that can do to forests and wildlife. And there are serious concerns that artificially changing cloud cover could disrupt global precipitation patterns, a risk that climate scientists Susan Solomon and Gabriele Hegerl raised in a recent article in Science. They found a global drop in precipitation levels after the eruption at Mt. Pinatubo, and an increase in droughts. A cool but dry planet wouldn't be an upgrade from where we are now. Climate change impacts are driven not only by temperature changes, but also by change in other aspects of the
[geo] Re: Ecologists weigh in
Ecologists weigh inhttp://eco.confex.com/eco/2009/techprogram/P15440.HTM What she knows and what she says may be two different things. When I blew the whistle on the misleading Science paper that based Arctic ozone depletion on a doubling of CO2 by 2017, I expected a clarification or at least a response. Neither one was forthcoming. Now I see in the abstract for the ESA meeting a paper that describes essentially the same outcome. Were more realistic assumptions made this time around and the ozone depletion was still a problem, but less so than before or is it just as bad? I agree with the recommendation for studies on whether heating of the stratosphere would decrease ozone depletion. But you know, since finding things wrong with geoengineering is so much more popular, profitable, politically correct (or fun for some people), I'm not surprised that work remains undone. Geoengineering Reduces Ozone Depletion wouldn't make a very good sounding news article, now would it? Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 2:00 PM SYMP 21-2: Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere Simone Tilmes1, Rolando R. Garcia1, Doug E. Kinnison1, Andrew Gettelman1, Philip J. Rasch2, Ross J. Salawitch3, and Rolf Mueller4. (1) National Center for Atmospheric Research, (2) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA, (3) University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, (4) Forschungszentrum Juelich, Juelich, Germany Background/Question/Methods: Geo-engineering schemes have been proposed to alleviate the consequences of global warming by continuous injection of sulfur into the stratosphere. Volcanic eruptions in the past have shown that strongly enhanced sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere result in a higher planetary albedo, leading to surface cooling. However, model simulations show significant local temperature changes embedded in the global cooling as a result of geoengineering. Also large local precipitation changes, may occur in case of geoengineering. In addition to the impact on the tropospheric climate, the significant increase of stratospheric sulfate aerosol densities caused by geoengineering approaches enhances heterogeneous reactions in the stratosphere that lead to ozone loss. The potential for exceedingly high Arctic ozone depletion in the context of geo-engineering is known. On the other hand, decreasing halogen compounds in the atmosphere, brought about by the Montreal Protocol, result in a recovery of the ozone layer and lessen the potential impact of aerosols. Results/Conclusions The sensitivity of in the stratosphere to a proposed geo-engineering scheme is presented for future halogen conditions. Based on results of the NCAR, Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), the enhanced volcanic aerosol loading in the geo-engineering simulation result in a one-to two-fold increase of the chemical ozone depletion for the Northern Hemisphere due to chemical and dynamical changes. A significant increase of ozone depletion in the Arctic polar vortex up to the end of this century was estimated from observations, likely resulting in dangerous increase in UV radiation at the Earth's surface that harmful impacts the biosphere. Further, the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole would be delayed by several decades in case of geoengineering using sulfate aerosols. - Original Message - From: David Keith To: r...@llnl.gov ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; Climate Intervention ; Rob Jackson Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:13 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Ecologists weigh in Greg, I was at the ESA meeting and argued strongly for the need to do geoeng research. People keep falling into the trap of thinking that mitigation can avoid all need for the ability to manage solar radiation. I think I got some traction by arguing that cutting emissions is necessary but not sufficient. Geoengineering provides the only plausible means to manage the global climate risks posed by the CO2 we have already emitted; no matter how fast we reduce emissions, prudence demands that we study methods that offer the hope of limiting the environmental risks posed by the accumulation of fossil carbon in the atmosphere. These quotes don't reflect the meeting, they likely prepared before it. Rob Jackson: is that correct? Simone Tilmes was there. She and others are well aware that geo after the chlorine loadings decline would much lower impact. The other issue on this topic is that, as suggested by Crutzen, if geo heats that lower strat (as many, but not all methods would) it might reduce ozone loss by reducing the formation of PSC's. To my knowledge, no one has followed up on this in a serious way. -David -- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau Sent: August
[geo] Re: Secret E-Mails from the Big White House
been the working tool for NRDC, EDF, the Sierra Club and many others who sue the United States as a means of keeping their lawyers employed. Same goes for the right side of the ledger. If you don't want your communication to a government employee made public - - call them on the phone. dschnare On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/OSTP_climate_response1_5_2009.pdf Larry Klayman's nosy lawyers have done it again. Posting secret White House e-mails about geoengineering to the Internets. I guess we can add loss of privacy to civility and drinking water. The file is too large to attach and too compelling not to read! See if your name shows up! My favorite was the proposal to grow trees in the Sahara. Hey, we could use the plastic cover as mulch! -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: foxnews_story.gif
[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
I'm still not sure I understand what you guys are talking about with regard to sudden catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet. About 5 years ago, I raised the same possibility, but have yet to see any analyses that would support large slides of ice into the ocean. As Greenland consists of three separate islands covered with ice, at some point, if enough of the ice sheet melted, the remaining ice would become unstable and fall into the ocean, but that would be a long way off. I do believe, however, that a survey of the structural stablility of both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets is merited. I am not aware of this having been done and simply having climatologists say large pieces won't break off isn't good enough as they continue to be surprised by ice shelf collapses and sea ice disappearance. In other words, they don't seem to be all that good at predicting the future. We have a shortage of a lot of things in this world, among them civility and fresh drinking water, but one thing not in short supply is structural engineers. I want to hear what they have to say about the Greenland Ice Sheet. I am not, however, convinced that an imminent catastrophe is upon us. The basis for your concern appears to be folklore of the Inuits living along Hudson Bay around 12,400 years ago whose tales tell of their villages being swamped by a sudden rise in the water level and that the Younger Dryas period immediately followed. Is that correct? Your conclusion was then that the sea level rise was due to a sudden release of ice by the Greenland Ice Sheet. However, the most likely explanation for the Younger Dryas (a period of abrupt climate change in which ice age like conditions returned for around 1000 years to the N. Hemisphere and so named after an Arctic wildflower that was prevalent at the time) is the discharge of fresh water into the N. Atlantic from a large glacial lake in southern Canada and northern Minnesota, Lake Agassiz. This lake was larger than all of the present Great Lakes combined and was closed on the southern end by an ice dam blocking discharge into the Mississippi River and also on the northern end by another ice dam, preventing emptying into Hudson Bay. The fresh water released entered the N. Atlantic and disrupted the northern end of the Gulf Stream, hence the colder weather that followed. This is loosely what the movie the Day After Tomorrow is based on, although that is a bad sci fi movie with little scientific basis behind it. The events portrayed in the film could never happen as they violate laws of physics and thermodynamics. Various theories have been advanced for the collapse of the ice dam, but the most likely one now seems to be a comet strike in eastern Canada that also caused massive wildfires, killing off most of the large mammals in N. America along with the Clovis people of New Mexico. Soot and quartz particles found at the proposed impact site seem to confirm an extraterrestrial source of the event. There is no evidence that Greenland was affected by the comet strike. The explanation for the much shorter cooling period of around 8000 years ago also seems to be related to a discharge from Lake Agassiz, although that one is also still debated. I am interested in your comment about someone studying ways to stabilize the Greenland Ice sheet and would like to hear more about it. Previously, we have discussed such ideas as filling in Moulins with some kind of straw, with ice and of course there was the Discovery Project Earth episode about placing insulating foam sheets around melt lakes. The Royal Society report is not going to endorse the immediate use of geoengineering. Most of these evaluation type studies have either rejected research altogether (the DEFRA paper) or called for some kind of long drawn out research program (Koonin workshop) in which the authors are never able or willing to pull the trigger and say what should be done and when. - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Veli Albert Kallio Cc: John Davies ; gorm...@waitrose.com ; Geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:43 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton Hi Albert, Thanks for calling last night. As I said, this is an opportunity to get three vital points across to Bill Clinton for your meeting in September: * the situation is far more serious and urgent than any scientist dares to admit [1], and warrants emergency action [2]; * the action must include geoengineering, because emissions reduction will be too slow to have an effect; * geoengineering must be both SRM for cooling and carbon air capture for reducing acidification. As regards the situation, there is both the risk of sea level rise from Greenland (with tsunami if there's a containment failure) and the risk of massive methane release (see John Davies' email yesterday) if the Arctic sea
[geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...
The GeoBusters are hard at work this morning, what with cereal being used to stop hurricanes and my entry into the transformational energy debate, the White TARP (so-named to gather immediate grass roots or more likely astroturf support from the angry teapartybirtherdeathpanelprotesterswhoallseemtobewhitepeople). The White TARP is to be distinguished from that other TARP which cost a lot of money and the blue one I bought at Lowes recently. The White TARP stands for Thermal Ambient Reduction Program. OK, doesn't roll off the tongue like Toxic Asset Relief Program, but for now will do. Here is my proposition. Whitening or lightening of parking lot pavement to reduce the urban heat island effect will be a generational project both domestically and internationally. Placing heat exchangers under the asphalt to recover IR for the purpose of heating water or some other use will be very expensive and also a generational length project. It is also unclear which one of these would give us the biggest bang for the buck near term to use an old military cliche. Most of the parking lot space is not used for parking, but cars go in and out all day, so in effect it is used and any alteration has to take that into consideration. But not all parking lots are used all the time. Schools, churches, government buildings and shopping malls during the off peak season (very off peak of late) all have parking areas that remain unused during the summer months and weekends. Even most commercial businesses are not open on Saturdays and Sundays so there are many days in which these gray to black sufaces just soak up the rays of the sun and re-emit them, heating the air, the ground and buildings. So is it a better idea to give energy tax credits or some other form of compensation to groups like the ones mentioned above to cover their unused parking spaces with a white plastic sheet during periods of non use than to spend money trying to recover this heat energy from under the asphalt? Remember the White TARP can be done immediately, so the benefits begin today, not decades from now. Yes, this isn't as sexy as the proposal in question and Parking Lot Energy Corp sounds a lot more official than White TARP, LLC. And there will certainly be those who object, waving their Leave My Parking Lot Alone signs and angrily confronting their members of congress at the parking lot reform town halls. If 1000 square miles of parking lots are suitable for this treatment and the plastic costs $0.03/SF, then the cost of the plastic is around $800K per square mile or $300 for a 10,000 SF parking lot. Asphalt reading #1 taken at 8:15am under overcast skies showed a surface temp of 79F and at 9am with partly sunny skies was already 90F. I'll be taking readings throughout the day and will seek out a suitable parking lot for the full scale experiment. I have several thousand SF of white plastic lying around and this would be a good opportunity to use it. Alvia Gaskill, CEO White TARP, LLC (formerly Environmental Reference Materials, Inc.--that ought to confuse the creditors for a while!) - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com To: anr...@nytimes.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [geo] whatever you think of orbiting solar... I don't as it would have very limited applicability if any at all. Plus, if the surfaces are eventually whitened as is the goal of the LBNL initiative, that would reduce the effectiveness of such systems. I also doubt that sufficient energy can be captured to make it worthwhile, although the principle is the same as that of using molten salt to store heat from CSP for use during the overnight to produce steam. The maximum temperature would probably follow the same pattern as the heating of the atmosphere, peaking somewhere around 4-6pm in the summer and reaching a lowpoint just before dawn. So the number of hours that usable heat could be extracted is much less than 24 and by the time it has passed through the heat exchanger system, it may not add significantly to any water that is to be heated. It seems like a very complicated way to produce energy on the margin when there are other more readily available sources. There is a long history of using undergound pipes to heat or cool surfaces, e.g. football fields and hockey arenas, but none in the area of heat collection in this way. In the interest of furthering scientific knowledge, I will take the trusty IR non contact thermometer outside right now and get a parking lot/roadway reading and also some tomorrow during the daytime. The range for tomorrow is 67-85F, much less than Phoenix, but it should give an idea as to what to expect. Results: probably biased because it rained earlier and nature took away all that valuable waste heat energy, but the air temp is about 73F at 10:30pm EDT and the roads
[geo] Re: Home experiment
I guess this makes you a cereal killer. Cereal is also relatively expensive. Starch based packing peanuts would be whiter and also biodegradable, but the scale and other issues previously discussed in my opinion make this an infeasible pre-emptive measure. You may have seen on the weather this week that some Saharan dust interfered with the development of a tropical wave in the Atlantic, so there are ways to prevent the growth of storms. I still think that an examination of the effect of placing a white cover over part of the country of Niger (of Plame and yellowcake fame) on the discharge of waves into the Gulf of Guinea would be a worthwhile exercise. The hot Saharan air from there or even from other surrounding areas would have to pass over this cooler area and be subject to subsidence. This would prevent it from converging and if it never enters the water with any characteristics of a wave, it can't gain energy from the jungle or the ITCZ, it can't gain rotation from the Coriolis effect and it can never become an organized tropical cyclone. Stephen Salter and Bill Gates want to kill them on the way to school or or work, I favor the strangle them in the crib or earlier approach. BTW, that dinky little Cat 1 that hit Taiwan killed 500 people. The best hurricane is no hurricane at all. OK, I'm biased. In the fall of 1954, a 36-year-old pregnant woman in coastal NC was nearly killed when she attempted to remove downed tree limbs from her yard, thinking that a hurricane that had just struck the area had passed and instead was caught off guard by the winds from the backside of the storm as the eye was passing directly over her. She was my mother. I was along for the ride. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be the best. Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most effectively? An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and is non-porous. However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem. I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea actually works. A 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Dear Andrew, If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the water and make it warmer. What color will the Special K be after a few days if it is eat? What happens to the (additional) fish near the surface when the hurricane comes? If not the cooling effect will increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional cooling effect. Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is higher than the water. Worth checking this out. Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign. There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already. If you add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer. Good luck, Oliver Wingenter On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment. I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms: 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating of the sea 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet surface area 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective surface area. I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration. I really hope someone can comment on the idea. It seems pretty cheap and environmentally benign to me. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received
[geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...
I don't as it would have very limited applicability if any at all. Plus, if the surfaces are eventually whitened as is the goal of the LBNL initiative, that would reduce the effectiveness of such systems. I also doubt that sufficient energy can be captured to make it worthwhile, although the principle is the same as that of using molten salt to store heat from CSP for use during the overnight to produce steam. The maximum temperature would probably follow the same pattern as the heating of the atmosphere, peaking somewhere around 4-6pm in the summer and reaching a lowpoint just before dawn. So the number of hours that usable heat could be extracted is much less than 24 and by the time it has passed through the heat exchanger system, it may not add significantly to any water that is to be heated. It seems like a very complicated way to produce energy on the margin when there are other more readily available sources. There is a long history of using undergound pipes to heat or cool surfaces, e.g. football fields and hockey arenas, but none in the area of heat collection in this way. In the interest of furthering scientific knowledge, I will take the trusty IR non contact thermometer outside right now and get a parking lot/roadway reading and also some tomorrow during the daytime. The range for tomorrow is 67-85F, much less than Phoenix, but it should give an idea as to what to expect. Results: probably biased because it rained earlier and nature took away all that valuable waste heat energy, but the air temp is about 73F at 10:30pm EDT and the roads, parking lots and sidewalks (I believe in being thorough) ranged from 74-77, indicating some residual heat in the pavement, but not very much. The article and or video noted that only a small fraction of parking lots were actually used for parking, so instead of installing an expensive and problematic heat exchanger system, why not have some of the post real estate collapse serfs place a white tarp onto these urban hot plates during the daytime and remove them at night. Now that's a use of the tarp that even old John McCain could support for Arizona. - Original Message - From: Andrew Revkin anr...@nytimes.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 9:32 PM Subject: [geo] whatever you think of orbiting solar... does anyone out there see heat harvesting from parking lots as transformational? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/energy-frontiers-space-solar-hot-lots/ weigh in... -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Home experiment
In addition to biodegradation, there might also be biofouling if the material stayed afloat long enough, that is, it would become covered with dark colored algae or bacteria. The most likely outcome is that wave action would separate the material such that it would become so spread out as to have a negligible effect. As your experiment lasted less than two days, it says little about long term (weeks, months) effectiveness. Olive oil would also biodegrade rather quickly. Even with a surface covering material like this or something more permanent like plastic, wave action generated by the storm as it approaches would allow significant evaporation to occur and supply the storm with replenishment energy. - Original Message - From: Veli Albert Kallio To: Andrew Lockley ; Geoengineering FIPC Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:05 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment I think there are hurdles: 1) legal issue of spilling oil to sea water (governments would have to be persuaded to allow this). 2) how to control that oil does not come to contaminate swimming beaches in the Caribbean where tourists go 3) how to prevent birds and fish food chains from becoming contaminated 4) how to prevent the plastic islands just like in the Pacific Ocean from forming, plastic chips would be eaten by fish and birds 5) food materials (biodegradable) would quickly find a better place where to go, if you have ever been fishing anywhere 6) deposition of plastic chips on the beaches, would this be acceptable? Evaporation of oil is much slower than that of water, but it can also lead to anoxic conditions preventing oxygen mixing water. Big oil disasters in the Mexican Gulf (leaking oil wells) and Saddam Husseins fill up of the Persian Gulf did not bring any benefits, these pointing that there might not be much to gain, but much more to loose. My comments are critical, but I would like to hear if someone has positive ideas, as I may be overly negative on this idea. Kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio -- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:50:15 +0100 Subject: [geo] Home experiment From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment. I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms: 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating of the sea 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet surface area 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective surface area. I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration. I really hope someone can comment on the idea. It seems pretty cheap and environmentally benign to me. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: NY TImes on geoengineering
Somewhat of an overreaction from far away Maine. Tierney is a de facto denier, however. But I don't think anyone outside the climate engineering community would have picked up on the use of skeptic. And I have yet to hear anyone opposed to geoengineering labeled a geo denier. Maybe in a parallel universe or an episode of Sliders. - Original Message - From: James R. Fleming jflem...@colby.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:37 AM Subject: [geo] Re: NY TImes on geoengineering NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR CALLS THOSE WARY OF GEOENGINEERING FIXES SKEPTICS -- A LOADED TERM IN CLIMATE CIRCLES On 8/11/09 8:47 AM, jim woolridge jimwoolri...@hotmail.com wrote: skeptics --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Hawaii Saved by Shear Luck Again
A little more perspective on what could or should be accomplished by tropical cyclone aka hurricane mitigation using wave sinks or similar methods. Typhoon Morakot is a minimal hurricane that has caused significant death and disruption in Taiwan and China, mostly through flooding. Reducing the winds of a hurricane by cooling the waters in passes over doesn't necessarily wring all the water out of the system. Even a depression with winds of 35mph can cause significant flooding. Tropical storm Felicia, once a Cat 4 has been reduced to a weak tropical storm as it trekked across more than a thousand miles of the Pacific Ocean, weakened at first by colder waters (going from 29C to 24C) and then by wind shear. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2009/ep08/ep082009.discus.011.shtml? It may still do some damage when it makes landfall in Hawaii, but nothing like what a Cat 4 would have done as was the case with Iniki in 1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Iniki. The Hawaiian Islands are seldom hit by hurricanes due the fact they present a small target and because of the natural protection due to colder waters and high wind shear. Thus, they probably wouldn't benefit much from wave sink cooled waters. It remains to be seen whether or not wave sink technology could completely eliminate such storms before they make landfall. One of the concerns of the Storm Fury program was that flooding would still occur even though the wind speeds had been reduced by the cloud seeding and might be exacerbated. As Storm Fury turned to be more bluster than fury in the retrospective analyses, the jury is still out on what manipulating these weather systems would do if they can be affected by man-made schemes at all. Wind shear, which is one of the factors along with SST that determines if a hurricane will develop may be more significant than water temperature in the fate of these storms. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090809/ap_on_re_as/as_asia_storm_15/print Typhoon pummels China, forcing nearly 1M to flee By GILLIAN WONG, Associated Press Writer Gillian Wong, Associated Press Writer 11 mins ago BEIJING – A typhoon pummeled China's eastern coast Sunday, toppling houses, flooding villages and forcing nearly a million people to flee to safety. Officials rode bicycles to distribute food to residents trapped by rising waters. Typhoon Morakot struck after triggering the worst flooding in Taiwan 50 years, leaving dozens missing and feared dead and toppling a six-story hotel. It earlier lashed the Philippines, killing at least 21 people. Morakot, which means emerald in Thai, made landfall in China's eastern Fujian province, carrying heavy rain and winds of 74 miles (119 kilometers) per hour, according the China Meteorological Administration. At least one child died after a house collapsed on him in Zhejiang province. People stumbled with flashlights as the storm enveloped the town of Beibi in Fujian in darkness, the official Xinhua News Agency said. Strong winds uprooted trees or snapped them apart, while farmers tried to catch fish swept out of fish farms by high waves. Village officials in Zhejiang rode bicycles to hand out drinking water and instant noodles to residents stranded by deep floods, while rescuers tried to reach eight sailors on a cargo ship blown onto a reef off Fujian, Xinhua reported. Morakot was expected to weaken as it traveled north at about six miles (10 kilometers) per hour, but still bring strong winds and heavy rains to Shanghai, the meteorological administration said. Flood control officials in Shanghai released water stored in inland rivers to reduce levels in preparation, Xinhua said. About 1 million people were evacuated from China's eastern coastal provinces — more than 490,000 in Zhejiang and 505,000 in neighboring Fujian. Authorities in Fujian called 48,000 boats back to harbor. Five houses were destroyed by heavy rain ahead of the typhoon's landfall, burying four adults and a 4-year-old boy in debris, Xinhua said. The child died after emergency treatment failed, it said. Another 300 houses collapsed and thousands of acres (hectares) of farmland were inundated, Xinhua said. Dozens of domestic flights were canceled and delayed in Fujian and Zhejiang, and bus service in Fujian's capital, Fuzhou, was suspended, it said. Taiwan, meanwhile, was recovering after the storm dumped more than 80 inches (200 centimeters) of rain on some southern counties Friday and Saturday, the worst flooding to hit the area in half a century, the Central Weather Bureau reported. Taiwan's Disaster Relief Center said a woman was killed when her vehicle plunged into a ditch in Kaohsiung county in heavy rain Friday, and two men drowned in Pingtung and Tainan. It said 31 were missing and feared dead. Morakot hit Taiwan late Friday and crossed the island Saturday. The Disaster Relief Center reported Sunday that flash floods washed away a home in southern
[geo] Re: John Holdren is trying to be a politician :-)
This is the complete interview with Holdren. Icyman is correct that he is being political in his answers, but that's the job of the science adviser--science policy. Referring to some of the answers, the polls I have seen show that only half of the American public thinks climate change is a serious problem, complicating efforts to get widespread support behind a cap and trade bill and the accompanying energy programs. Look at the political nightmare that the health care debate has spawned. One of our local congressmen received a death threat because he WOULDN'T hold a town hall meeting so he could shouted down. Should we expect a similar scenario on the cap and trade bill? Don't Take My Energy Away from Me says the imaginary sign held up by a protester. BTW, since it's largely the same people in these protests over and over again (Tea Party, Health Care, presumed Cap Trade) don't they have anything else to do? His answer to the question about geoengineering is a lot more detailed and nuanced than in the interview with Seth Borenstein. He opposes use of it now, thinks it should be studied, but only in the way that one would study a new flu virus, to see how bad it's impacts could be and seems to have made up his mind that once he's finished studying it, he will have determined it's bad. Falling back on the argument that most of the geoengineering schemes don't address ocean acidification begs the question, would there be this much attention to atmospheric CO2 if its only negative impact were decreasing the pH of surface sea water? He also doesn't distinguish here air capture from geoengineering as a form of carbon sequestration. One would think that if the Administration was behind measures to reduce the legacy CO2 in the atmosphere, they would at least make this a priority. It certainly wasn't among the transformational technologies that received the DOE happy letters. The white roofs/cool cities/cool megacities, whatever you want to call it really isn't geoengineering. It's urban heat island mitigation that also happens to indirectly reduce CO2 emissions and directly reduce some GHG IR. Trying to say this is geoengineering and thus the U.S. government can tell the difference between the good geoengineering and the bad is like saying the Cash for Clunkers program is better than the Clean Air Act at reducing emissions of NOX and fine particulates. Not in the same ballpark. As to the fate of Waxman Markey, it may be necessary to use Reconciliation to force it through. No one is talking about this, a measure that only requires 50 votes and that may be used on the health care legislation. But without a strong commitment from the U.S. to take to Copenhagen, delegates are advised to increase their sightseeing budget as that's all they'll be doing there. And oh yeah, eventually the U.S. Senate would have to ratify that Copehagen agreement. Good luck there too boys. Interview: America turns red, white and green a.. 03 August 2009 by Graham Lawton Putting the American house in order (Image: Tom Pilston) The US's stance on climate change has shifted beyond recognition. President Barack Obama's science adviser John Holdren tells Graham Lawton how the US will put its house in order, secure a deal at the make-or-break summit in Copenhagen, and lead the world's fight against dangerous climate change How will you persuade the American people that climate change is a problem and win support for policies to tackle it? The polls show that 70 to 75 per cent of the American public accepts that climate change is real, that humans are largely responsible, and that we need to do something about it. But it doesn't rank particularly high on their concerns: the top concern tends to be the economy. So it's recognised as a problem but needs to move up. President Obama has made it clear that the same strategies can help reduce the risk of climate change, reduce dependence on imported oil and help drive recovery with new businesses and jobs in clean energy. He is saying we can get a lot of things done simultaneously by making the right investments and developing the right policies, including the policies in the energy climate bill that recently passed in the House of Representatives (see backgrounder). What does the bill hope to achieve? Does it contain binding targets for reducing greenhouse emissions? Absolutely. The target is for emissions in 2020 to be 17 per cent below those of 2005. This would amount to being a few per cent below what they were in 1990. The bill is now being considered in the Senate. Could it be thrown out or watered down? I think that we are going to get a bill out of the Senate, which may even improve some aspects of it. I think everybody understands that legislation of this sort will have some strengths and some weaknesses. This certainly has some things that, if I were king, I would have written differently. Is the
[geo] Re: Single cloud and remote ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_tracks The ship track whiteness enhancement is due to sulfate aerosols from burning of fuel, not salt particles. In our discussion of the experiment performed in the Discovery Project Earth episode using salt flares, you discounted the value of doing this again in the presence of low level marine clouds because you said the effects would be too transient and a larger scale longer term experiment would be too expensive. So, while there is indirect evidence the salt spray idea will enhance cloud albedo, it is the direct evidence that is lacking. As to your slanderous comment about drunken ship's officers, I am informing you that we in the shipping industry take such reckless accusations very seriously. Our legal counsel, Joseph Hazelwood will be contacting you shortly. Soon as he wakes up. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 6:48 AM Subject: [geo] Single cloud and remote ships Alvia I share you concern about Lomberg and premature cost estimates. However I must disagree about 'not a single cloud'. There are lots of examples of cloud albedo being increased by the extra condensation nuclei from ship exhaust and the Discovery Channel experiment produced a cloud from seeing flares that was much brighter than no cloud as a result of about one minute's output from a spray vessel. If we do not like the results of a treatment pattern that replicates el Nino then we move the flotilla to the other side of the Pacific to get a controlled amount of la Nina. My own view is that a steady state is usually better than an oscillation and I would like to position vessels to apply a bit of damping. You are also concerned about remote control. There is an ongoing student/amateur competition for the first robot sailing vessel to cross the Atlantic. The have a site at http://www.gpss.force9.co.uk/autop.htmSome of the contributions are more serious than others but they are learning lots and my guess is that they will do it quite soon. The slow 2D problem of remote guidance of ships is much easier than for the fast 3D one of the drone aircraft now being used to target individual people in Waziristan. I would have much more confidence in a computer than a sleepy or drunken ship's officer and removing people removes many problems about supplies of food and water. You also inquired about the Arctic. It seems that if you go too far north you might get the wrong kind of cloud with ice not liquid drops. However a Joule reflected is a Joule reflected no matter where it is reflected from. We hope that climate modelers will tell us which area of sea will be far enough south and on course to reach the Arctic. Alan Gadian has also pointed out that most of the heat that gets to the Arctic is moved by winds and currents which are driven by the temperature gradient. Just reducing the mass flow by reducing the temperature gradient will give the arctic less heat to radiate out to space. I hope that you had time to read all the comments in the Telegraph. You can download it from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Alvia Gaskill wrote: Very interesting, but anything associated with Bjorn Lomberg the notorious climate change denier makes me a little uneasy. Note his comment about using geoengineering instead of reducing emissions. Is he going to ask the Nobel Laureates to vote on whether they agree with this? How can you vote on which solutions are most cost effective if you don't even know if they work? Ridiculous. Why not take a poll of people on the street? Hold a Town Hall, or just make a wild guess? I don't know where the $230 billion figure came from for stratospheric aerosols, but no calculations I've seen or run come anywhere close to that unless they are summing costs over decades. Also, it's important to compare apples to apples when evaluating costs. Costs of building and launching the Flettner Fleet are not the same as operating it. So there would be ongoing costs, although most of the cost would be upfront. And if the remote control turns out to not be possible, which is likely since this has never been done before, manned vessels would drive the costs up considerably. The issue of switching off technologies if there are unintended adverse impacts must take into account all impacts. If the aerosols caused droughts that were unacceptable, that would probably show up early
[geo] Re: No Wonder They Can't Find Any Aliens
Modeling on this has been done by LBNL and others. You are correct in that the heat island creates an environment for rising air. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in thunderstorms that are essentially manufactured weather (see, it can be done) that produce flooding rains that are of little use except for the temporary cooling effect. Atlanta, GA is one example. As soon as the clouds lift, however, it's back to cooking asphalt and bricks. So urban heat islands don't offer much of an advantage as heat radiators. In the case of Los Angeles, the terrain tends to trap air, allowing pollutants to build up. The impact and effectiveness of the urban whitening effort can best be compared to the Cash for Clunkers Program, which doesn't solve any one particular problem, but helps to address several different ones all at once. Short term, it benefits auto manufacturers and dealers and parts suppliers, longer term it reduces the use of petroleum and by doing so, reduces air pollution and global warming emissions. The whitening effort will not solve air pollution or global warming, but will reduce some CO2 emissions and by cooling off some of the heat islands, reduce the formation of ground level ozone. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:23 AM Subject: Re: [geo] No Wonder They Can't Find Any Aliens I know that this cool roof thing is all very fashionable, but has anyone actually modelled it properly? There are many atmospheric conditions where heat islands could potentially drive air currents which transport large amounts of air into higher levels of the atmosphere, where they can radiate more easily into space. This may offset or overwhelm the initial net solar gain. It would be embarrassing if the idea didn't work as well as expected due to convective processes. A 2009/8/4 Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com 1% of the area of the U.S. is APX 38,000 square miles, about enough if converted from black to white to offset about 1-2 years worth of GHG forcing in 2009. He also fails to understand that since that offset would be diluted globally, it would have little impact on the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Before you start shoveling, better check to see what is in the shovel. http://www.content.good.is/post/fighting-global-warming-with-pavement.html Fighting Global Warming with Pavement a.. Posted by: Seth Shostak b.. on July 15, 2009 at 9:00 am A new color scheme for our roads and highways could take some of the heat off Earth's climate. You may not have given it much thought, but your boistrous lifestyle runs at about 10 kilowatts, day and night. Thirteen horsepower, if you prefer equine units. That's the average power consumed by each man, woman, and child in the United States – the energy burden of everything you do and use – from heating up dinner and cooling your apartment, to dashing out to the convenience store in your candy red Bugatti. And while some of that energy is used for illumination, the overwhelming majority degrades to heat. Consider: At the end of an all-day drive, what happened to the chemical energy in the tank of gas you bought before breakfast? It's gone into heating up the engine, the tires, the brakes, and the air pushed out of the way by the hood ornament. Virtually all of the calories in that refined natural resource you bought for $3 a gallon end up warming the atmosphere. Our energy burn is impressive. The residents of a burg the size of Baltimore pump out 5 billion watts of heat just to enjoy life, or about 20 times the total sunlight beating down on the city. World-wide, our species is toasting Earth's atmosphere at the rate of 10 trillion watts. That's a lot of BTU pleasure. OK, the heat's on. We know that, and we've all heard the standard approaches to dealing with our profligate ways. But here's my odd idea of something we could do that isn't so standard: implement a pavement plan to mitigate atmospheric heating. It goes like this: We've been busy for nearly a century covering the civilized world with highways and byways. If you laid all the hard-surface roads in the United States end to end, they'd stretch for 2.5 million miles. That pavement covers a lot of ground, quite literally, and amounts to nearly one percent of our country's total acreage (for comparison, the national parks total four percent). Now you may have noticed that many of those motorways are pretty dark. Indeed, the reflectance of most roads is roughly 20 percent; that is, they return only about one-fifth of the sunlight hitting them. But the stripes that skip down their centerlines have a reflectance of about 50 percent, as measured with my camera's light meter. That's why you can see these pavement markings: they're twice as bright
[geo] Re: The Storm
abruptly end. General Braxton commits suicide before he can be arrested by the Marines on the order of the president. The police supevisor is arrested by the FBI for his complicity with Tyrrell. Dr. Kirk and the police detective decide to go to her place. Probably to watch the Weather Channel. The end. - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: [geo] Re: The Storm This movie turned out to be a two parter, the second one tonight at 9pm on NBC. Suffice to say the first one is two hours of my life I'm never going to get back and if you watched it on my recommendation, we both lost. Nevertheless, due to its relevance to geoengineering governance issues, I am prepared to sacrifice another 120 mins and finish the job. I'll have a wrap up on it and the History Channel program on Weather Warfare that aired recently, since they basically traverse the same animal waste covered ground. I even took notes during the movie to bring you up to date. The things I do for science! The Storm, made for $5 million or about 2 episodes of Discovery Project Earth which continues to air repeatedly on both the Science and Planet Green Channels along with Dan Kammen's Ecopolis, only slightly less frequently than Martin Bashir's interview with Michael Jackson on MSNBC, combines the ridiculous HAARP conspiracy theory with the past history or distorted history of weather manipulation by the military. Operation Rainbow is a secret project funded by the Pentagon in which a private company run by Mr. Tyrrell has developed some sort of energy beam that is used to alter weather on a local basis. The military brass want to use it as a tactical weapon, similar to the goals of the Owning the Weather concept paper the U.S. government considered for a while several years ago. Ground based satellite like dishes send pulses of energy (what kind?) into the ionosphere where they are bounced off satellites and sent back to the surface. This is somehow supposed to change the weather, but is never explained (because it can't!). In the initial test of the technology, the weather makers, two male geeks and an obnoxious woman cause it to rain in the Sudan, much to the delight of the starving refugees in Darfur, but the side effect is snow in the Mojave Desert. They then attempt to redirect the intensity and track of hurricane Edna (an all purpose technology it seems). But the hurricane test goes badly and the energy from the angry ionosphere leaks back to the surface, zapping the control center, killing some of the staff. The hurricane actually strengthens and heads towards Miami. It also starts raining in Los Angeles and keeps on raining, reminiscent of Blade Runner. The creator of the out of control androids in that film was also named Tyrrell. The Cable News Service, CNS whose logo looks suspiciously like that of CNN, learns of the incident and begins an investigation. They initially get nowhere with the staff, who are completely subservient to their evil corporate master, Mr. Tyrrell, played woodenly by Treat Williams. One of the weather maker geeks finally has an epiphany over the unintended consequences of the technology and quits, but his associate stays on and attempts to change the track of Edna. Meanwhile, the geek who quit (hereafter, the Geek) spills the beans to a CNS reporter, but her apartment has been bugged by Tyrrell and a hit team he sends kill the reporter and her boss and try to frame the Geek, who goes on the run, but is captured by the police. The Pentagon, at the request of Tyrrell orders him to be turned over to the FBI, against the wishes of a female detective who has been investigating the deaths at the control center. The effort to move the storm is unsuccessful and the attempt has created even more changes in weather around the globe with wild temperature swings of over 100 degrees in the U.S. and elsewhere. The explanation? Residual energy fields. In spite of all the destruction associated with the weather altering technology, the Pentagon is still interested in using it. They want a demonstration in Afghanistan. The General in charge, played ceramically (that's worse than wooden)by JAG's David James Elliott says the Joint Chiefs need more proof before they will fully fund Operation Rainbow. Both Tyrrell and the General dismiss the weather problems as unrelated to the technology. The energy beam is then used to create a dust storm outside of Kabul, to foil the evil Taliban who are shown driving around in their standard issue worn out Toyota pickup trucks (no cash for clunkers in SW Asia, apparently). A hurricane now forms off the coast of Peru as the perplexed head of the National Weather Bureau ponders what is causing all of the wacky weather. He also takes off from work during the crisis to try to reconnect
[geo] Re: Is this what an energy revolution looks like?
I've had a great deal of experience with reviewing EPA STAR (Science to Achieve Results) Grant and SBIR proposals, so I offer here my explanation for the 98% reject rate. The funding rate for these is usually about 15%, but within individual categories that means that of 8 proposals submitted, only 1 will be funded in that category, similar to those for university research grants. So the competition is usually category specific. The tendency for both DOE and EPA is to fund proposals that appear to have commercial viability. This pretty much limits the landscape to existing companies that have a proven track record for success in either producing commercially viable products or processes or in winning funding. Both are usually considered by the 400 as they are part of the evaluation criteria and especially by the government, which makes the final decisions on awards. Thus, high risk ideas are often sent hurtling down the reject chute. In this particular procurement, awards of $500,000 to $10 million are to be made. The ARPA-E awards are specifically targeted at development-stage companies, and are intended to help these companies cross the proverbial valley of death between identifying a promising technology and developing it to the point where key risks are abated and commercial adoption is possible. The quoted text is from one of your links. I haven't read the procurement details, but the language certainly sounds like the intent was to fund existing work and not startups or concept companies of which there is never any shortage. I would also bet that of the 3500 proposals, less than a third made any sense whatsoever. Thus, the reject letter was probably more kind than accurate. Many proposals fall into several readily identifiable categories. The non responsive proposal. The idea that has no chance proposal, e.g. cold fusion. The started off OK, but couldn't explain how they would actually do it proposal. The we have already exhausted all of the funding from other government agencies and will now try to extract some from this one proposal (a very common approach). The one man company with no resources except a checking account proposal. Once these are disposed of, it does get a little tricky in trying to pick winners and I have some sympathy for all parties involved. I would note in regard to the recommendation to apply for SBIR grants that the SBIR program has similar criteria with a phased tier of funding, so some of the proposals that failed to win the ARPA powerball might make it with the SBIR scratch off lottery. But I wouldn't bet on it. - Original Message - From: Andrew Revkin anr...@nytimes.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:47 AM Subject: [geo] Is this what an energy revolution looks like? Here's an ARPA-E rejection letter. 98% of those pursuing energy breakthroughs rejected by DOE: http://bit.ly/EnergyRejection in first round... -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Ceiling the Deal
Regarding the solar gain issue, in the northern states, the impact of solar heating during the winter is less due to a combination of sun angle and cloud cover. In the most extreme example for the U.S., the Fairbanks, Alaska metro area (APX pop. 100,000) would not benefit at all from white or lighter covered roofs or suffer any loss in heating from having them even though all the heating and AC is supplied via fossil energy. I'm not sure if there is any AC in Fairbanks, although temperatures do approach 90 degrees F in July sometimes. Residents of Seattle and parts of Oregon also saw temperatures over 100 degrees F this past week, but this is very unusual and you are correct, few homes in that part of the U.S. have AC. They just don't need it very often. I think the same analysis applies to Britain, especially with the large number of cloudy days. The article also makes an implied distinction between cities like NYC and Chicago and rural areas or cities like Minneapolis that get extremely cold in the winter, such cities although far enough north to require some additional heating during the winter if white roofs are used, are heat islands during the summer, less so this year due to the wayward path of the Polar Jet Stream. So applications of the white roof for commercial buildings strategy have to take into account a number of variables. Note also that the CO2 offsets were done on a state-by-state basis, so states like Washington and Oregon, which get much of their electricity from hydroelectric power would benefit less than states like New York and Pennsylvania which are more dependent on coal and natural gas. It would be interesting to see the same figure done including residential roofs and paved surfaces. I happened to go by the Sam's Club I mentioned in the article comments last Friday and noticed that the roof is now a gray color, somewhat worse than in March. Since most commercial building roofs are flat, the only way they can maintain their original white color or something close to it is to have them cleaned periodically. Residential roofs also lose some of the original lightness (not whiteness, since they are generally not white as the article notes), but do benefit from the rain and wind washing or blowing away dirt. I would like to see how many of the 3000 Sam's Club's roofs are really still white. If not, then their white roof program is a public relations success, but a global warming failure and the people in charge of calculating the energy savings need to roll back the numbers. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Ceiling the Deal I'm confused. The diagram includes chilly Northern states. Don't they need all the solar gain they can get to cut winter heating bills? I can't imagine lots of people in Seattle having aircon. In Britain hardly any homes have it, and most commercial buildings don't either. A 2009/7/30 Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/science/earth/30degrees.html?_r=1 J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times A Wal-Mart store in Chino, Calif., has both a cool roof and solar panels to cut its energy use. Jim Wilson/The New York Times A white roof has helped cool Jon Waldrep’s Sacramento home By Degrees A Cool Shield This is one in a series of articles about stopgap measures that could limit global warming. July 30, 2009 By Degrees White Roofs Catch On as Energy Cost Cutters By FELICITY BARRINGER SAN FRANCISCO — Returning to their ranch-style house in Sacramento after a long summer workday, Jon and Kim Waldrep were routinely met by a wall of heat. “We’d come home in the summer, and the house would be 115 degrees, stifling,” said Mr. Waldrep, a regional manager for a national company. He or his wife would race to the thermostat and turn on the air-conditioning as their four small children, just picked up from day care, awaited relief. All that changed last month. “Now we come home on days when it’s over 100 degrees outside, and the house is at 80 degrees,” Mr. Waldrep said. Their solution was a new roof: a shiny plasticized white covering that experts say is not only an energy saver but also a way to help cool the planet. [But what's it going to look like 5 years from now? AG] Relying on the centuries-old principle that white objects absorb less heat than dark ones, homeowners like the Waldreps are in the vanguard of a movement embracing “cool roofs” as one of the most affordable weapons against climate change. [Exaggeration.This will affect climate change only on the margins. AG] Studies show that white roofs reduce air-conditioning costs by 20 percent or more in hot, sunny weather. Lower energy consumption
[geo] Re: The Storm
to impress the Joint Chiefs who are still skeptical of the weapon's effectiveness. They succeed. So you see, it worked. We then learn that the head of the so-called military intelligence unit that rescued the Geek is headed by Luke Perry, formerly of Beverly Hills 90210 and many bad sci fi films and TV shows over the last 10 years. Luke, it turns out was himself once a weather weapons researcher, but never succeeded in getting it to work. He and the Geek both agree that controlling the weather is impossible and the more you mess with it, the worse you make it. End Part 1. Note about Luke. He was also in a sci fi movie that seemed to borrow from Cicerone and Turco's idea to stop ozone destruction. In that one, an ozone hole is headed towards Los Angeles (unlucky city, the city of angels) and they use the NASA U2 plane to carry tanks of some chemical to above 65,000 ft (that sounds familiar) to replenish the ozone. So, today's journal article is tomorrow's bad made-for-TV movie. You've been warned. - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:01 PM Subject: [geo] The Storm Starting momentarily, The Storm on NBC. Apparently another one of those weather mod movies. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback
From reading the paper, it seems that the reason for less clouds with higher SST due to CO2 forcing is due in part to a much quieter ocean, i.e., less wind and less waves. The way that CCN from DMS from marine bacteria and salt particles get into the atmosphere is in part due to breaking of waves. If you heat the water gently, without disturbing it, you may get more water vapor into the atmosphere, but without the accompanying CCN. Better put some big assed propellers on those cloud boats, Salter as your mission may have just been expanded. - Original Message - From: Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Yet another positive feedback The real issue is the total magnitude of feedbacks, as characterized by (e.g.) the equilibrium global-mean warming for 2xCO2 (DT2x). The breakdown of the feedbacks is not directly relevant to this -- although it is of interest in model validation. This paper tells us nothing about DT2x or its uncertainty. My comment -- so what. Tom. + Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Science July 24 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5939/460.pdf has a something about a positive feedback between sea temperature and cloud cover. I had thought that warmer seas would increase evaporation and so cloud cover but drying them out seems to win. Sigh. Stephen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] That's Ridiculous
Dust off your tinfoil hats and lock the door. The aptly named That's Impossible series on the History Channel has struck gold again, this time with a paranoid buffet of non existent weather weapons. Included in this treatment of the dark side of meteorology are tsunamis and earthquakes, which have nothing to do with the weather. Preceding this uplifting tribute to future science is the equally inspiring Last Days on Earth. And they did such a good job on the moon landing retrospective. http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detailepisodeId=464914 That's Impossible Episode: Weather Warfare Tuesday, July 21 10:00 PM Wednesday, July 22 02:00 AM Saturday, July 25 04:00 PM The power to use tornados, hurricanes and the deadliest weather as weapons of war may now be possible. We'll investigate reports that weather weapons are in development and reveal the technology that--in the future--could turn hurricanes, earthquakes, even tsunamis into some of the most powerful and plausibly deniable weapons of mass destruction the world has ever seen. Rating: TVPG Running Time: 60 minutes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Protecting the corals
Agree with the analysis presented. As to the impact from geoengineering, the solar radiation management schemes, while not directly reducing emissions of CO2 could indirectly reduce them via less use of AC in temperate and tropical climates and by slowing feedback driven emissions from permafrost. To date, however, I am not aware of any specific calculations as to the possible benefits from this aspect of solar radiation management on coral, even though the indirect benefits would certainly prevent some CO2 from being absorbed into the ocean by keeping it locked up. About half of sulfuric acid aerosol will descend as sulfuric acid and the rest as various sulfate species. Evidence from past volcanic eruptions and from calculations suggest that there would not be an increase in either ocean acidity (well buffered with respect to sulfate) or over at risk land areas from large scale use of stratospheric aerosols. More calculations and modeling are needed on targeted deployment in the Arctic, but again, past eruptions in Alaska have apparently had no effect on ecosystems. - Original Message - From: Alex D. Rogers alex.rog...@ioz.ac.uk To: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: dan.wha...@gmail.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:45 AM Subject: Re: Protecting the corals Hi John, I am travelling at present but will give you some short answers now and then send you our technical document when it is ready. The situation is that high temperatures associated with CO2 emissions and combined with natural environmental variation have led to a new phenomenon known as mass coral bleaching. Here, the symbiotic algae living in coral tissue go into overdrive produce too many reactive oxygen species toxic to the coral host. They are ejected from the coral tissue leading to the White appearance known as bleaching. This began in the late 1970s as a time lagged response to a CO2 level of about 320 ppm. In 1998 there was a very severe event killing 16% of all corals. There have been further severe events regionally and at current temperatures we are expect the next el niño to be a critical event. Acidification is a direct affect of the absorption of CO2 by seawater. It produces carbonic acid altering the carbonate equilibrium and reducing aragonite. In preindustrial times 98% of coral reefs occurred in waters 3.5 x saturated in aragonite. Now corals in many areas are in waters with a lower saturation and by 2030 only 8% of corals will be in waters 3.5x saturation. Observations indicate a 14 % decrease in growth rates of corals already in the GBR probably partially a result of acidification. If this continues all reefs will become erosional certainly by the end of the century. Sea level rise is not necessarily such a problem for corals. Larvae can colonise submerged hard substrata. We need large cuts in emissions of the order of 50-85% by 2050 based on 2000 levels coupled with CO2 draw down where I suspect geoengineering may be required. There have been suggestions of CO2 draw down through the burying of charcoal or other schemes using burial of wood. Carbon can of course be locked up through woodland, peat bogs and wetlands as well. Solar radiation management could slow down the rate of temperature increase but will not cure the acidification problem and indeed any geoengineering scheme should be carefully considered as to whether it will be significant in terms of CO2 draw down at a global scale and whether or not it increases the acidification problem (could sulphate for example get converted to sulphuric acid?). Best wishes Alex Dr Alex David Rogers, Marine Biologist, Institute of Zoology, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4RY Phone 0044 (0)20 7449 6669 Mobile 0044 (0)7590 356209 On 20 Jul 2009, at 14:49, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote: Dear Dr Rogers, The plight of corals has been highlighted by the Guardian article (see forwarded below). I'm not an expert on corals, but there seem to be at least three major threats: * ocean acidification * warming sea surface temperatures * rapid sea level rise 1. As regards ocean acidification, you seem to suggest that the current level of CO2 is already too high. How long have we got to get it down to 350 ppm? 2. How much effect does the warming have? Since warmer water can hold less CO2, it is therefore less acidic, so this must to some extent negate the increase in CO2. 3. About 14,000 years ago there was a meltwater event with sea level rise around 20 metres in 400 years [1]. Hansen is worried that, with current emissions trajectory, we could have a metre or even metres of sea level rise this century. Indeed, if Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (GIS/WAIS) were both
[geo] Re: Make mud not war
http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/popeye Operation Popeye ceased after it was made public by a Seymour Hersh story in the NY Times in 1972. Treaty discussions in Stockholm had nothing to do with the program. The testimony before Congress in the link above also shows that the Pentagon had no way of verifying the effectiveness of the cloud seeding and what data were obtained on rainfall amounts showed at most a 10% increase for very short periods of time, much of which could also be attributed to natural variability during summer monsoons. They continued the program because they had convinced themselves it worked. They might as well have made Ho Chi Minh voodoo dolls. Some of the testimony from 1974 is rather interesting in light of today's discussions about climate modification. From page 17: Senator Pell (of the famous Pell Grants): Which is your office? Colonel Kaehn: I am in the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Senator Pell: Are you aware of any other research that we are doing now with regard to other forms of weather modification for military reasons? Colonel Kaehn: No, sir. To the best of my knowledge, the three main thrusts are the cold fog, warm fog and the cumulus cloud work. Senator Pell: You are not working on any of these far out thoughts that have been brought out in testimony before? You are not working on any of these projects at this time? Colonel Kaehn: No, sir. Senator Pell: The development of typhoons or the creation of earthquakes or the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap, anything of that sort? Colonel Kaehn: No, sir. (this guy's got the No, sir down pat). Senator Pell: Obviously melting the Greenland Ice Cap would be very disadvantageous for us. Mr. Doolin (Deputy Asst. Sec'y of Defense for SE Asia): That would really be what you would call climate modification rather than weather modification. Senator Pell. Exactly. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:08 AM Subject: [geo] Make mud not war Hi All But if you check outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye you will see that from 1967 to 1972 the USAF flew 2600 missions to extend the duration of the monsoon over the Ho Chi Minh trail. During a short attachment to the USAF I formed the impression that their technical grip was not outstanding but it is hard to see that they would have gone on for so long if it was having no effect. They only stopped because of an update to the Geneva Convention. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Alvia Gaskill wrote: Dust off your tinfoil hats and lock the door. The aptly named That's Impossible series on the History Channel has struck gold again, this time with a paranoid buffet of non existent weather weapons. Included in this treatment of the dark side of meteorology are tsunamis and earthquakes, which have nothing to do with the weather. Preceding this uplifting tribute to future science is the equally inspiring Last Days on Earth. And they did such a good job on the moon landing retrospective. http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detailepisodeId=464914 http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detailepisodeId=464914 That's Impossible Episode: Weather Warfare Tuesday, July 21 10:00 PM Wednesday, July 22 02:00 AM Saturday, July 25 04:00 PM The power to use tornados, hurricanes and the deadliest weather as weapons of war may now be possible. We'll investigate reports that weather weapons are in development and reveal the technology that--in the future--could turn hurricanes, earthquakes, even tsunamis into some of the most powerful and plausibly deniable weapons of mass destruction the world has ever seen. Rating: TVPG http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detailepisodeId=464914# Running Time: 60 minutes -- 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 post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Hurricane Insurance
http://www.recycle.net/cgi-bin/exview.cgi?wscg=01-130101 You may have to pay $2-3 each to purchase used tires in bulk. Transportation is probably the largest hidden cost, so obtaining them as close to the point of manufacturing is the best option. If the Gulf of Mexico is the initial location, then Texas and Alabama are good choices since the transit distances are much less than say, from the northeastern U.S. Alabama also still has large stockpiles remaining to be recycled. For your application, the tires have to be in good shape and probably uniform in size which will require a more selective approach than for use as fuel or road paving. Nearly 300 million used tires are generated each year in the U.S., so there's no shortage. I estimated each of your floating vessels at around $100K USD, including labor and transportation. If the estimates you provided about how many are required are correct, the cost of the devices is nominal. It is the performance that is in question. Regarding the issue of bringing up CO2 with the colder water that Stuart mentioned, you wrote that the deeper water has the pre-industrial level of CO2. The depths you are talking about, from the surface to 1000 ft (assuming that water gets drawn upwards to some density equilibrium level) is still very shallow and would probably have about the same CO2 content as the surface. Light penetrates almost to 600ft, so this is still almost within the photic zone. So it would have no impact on increasing or decreasing surface or atmospheric CO2 levels via the mixing. - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Casey Tegreene cas...@intven.com Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:02 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Hurricane Insurance We do not often get the chance to use material with a negative cost but this may be one of them. Figure 2 shows that the two top rings are made by lashing used tyres. We have to pay for the rope but people pay us to take the tyres away. The sitehttp://press.wrap.org.uk/article/18502/ quotes amounts up to £8.21 each for truck tyres. Does anyone have figures for the US? I agree that we should study the biological effects of the first few sinks very carefully and try to adjust spacing for the best balance between oxygen, CO2 and nutrients. I would hope that the effects will avoid those of the deluge of fertilizer coming down the Mississippi. I do not think that we will be trying to cool a thick layer of the ocean. We preferentially remove the warmest water from the surface, say 10 to 20 metres depending on our choice of valve wall depth and take it down to the thermocline at say 200 metres. Nathan Myhrvold's model suggests that the mixed water rises to the level where it meets water of its own density and then spreads sideways like a fairly thin rock stratum. Oil slicks with a higher viscosity spread out quite fast. We have some control of this depth below the surface by choosing the mixing ratio though a shape change of the exit. Ken wants us to get it up to 100 metres below the surface where there is enough daylight to get the phytoplankton started. As hurricanes provide lots of useful rain we do not want to stop all of them, just shift the Whitney-Hobgood figure a chosen amount to the left instead rather than letting it creep to the right. See http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Papers_data_graphics.htm Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs dsw_s wrote: I hope that they will have a negative material cost. How does that work? Are they made out of some kind of waste material? It seems better to stifle them early. They're what cools the sea surface farther down their paths, and warm Europe. If you stifle them early, you'll presumably do the opposite. That could mean that when you finally don't stifle one, it will have warmer water at the latter part of its trajectory, and potentially do more damage. We do not need to cool the whole Atlantic basin but what goes around comes around. If you warm the whole Atlantic at depths around 100M, doesn't that come around too? What we are trying to do is replicate la Nina events in a permanent form and we know that these are very effective at stimulating fish growth. The artificial upwelling should steadily deliver the full cocktail of all the natural nutrients in the same way as the natural upwellings which are unfortunately rare. The ecology of a food source with occasional mastings or population explosions is likely to be different from that of a smaller but steady food source. The more often we remake the ecology of the oceans, the more extinctions will accumulate. On the other
[geo] Re: david attenborough
Here it is from the Guardian. He appears to be referring to measures to remove the legacy CO2, but isn't specific. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/07/coral-attenborough Coral condemned to extinction by CO2 levels, warns Attenborough Coral is the canary in the cage as damage can be seen most quickly, veteran naturalist tells Royal Society a.. Alok Jha b.. guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 July 2009 11.02 BST A coral seen off Jarvis Island in the Pacific Ocean. Photograph: Jim Maragos/AP David Attenborough joined scientists yesterday to warn that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already above the level which condemns coral reefs to extinction in the future, with catastrophic effects for the oceans and the people who depend upon them. Coral reefs support a quarter of all marine life including more than 4,000 species of fish. They also provide spawning, nursery, refuge and feeding areas for creatures such as lobsters, crabs, starfish and sea turtles. This makes them crucial in supporting a healthy marine ecosystem upon which more than 1bn people depend for food. Reefs also play a crucial role as natural breakwaters, protecting coastlines from storms. Attenborough said the world had a moral responsibility to save corals. He was speaking yesterday at the Royal Society in London, following a meeting of marine biologists. At the current rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, they said, coral would become extinct within a few decades. A coral reef is the canary in the cage as far as the oceans are concerned, said Attenborough. They are the places where the damage is most easily and quickly seen. It is more difficult for us to see what is happening in, for example, the deep ocean or the central expanses of ocean. Anybody's who's had the privilege of diving on a coral reef will have seen the natural world at its most glorious, diverse and beautiful, said Attenborough. [There is a] moral responsibility one has to the natural world. Also you have responsibility to future generations, to your future grandchildren and great grandchildren. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a double effect on coral. Global warming means warmer seas, which causes the corals to to bleach, where the creatures lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. Carbon dioxide also makes seas more acidic, which means the corals find it difficult to prevent their exoskeletons from dissolving. We've already passed a safe threshold for coral reef ecosystems in terms of climate change. We believe that a safe level for CO2 is below 350 parts per million, said Alex Rogers of the Zoological Society of London and International Programme on the State of the Ocean, who helped organise yesterday's meeting. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 ppm before the industrial revolution to around 387ppm today. Environmentalists say that any new global deal on climate must restrict the growth of CO2 levels to 450ppm, though more pessimistic scientists say that the world is heading for 550ppm or even 650ppm. When we get up to and above 450ppm, that really means we're into the realms of catastrophic destruction of coral reefs and we'll be moving into a planetary-wide global extinction, said Rogers. The only way to get to 350ppm or below is not only to have major cuts in CO2 emissions but also to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere through measures such as geo-engineering. Attenborough said the plight of the corals was another example of why the control of carbon was so important to the world's inhabitants. Each ecological disaster or problem traces its cause back to carbon. To quibble about this is really fiddling while Rome burns. If we do not control the emission of carbon, this world is heading for a major catastrophe and this is one of the first to be staring us straight in the face. - Original Message - From: DW dan.wha...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:54 PM Subject: [geo] Re: david attenborough Can we get a link or a scan of the article? Dan On Jul 17, 12:13 pm, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote: from the widely read UK weekly The Week a quote from Sir David Attenborough we're going to have to use geoengineering techniques JOhn G --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: A-coral-seen-off-Jarvis-I-002.jpg
[geo] Re: Geonurturing - Ray's first attempt at a classification
The problem is not the number of people, but their individual carbon footprints. So blowing up NA and the EU rather than liquidating Asia is the short term solution. The Earth is capable of sustaining 10 billion, we just aren't doing the things now for that to be possible. Making poorer nations wealthier will slow their population growth, but also increase their energy usage. The solution is to make low carbon footprint technologies available to the developing nations AND to make them wealthier ASAP and cut out all this nonsense about reducing the population to 2 billion gradually or otherwise. He never said how or when. - Original Message - From: jim woolridge jimwoolri...@hotmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:59 AM Subject: [geo] Geonurturing - Ray's first attempt at a classification Just a quickie: nice concept, overall approach seems to tick most, if not all, of the boxes. Analogising in terms of the human body, in this case comparing the earth to a sick child, tends to have a strong resonance for us--well, we all know a bit about human bodies and can easily relate in terms of them. A niggle about the child analogy: isn't the planet a bit past the child stage in terms of development? Our species is now old enough to try prescribing the planet's treatment. A better fit than childhood would be 'coming of age' in the old Brit sense of reaching adult estate at the age of 21. Adults have to make their own ways, make their own decisions and live or die by the results. But I am probably running off down another road with that. In general there are many of us who would prefer what might be described as a geonurturing approach--historically we have seen enough scorched earth and bold radical surgery approaches to be very wary of going down that road again in the current apocalyptic situation. Alvia: the kind of approach Ray is taking precludes nuclear options. What he says about population isn't addressed at all in your response. And what do you suggest re population? It isn't a topic that can simply be ignored in the long term--even though, in the long term we are all dead --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Hansen Outlines His Stimulus Package
Note: the Senate won't begin taking up Waxman-Markey until September. September, warm days, cool nights and probably 10% unemployment. Not exactly perfect timing for the world's greatest debating society to take action. If the bill dies in the Senate, most likely Copenhagen will turn out to be one great vacation for delegates from more than 150 nations and not much else. To get REAL action like that proposed by Hansen, an environmental 911 is necessary. But, Osama doesn't do climate. So we have to wait for nature to act. And act she will. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but he writes on this policy-related topic as a private citizen. It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked: The world's major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks. Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning -- present leaders will be dead or doddering by then -- so these differences may be patched up. The important point is that other nations are unlikely to make real concessions on emissions if the United States is not addressing the climate matter seriously. With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon. I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at a Capitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth's remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm and ignite a devil's cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost, and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in trees and soil. The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well. This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests. For all its green aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like cap-and-trade scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws: a.. It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. b.. It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious offsets, by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand. c.. Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives. d.. It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and
[geo] Gone with the Wind
You may recall the Oklahoma windbag's website also had a geo plan involving spraying gazillion tons of water into the air to make clouds. This renewable energy stuff apparently isn't as easy as it looks. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/71487.html#Comments_Container McClatchy Washington Bureau Posted on Wed, Jul. 08, 2009 T. Boone Pickens abandons plan for giant Texas wind farm Steve Everly | Kansas City Star last updated: July 08, 2009 01:41:46 PM T. Boone Pickens is ditching his plans for a giant wind farm in Texas and wants to build some smaller ones in other places, possibly including Kansas. Pickens said in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that he wouldn't build what had been billed as the world's largest wind farm — a 1,000-megawatt project in Pampa, Texas — because of problems in getting a transmission line to the site. But he's already ordered the 687 giant wind turbines and my garage won't hold them when they start arriving in 2011. So, he's looking at some other locations in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, along with Canada. Kansas is making a big push toward building a wind industry, including plans for a new transmission line in southern Kansas that would export power to other states. Kansas officials said Tuesday that they hadn’t heard from Pickens but would welcome his interest. “Kansas is leading the way for renewable energy and the perfect state for wind farms and the manufacturers for this industry,” said Beth Martino, spokeswoman for Gov. Mark Parkinson. Pickens has made much of his plan to wean the country from foreign oil by using more wind power for electricity and natural gas to fuel trucks and cars. But so far those plans have made little progress, in part because of the recession and seemingly more interest in other alternative energy sources for vehicles, such as electricity. His Texas plans had included a 1,000-megawatt wind farm that by 2014 would grow to 4,000 megawatts — enough when all turbines were operating to supply electricity to 3 million households. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Geonurturing - Ray's first attempt at a classification
This sounds like a treatment for acne, not out of control Type II diabetes which is the better analogy. Note that acne, however disconcerting and potentially disfiguring is not a fatal condition, whereas diabetes is. Also, there is no plan or projection for a rapid decrease in petrochemical use and the primary man-made source of the offset for CO2 forcing today is tropospheric sulfate aerosols which come not just from burning of transportation fuel but also from coal. Soot is a contributor, but not the main one. The projections suggest a gradual decrease in this offset, around 5% per year, so it will be decades before this really becomes an issue, whether or not petroleum is replaced by biofuels or hydrogen or electricity. Increasing urban albedo may have some localized beneficial impacts on reduced ozone and lower AC use, but at best can offset perhaps 1-3% of present day CO2 forcing when applied maximally, something that even its proponents state will take several decades to implement. Of course, since we don't seem particularly interested in repairing the old potholed filled roads and streets in the US of today, I have my doubts about when we would get around to making them more reflective. There are days when I have to play Formula One driver to get to the post office, dodging asphalt moulins and their little brethren. Long term changes in how we live, use energy and produce food are needed, but climate change isn't going to wait for them. Reduce the human population to 2 billion? Are you serious? What do you propose, a lottery? We could simply nuke India and China right now, that's about one third of the problem. Or how about inviting bin Laden to finish the job he started in New York, since we in the US use about 25% of the energy? As far as keeping the interglacial going, I'm all for it. Everything we have that is anything has been obtained in the last 10,000 years. Moving people to the tropics 5000 years from now so the Laurentide Ice Sheet can restore minerals to the landscape ignores the fact that during ice sheet maxima, droughts are common in the tropics. Your 2 billion survivors may have to make some difficult decisions. If the interglacial was scheduled to end 5000 years from now and we have postponed it by 300 years because of CO2 which we will likely have removed from the air within the next 100-200 years, then I see no reason why we can't keep postponing it indefinitely through climate geoengineering. Advances in minerals exploration and mining over the next several centuries means we really don't need to go through another ice age. Most of our building materials and other structural components will likely be some sort of carbon composite anyway. Face it. We own this place. It doesn't own us. - Original Message - From: Ray Taylor r...@andy-taylor.org To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:00 AM Subject: [geo] Geonurturing - Ray's first attempt at a classification Hi David, Hi all, I'd appreciate some feedback on this draft text, aimed primarily at general readers but potentially also scientists or policymakers from across disciplines: Suggestions for academic references would be particularly helpful. TITLE: Geonurturing - a tentative definition and classification ABSRACT: James Lovelock has talked about the earth having a fever. By analogy with a sick patient, a classification of geonurturing is defined. ARTICLE: The term Geonurturing was first coined, to the best of my knowledge, by David Schnare. My own working definition is taking steps to protect, restore and replenish a planet, its bio-geochemical and its physical systems and to protect its biodiversity, including human beings. (OK with you, David?) THE BACKGROUND: I will assume that the climate situation is beyond critical, as suggested by James Lovelock in this Guardian article: www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange Lovelock suggests that a rapid decrease in petrochemicals use, especially diesel, could be dangerous because while carbon remains in the atmosphere, particulate levels emitted alongside CO2 by diesel engines may also decrease rapidly, reducing global dimming. Global dimming is the effect of these particulates from diesel engines and forest fires and general pollution. By reducing the amount of the sun's light reaching the surface of the planet, these particles have shielded us from the full force of greenhouse warming. A sudden reduction in these particulates could lead to very rapid warming. He also believes that many of the earth's biogeochemical systems are now in positive feedback, meaning that it is too late to prevent rapid and dangerous warming by emissions reductions alone. THE ANALOGY - A CHILD WITH FEVER This definition of geonurturing assumes that the earth's bio- geochemical systems are in positive
[geo] Re: NY Times on Lackner Trees
A similar article linked at the GRT website from several weeks ago is shown below. Some material at the website http://www.grtaircapture.com/ has changed from the last time I looked. The last update is June 22, the same day as the CNN article. I agree with a lot of what Lackner says, having investigated the potential for capture of CO2 from transportation and non power plant residential and commercial sources (there isn't any for the reasons he states). As for the business model he is now promoting, it seems to have morphed from air capture to remove the legacy CO2 to let's see if we can keep this business going long enough with sales of CO2 for commercial use until we can get the government to underwrite the costs of air capture of CO2 that has no economic value which is almost all of it. No problem with that one either, especially in today's global economy. I am somewhat surprised at the claim that the energy costs are now about the same as those estimated for removal and sequestration of CO2 from pulverized coal-fired power plants. This implies that the new resin-based system (actually the resin used in water softeners) removes CO2 at a cost of less than $300/ton of CO2, about 3-5 times less than previous estimates. A more detailed side-by-side comparison is needed to convince me. $300/ton is also too expensive and I would note that the way in which costs for technologies decrease is not linear. That is, as the process becomes more and more efficient, the additional efficiency becomes harder and harder to achieve and at greater cost. Look at photovoltaic as an example. I also think that from a practical perspective, the CO2 that can be captured is probably less than 20% of the total, in that not only is it not possible to capture emissions from mobile sources, homes, businesses and factories including large industrial plants like petroleum refineries and steel mills, it probably will not be cost effective to capture CO2 from ANY sources other than coal-fired and natural gas fired power plants that don't produce a nearly 100% CO2 gas stream. As none of these exist today and will not exist in significant numbers for decades (read the latest climate change bill), CCS cannot contribute to stopping the warming for a long, long time. I also don't understand the comparison between the wind turbine and the air capture collector. They are designed for different purposes. Broecker also understates the magnitude of the scale of the number of units and the requisite time required to lower the atmospheric CO2 level. Remember that we are dealing with the debt here, not the increase in the debt, to make an economic comparison. To stabilize the atmospheric CO2 level would require the removal of about 15 billion tons of CO2 per year, that number increasing to 20 in a few decades if not sooner. Lowering the level would require removal of even greater quantities, unless human emissions are decreased from present day. But even a stabilization of emissions over the next 20-50 years (quite an accomplishment when you consider what we are facing) will not be enough. However, as part of a portfolio that includes source mitigation, energy efficiency, SRM and other other geo technologies along with policy mechanisms (taxes, cap and trade, treaties), air capture may be able to play a significant role in this century, but not for decades. The final statement that Lackner makes in the NYT article that the air emitted from the collector has the pre-industrial level of CO2 is unclear to me also. The air emitted should have close to 0 ppmv CO2 and the air next to the collector about that from 2009 as the air mixes very quickly close to the ground. The real problem with this and other systems proposed for the same purpose is not the danger of altering the atmospheric CO2 level. It's that due to the magnitude of the problem and the time scales, it won't in time. Still, I think this should be a MAJOR research area for DOE and other government energy agencies. The fact that only a handful of people are working on this now (GRT isn't hiring and I thought they closed down last year for a time) will make the development of practical scalable systems that much more unlikely. That's probably why there are geoengineering groups and not air capture groups. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/06/22/synthetic.tree.climate.change.ccs/index.html 'Synthetic tree' claims to catch carbon in the air a.. Story Highlights b.. Synthetic tree would capture carbon dioxide in the air to reduce emissions c.. Trapped carbon would be compressed to liquid CO2 ready for sequestration d.. Technology is being developed by scientists at Columbia University in the U.S. e.. Broecker: I think this is something that the world's going to have to have updated 3:37 p.m. EDT, Mon June 22, 2009 By Hilary Whiteman CNN LONDON, England (CNN) -- Scientists in the United States
[geo] Re: NPR radio story on National Academy geoengineering workshop
These meetings accomplish little or nothing as it is the same people saying the same things over and over again. Just filling up that resume. If you are truly so conflicted about the subject, (doubt it) why don't you get out of the business or better yet, stop interfering with others who are in it (The I'm going to the DARPA meeting to stop it stunt you pulled a while back). Better yet, next time you guys schedule one of these get togethers, you can announce you are going to hold it so you can stop it. At least announce it far enough in advance so we can all plan not to go. BTW, I've come up with a new job description for people like Alan Robock and Dale Jameison: Professional Critic. Since they are both employed by universities, let's ad an un to that. Yeah, that sounds right: Unprofessional Critic. More candidates as I get time. - Original Scientists Debate Shading Earth As Climate Fix by Richard Harris All Things Considered, June 16, 2009 · Engineering our climate to stop global warming may seem like science fiction, but at a recent National Academy of Sciences meeting, scientists discussed some potential geoengineering experiments in earnest. Climate researcher Ken Caldeira was skeptical when he first heard about the idea of shading the Earth a decade ago in a talk by nuclear weapons scientist Lowell Wood. He basically said, 'We don't have to bother with emissions reduction. We can just throw aerosols - little dust particles - into the stratosphere, and that'll cool the earth.' And I thought, 'Oh, that'll never work,' Caldeira said. But when Caldeira sat down to study this, he was surprised to discover that, yes, it would work, and for the very same reasons that big volcanoes cool the Earth when they erupt. Fine particles in the stratosphere reflect sunlight back into space. And doing it would be cheap, to boot. Caldeira conducts research on climate and carbon cycles at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University. During the past decade, he said, talk about this idea has moved from cocktail parties to very sober meetings, like the workshop this week put on by the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about all this, he said during a break in the meeting. I've been pushing very hard for a research program, but it's a little scary to me as it becomes more of a reality that we might be able to toy with our environment, or our whole climate system at a planetary scale. Attempting to geoengineer a climate fix raises many questions, like when you would even consider trying it. Caldeira argued that we should have the technology at the ready if there's a climate crisis, such as collapsing ice sheets or drought-induced famine. At the academy's meeting, Harvard University's Dan Schrag agreed with that - up to a point. I think we should consider climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but I question whether we're already experiencing a climate crisis - whether we've already crossed that threshold, Schrag said. In reality, carbon-dioxide emissions globally are on a runaway pace, despite rhetoric promising to control them. University of Calgary's David Keith suggested that we should consider moving toward experiments that would test ideas on a global scale - and do it sooner rather than later. It's not clear that during some supposed climate emergency would be the right time to try this new and unexplored technique, Keith said. And experiments could create disasters. Alan Robock of Rutgers University cataloged a long list of risks. Particles in the stratosphere that block sunlight could also damage the ozone layer, which protects us from harsh ultraviolet light. Or altering the stratosphere could reduce precipitation in Asia, where it waters the crops that feed 2 billion people. Imagine if we triggered a drought and famine while trying to cool the planet, Robock said. On the plus side, it's also possible that diffusing sunlight could end up boosting agriculture, he said. We need to evaluate all these different, contrasting impacts to see whether it really would have an effect on food or not, he said. Maybe it's a small effect. We really don't know that yet. We need more research on that. Thought experiments to date have focused primarily on the risks of putting sulfur dust in the stratosphere. There are many other geoengineering ideas - like making clouds brighter by spraying seawater particles into the air. But none of them is simple. I don't think there is a quick and easy answer to employing even one of those quick and cheap and easy solutions, said social scientist Susanne Moser. There's no mechanism in place to reach a global consensus about doing this - and a consensus seems unlikely in any event. Who gets to decide where to set the global thermostat? And will this simply become an excuse not to control our emissions to begin
[geo] Re: WSJ article on geo
Nice article and a video too! So fair and balanced. Perhaps we've finally found an alternative to waterboarding that would torture without actually killing. Make detainees watch the video repeatedly...and in an increasingly hotter room. The article is an error factory too, so educating the public and policymakers just took another Neanderthalian leap backwards. I won't list all the mistakes. That is your assignment for today. - Original Message - From: Eugene I. Gordon To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:01 AM Subject: [geo] WSJ article on geo See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html for a Wall Street Journal article today on geoengineering. -gene --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=48.15725.25642.34394.3 NextWorld Future Danger TV-G Future Danger enters a world where robots safeguard our cities, massive underwater heating and cooling systems break up hurricanes before they hit land, and advanced rocket interceptors protect the planet from asteroids that could wipe out humanity. Air times in the U.S.: June 7, 9pm, June 8, 12am and June 9, 4 am. 60 minutes. The program referenced above aired last weekend and I watched it. Since my original message spawned a great deal of interest, I thought I'd provide a summary. Future Danger examines some potentially beneficial and harmful technological breakthroughs that are thought to be likely in the 21st century. Topics covered in this episode included whether or not superintelligent computers might decide to make us their slaves (they already have, it's called the Internet), can we prevent killer asteroids from striking the Earth and can we save the seeds of important crops in case GW and/or something else wipes out the original plants. The latter is actually being done in Svalbard, north of the Arctic Circle. A typhoon in the Philippines destroyed some key rice seed lines so a global repository is probably a good idea, although one has to wonder if there is any point to this on a much larger scale in a depopulated world with a wacked out climate. The segment on hurricanes was brief and not particularly informative. Ross Hoffman, VP of Atmospheric Environmental Research and author of several articles on weather and hurricane modification said their goal was to make hurricanes change their track or intensity. AER's computer models showed that a 1 degree change (assumed to be F) in the hurricane itself and not SST, would make a large difference in the path and intensity. Actually, I thought that the path is largely determined by steering currents, i.e. upper level winds and neighboring high and low pressure systems. The two mitigation options presented were beaming energy via satellites to the location where a hurricane is forming or placing giant tubes into the ocean in front of an existing hurricane's path. No explanation of how the energy from space approach would work was given, but further research indicates it is intended to heat the cloud tops of the storm, thereby reducing the temperature differential between the top and the bottom of the storm that drives the circulation. A similar idea involves releasing carbon black over the top of the storm and there are variations on this that involve releasing the carbon black elsewhere. The giant tubes idea is the same concept as promoted by Atmocean and Lovelock/Rapley, that the natural bobbing motion imparted by waves would cause cold water to be carried upwards whereupon it would spill out over the top of the tubes and spread out on the surface, robbing the hurricane of some of its strength. The narrator then says that contrails from jet aircraft can also heat and cool the atmosphere. What was the point of this? Hoffman then says it is uncertain where a hurricane whose path was artificially changed to avoid, say Miami, might strike. Perhaps the Bahamas he speculated. AER newsletter where on page 2, the claim is made that in their computer models they have successfully reduced intensity and changed tracks of hurricanes. http://www.aer.com/news/newsletter/AER_Insight_volume7_issue2.pdf Hoffman also an advisor to that turkey movie on the Disco Channel, Superstorm along with Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/superstorm/qanda/qanda.html The three experts also answered questions about weather modification in an online forum: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/cfrm/f/3831925909 Except for the idea of a movable space sunscreen to cool water ahead of hurricanes, there weren't many new ideas advanced. Landsea's own take on hurricane mitigation is below. The carbon black idea was used in the movie, not to weaken the storm, but to create a low pressure system to make the hurricane change its course. In the movie, intense cloud seeding was used to weaken the eye wall. There have been numerous techniques that we have considered over the years to modify hurricanes: seeding clouds with dry ice or Silver Iodide, cooling the ocean with cryogenic material or icebergs, changing the radiational balance in the hurricane environment by absorption of sunlight with carbon black, exploding the hurricane apart with hydrogen bombs, and blowing the storm away from land with giant fans, etc. As carefully reasoned as some of these suggestions are, they all share the same shortcoming: They fail to appreciate the size and power of tropical cyclones. For example, when Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992, the eye and eyewall devastated a swath 20 miles wide. The heat energy released around the eye was 5,000 times the
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
...@climateresponsefund.org wrote: Alvia, You are correct that hurricanes and tropical cyclones move heat. It was not clear from your answer whether you were saying that you doubted that they mattered much for heat dissipation on a global scale or whether you were saying that you doubted that they mattered much for heat transport. They are actually an important mechanism for the latter. Estimates based on observations incorporated into models suggested that ocean heating induced by topical cyclones could be as much as 1.4 (± 0.7) × 10^^15 W for a single year (Emanuel, 2001), a significant fraction of the observed peak poleward heat flux and enough to require consideration in the climate system. More recent modeling by Hu and Meehl (Gerry may be on this list and is far more authoritative on this topic than am I) (2009) also suggests that hurricanes can strengthen the meriodional overturning circulation and may play an important role in the climate system. Margaret On 6/2/09 1:12 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: As the article indicates, what hurricanes do is move heat around, not dissipate it. Whether this actually cools the planet is unknown. Given the relatively small number of all tropical cyclones and their short lifetimes of around a week or so, I doubt they matter very much on a global scale. Another theory has them increasing atmospheric CO2 by stirring up surface waters, although they may also reduce it by upwelling nutrients causing phytoplankton blooms. Global warming didn't stop because of all the storms in 2005 (the year of Katrina) and it didn't get worse in the subsequent years due to fewer storms. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/29/hurricane-climate-02.html Hurricanes' Climate Footprint Felt for Months Michael Reilly, Discovery News Jan. 29, 2009 -- Just as a changing climate shapes the strength and frequency of hurricanes, the storms may have a huge effect on climate, leaving footprints in the atmosphere and ocean. Watch a video on hurricane-prone coastlines. Hurricanes are infamous as harbingers of chaos -- flooding cities, ripping houses to shreds, destroying beaches and even whole islands. And concerns are growing that human-induced climate change may lead to stronger storms whose intensity will wreak even more havoc on coastal communities around the world. But the full interplay between hurricanes and climate remains an enigma. Robert Hart of Florida State University analyzed two decades of climate data from the tropics, and found that each storm leaves a wake of anomalously cool water and warm air behind it that can persist anywhere from one to two months, depending on the storm's strength. Scientists have known for years that hurricanes cause cool ocean waters to well up, but Hart was surprised at how long the atmosphere retained a memory of each storm. That got him thinking: if one storm can have such a lasting impact, what does a whole season of storms do to Earth's climate? Would there be a difference in effect between an active hurricane season and a quiet one? Hart performed a series of calculations and came up with a striking preliminary answer: hurricane seasons that spawned more storms (like 2005, for example) led to quieter winters in the northern hemisphere, and quiet hurricane seasons led to winters with lots of storm activity. The reason, Hart speculates, is that hurricanes bring large amounts of heat out of the tropics and toward the poles. When a season has more storms, more heat is deposited closer to the poles and the tropics are cooled off more, so that when winter sets in there is less temperature difference between the poles and tropics. That's what winter weather is -- movement of heat between the tropics and the poles, Hart said. So it's possible that hurricanes do more than their fair share of the work during an active season, and there's less work to be done during the winter. Gabriel Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's Geophyscial Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said Hart's work gets at some of the toughest questions in meteorology today: What are hurricanes? Do they serve a purpose? It may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder what tropical cyclones' role in the climate system is, he said. There are two general theories -- one which states that hurricanes are simply the result of more potent forces, like El Nino pushing vast amounts of heat and moisture around Earth's atmosphere. The other says hurricanes are vital heat engines that transfer energy from the tropics toward the poles. Through their fury, they are in fact bringing balance to the planet's climate. The list of results about how they affect climate is getting longer, Vecchi said. This is all hinting that tropical cyclones do something profound. - Original Message - From
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
One way to test the theory that the tropical cyclones increase radiation of IR to space would be to observe the upwelling IR in the path and area surrounding these storms using satellites and compare to the IR prior to the arrival of the storm. The reflection of sunlight is a separate issue and I would argue that this is no more or less effective than any other white clouds or even the low level stratocumulus to be whitened using the cloud ships. Since one of the advantages of the cloud ships was to be reduced SST's and thus weaker or fewer tropical systems, the net impact of these would need to be further explored. - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; mlei...@climateresponsefund.org; Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season A couple of notes: 1. Most of the energy to carry the air up is used to push air elsewhere back down--as air comes down elsewhere, it is compressed and this takes energy--adiabatic heating. This heat wars the air and can then be radiated to space, as happens in the subtropics. That the air column is dry makes radiation of energy to space easier, but it also makes radiation from the air harder. Together these help to explain the persistent inversions in broad areas where air is descending. 2. I would think it could be argued that hurricanes accelerate the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and thus to space. With the strong dependence of evaporation rate on wind speed, having high winds accelerates evaporation, cooling the ocean and transporting heat aloft. In addition, hurricanes have bright clouds and so reflect solar (which is why they are so beautiful looking from space), so reduce warming of the ocean--though they also likely restrict IR loss from the ocean. 3. On amounts of energy, the latent heat energy released (5.2 times 10**19 joules/day) is equal to setting off a megaton nuclear weapon every 70 seconds (a megaton is 10**15 calories). Based on the friction energy dissipated being only about .2% of the energy released, the destructive power in energy is equal to about 2.5 Mt per day--assuming all the energy in a megaton explosion goes into destruction--which is surely not the case as the air is carried aloft, radiated away, etc., plus due to the very concentrated nature of a nuclear explosion. So, maybe the destructive power of a hurricane is equivalent to the destruction created by a one megaton explosion every maybe 10-30 minutes or so. Seems roughly reasonable to me--if think about a hurricane spreading its destruction over a much broader area. Mike MacCracken On 6/5/09 9:07 AM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: Some answers, perhaps to the question of what happens to all that energy in a hurricane, provided by the aptly named Chris Landsea. Chris was also on TV last night on the National Geographic program, Hurricanes (2009). In addition to not knowing much about what happens above 35,000 ft in a tropical cyclone, including the region of the boundary with the (Overworld) stratosphere and the upper troposphere, not much is known about what happens near the marine boundary layer at around 200 ft, where the hurricane draws the water vapor from the sea surface into its structure. To learn more about it, pilots flew at around 200 ft above the sea surface of an active hurricane, Isabel. Brave or crazy. You decide. The danger at high altitudes is icing. In their case, it was salt spray condensing on the engines that caused them to end the mission. As to where does the energy go, it appears that most of it stays in the troposphere. Hurricanes are heat machines that draw their energy from water vapor. The water vapor condenses in the thunderstorms of the eyewall and feeder bands. The air flow is from the surface to the top of the eyewall and then it spills over and down back into the storm or over the edge of the clouds at the top. In some ways, hurricanes resemble the tropics, with rising moisture laden air that reaches a cold point where it is dried out and spreads out horizontally via the Brewer Dobson circulation. The air that leaves the top of a hurricane is cold already, so it is not sending much energy back into space. The kinetic energy used to cause the winds to circulate is generated at the expense of heat energy from condensed water vapor, but is small by comparison with that released from producing clouds and rain. Eventually all of the heat energy, in the form of infrared radiation, leaves the Earth's atmosphere and goes into space. Because this process is continuous, individual photons only spend a fraction of a second in the atmosphere, replaced by others instantaneously emitted. When a hurricane is done for, the remnants are typically absorbed
[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
As the article indicates, what hurricanes do is move heat around, not dissipate it. Whether this actually cools the planet is unknown. Given the relatively small number of all tropical cyclones and their short lifetimes of around a week or so, I doubt they matter very much on a global scale. Another theory has them increasing atmospheric CO2 by stirring up surface waters, although they may also reduce it by upwelling nutrients causing phytoplankton blooms. Global warming didn't stop because of all the storms in 2005 (the year of Katrina) and it didn't get worse in the subsequent years due to fewer storms. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/29/hurricane-climate-02.html Hurricanes' Climate Footprint Felt for Months Michael Reilly, Discovery News Jan. 29, 2009 -- Just as a changing climate shapes the strength and frequency of hurricanes, the storms may have a huge effect on climate, leaving footprints in the atmosphere and ocean. Watch a video on hurricane-prone coastlines. Hurricanes are infamous as harbingers of chaos -- flooding cities, ripping houses to shreds, destroying beaches and even whole islands. And concerns are growing that human-induced climate change may lead to stronger storms whose intensity will wreak even more havoc on coastal communities around the world. But the full interplay between hurricanes and climate remains an enigma. Robert Hart of Florida State University analyzed two decades of climate data from the tropics, and found that each storm leaves a wake of anomalously cool water and warm air behind it that can persist anywhere from one to two months, depending on the storm's strength. Scientists have known for years that hurricanes cause cool ocean waters to well up, but Hart was surprised at how long the atmosphere retained a memory of each storm. That got him thinking: if one storm can have such a lasting impact, what does a whole season of storms do to Earth's climate? Would there be a difference in effect between an active hurricane season and a quiet one? Hart performed a series of calculations and came up with a striking preliminary answer: hurricane seasons that spawned more storms (like 2005, for example) led to quieter winters in the northern hemisphere, and quiet hurricane seasons led to winters with lots of storm activity. The reason, Hart speculates, is that hurricanes bring large amounts of heat out of the tropics and toward the poles. When a season has more storms, more heat is deposited closer to the poles and the tropics are cooled off more, so that when winter sets in there is less temperature difference between the poles and tropics. That's what winter weather is -- movement of heat between the tropics and the poles, Hart said. So it's possible that hurricanes do more than their fair share of the work during an active season, and there's less work to be done during the winter. Gabriel Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's Geophyscial Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said Hart's work gets at some of the toughest questions in meteorology today: What are hurricanes? Do they serve a purpose? It may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder what tropical cyclones' role in the climate system is, he said. There are two general theories -- one which states that hurricanes are simply the result of more potent forces, like El Nino pushing vast amounts of heat and moisture around Earth's atmosphere. The other says hurricanes are vital heat engines that transfer energy from the tropics toward the poles. Through their fury, they are in fact bringing balance to the planet's climate. The list of results about how they affect climate is getting longer, Vecchi said. This is all hinting that tropical cyclones do something profound. - Original Message - From: f.m.maugis To: agask...@nc.rr.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:30 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Just in Time for Hurricane Season Why killing hurricanes, as far as they cool naturally our climate ? François MAUGIS http://assee.free.fr === -- De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Alvia Gaskill Envoyé : mardi 2 juin 2009 01:09 À : geoengineering@googlegroups.com Objet : [geo] Just in Time for Hurricane Season I was admittedly a little drowsy when I saw the promo for this, but it appears to be another incarnation of the ocean pipes idea or perhaps the same one from Atmocean. One problem for would be hurricane killers is that they seem to be appearing in places where they shouldn't, when they shouldn't and rapidly intensifying, giving little time to react. Thus, strategies that prevent the conditions that drive hurricane development should probably be considered
[geo] Baked Alaska
It's not an option to be putting insulation on top of the tundra, Schuur said. Dr. Reese and I did discuss this in connection with the desert cover idea and in an interview with CBC Radio One in 2006, I mentioned covering the periphery around the Arctic Sea to reflect sunlight and cool the water to keep the sea ice from melting. A similar idea was tested in the Discovery Project Earth series episode Wrapping Greenland, where the goal was to see if covering the area around a melt lake would stop the lake from increasing in size. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090527/sc_afp/climatewarmingpermafrost Permafrost melt poses long-term threat, says study Wed May 27, 2:57 pm ET PARIS (AFP) – Melting permafrost could eventually disgorge a billion tonnes a year of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, accelerating the threat from climate change, scientists said Wednesday. Their probe sought to shed light on a fiercely-debated but poorly-understood concern: the future of organic matter that today is locked up in the frozen soil of Alaska, Canada, northern Europe and Siberia. The fear is that, as the land thaws, this material will be converted by microbes into carbon dioxide, which will seep into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. This in turn will stoke warming and cause more permafrost to thaw, which in turn pushes up temperatures, and so on. But how and when this vicious cycle could be unleashed is unclear. Indeed, some voices have argued that it will not present a significant threat, as plants will start to grow on the soggy, warmer earth and suck in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thus blunting the problem. A team led by University of Florida ecology professor Ted Schuur investigated an area of tundra at Eight Mile Lake in central Alaska, where permafrost thaw has been monitored since 1990 but had begun to start many years before. Schuur's team used hand-built, automated chambers, which they deployed at three sites that represented minimal, moderate and extensive amounts of thaw. From 2004 to 2006, the chambers measured how much carbon was escaping from the soil and how much was being absorbed by any vegetation. In areas that had thawed for the previous 15 years, there was a net uptake of carbon, meaning that the newly-established plants sucked up more CO2 than was lost from the soil. But in areas that had begun to thaw decades before, the reverse was true. There was a net loss of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, as older stocks of carbon were gradually released to the atmosphere. At first, with the plants offsetting the carbon dioxide, it will appear that everything is fine, but this actually conceals the initial destabilisation of permafrost carbon, Schuur said in a press release. But it doesn't last, because there is so much carbon in the permafrost that eventually the plants can't keep up. Most of the 13 million square kilometres (five million square miles) of permafrost remain frozen, but thawing is already under way around the region's southern fringes and is thought likely to expand this century. In that scenario, the permafrost could release around a billion tonnes a year of carbon, roughly equivalent to the contribution to greenhouse emissions each year by deforestation in the tropics, the paper said. Even as the Arctic greens, the rising loss of older carbon could make permafrost a large biospheric carbon source in a warmer world, it said. Burning fossil fuels adds about 8.5 gigatonnes of emissions each year, but it is a process that can theoretically be controlled. Permafrost thaw, though, would be self-reinforcing and could be almost impossible to brake. It's not an option to be putting insulation on top of the tundra, Schuur said. If we address our own emissions either by reducing deforestation or controlling emissions from fossil fuels, that's the key to minimising the changes in the permafrost carbon pool. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum)
A little informal research on the white vs. dark car theory conducted this morning. All readings were taken on the roof of the vehicles using a non contact thermometer. Internal measurements would have been a little hard to explain as readings through the glass are biased and I don't have permission to enter other people's cars and SUVs. Colors refer to color of vehicles. 1. 7:45 am, overcast, ambient sun temperature 71F a. white 70F b. white 70F c. black 73F d. dark blue 73F e. dark blue 74F f. dark green 74F 2. 9:10 am, partly sunny, ambient sun temp. 77F a. white 87F b. white 83F c. black 98F (same as in 1, but in partial shade) d. black 110F (not in shade) e. dark blue 118F f. dark green 116F 3. 12:10pm, sunny, ambient sun temp. 81F a. white 107F b. white 109F c. black 145F d. black 145F e. dark blue 143F f. dark blue 143F g. dark green 146F 4. ranges: white 70-108F black 73-145F dark blue 73-144 dark green 74-146 So the white car roof temperature was about 37F lower than the black, dark blue or dark green, quite a bit more than my estimate. But, since we don't travel on top of the car, these numbers are less informative than if they were correlated with internal measurements. One interesting side note is the potential for offsetting CO2eq forcing from making all surface passenger vehicles in the world white. Assuming one billion vehicles (cars, busses and trucks), an average reflectable surface area of 50SF per vehicle, and a starting albedo of 0.2 going to 0.8, the estimated area would be around 1800 square miles or about enough to offset 7% of the global GHG forcing expected to be added in 2009 (pre-recession estimate). These are very fuzzy numbers as most of the vehicles are out of the tropics and wouldn't receive as much sunlight as in the case of a tropical desert with generally clear skies. And of course, like with the roofs and pavement, the offset only occurs as long as the surface exists with that level of reflectivity, while the CO2eq forcing will be around much longer, from decades to centuries. So, should EPA include tax credits for purchases of white vehicles along with all the other tax incentives to encourage the CO2eq offset as well as lowered emissions from reduced A/C? And as for the clunker program, a clunker is a clunker, but should they and new cars also have color ratings? - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum) http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ylocalnews;_ylt=Au35Abw4T5NsZkt91yh3xGKr_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTFhdDVrbm50BHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHNsawN2aWQtZXYtbGluaw--?ch=4226712cl=13692400lang=en Climate Change Video:White Paint A Weapon Against Climate Change? CBS 13 / CW 31 Sacramento Caif. TV reporter on top of the roof of the TV station discusses the advantages of white roofs in reflecting sunlight. Notes that white roofs for commercial buildings are required in Calif. A more balanced and accurate report than from the CBS Early Show that I renamed the Morning Show. Morning, Good Morning, Early, Today, it's all the same. One person commented that I shouldn't be watching this crap, but bad as it is, millions of people do and their opinions are largely formed by what they see and hear on these general interest programs, moreso now with the demise of print newspapers. The local TV news briefly mentioned Chu's statement on this, so it has been fairly widely disseminated, although I don't think the public or the media actually understands the potential limits to it or the time scales and effort involved. I've also attached some pictures I shot in early April of the roof of a local Sam's Club warehouse building in Durham, NC (501, 502, 503) to illustrate some of the problems with white roofs, namely that while they start out white, they don't stay that way. This particular building is part of a large shopping center that sits on the site of the former South Square Mall for those of you familiar with the area. A Target and some other stores make up the rest of the structure which is nearly a quarter of a mile from one end to the other. It's about 5-years old and I estimate the total roof area to be around 300,000 SF. When the building was new, the roof was quite white and shiny, much like virgin white polyethylene sheeting (see my Roomba videos at weatherman2050 on YouTube for comparison shots of new and used white plastic.) Today, however, the roof is a dingy light gray in color which seems to revert back to white again when it rains or of course, snows. I don't think management makes any effort to clean the roof, relying on the wind and rain to do the job. To be fair about this, I've seen the roofs of other commercial buildings in this area that do appear white, but without
[geo] Re: Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum)
Predictably, the media is already misrepresenting and ridiculing the proposal from the Energy Sec'y. On the CBS Morning Show (before they start up with the cooking, lose weight segments and celebrity interviews), co-host Harry Smith mentioned before a break that the plan would emulate the light colored roofs of Mediterranean countries and that roads would be painted white. Julie Chen then chirped in that the roads wouldn't stay white very long in NYC. She then said it would however, be good for manufacturers of sunglasses. Yuk yuk yuk. Now just imagine how stratospheric aerosols, OIF, or cloud whitening would be treated. On May 26, 5:31 pm, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: The 11-year offset from cars is quite misleading considering how difficult it would be and how long it would take. I still can't get over calling this geoengineering when the term has such a negative connotation. However, it does fit my definition of mitigating warming without reducing source emissions. I also would still need to be convinced that having the government purchase white colored cars would make any difference at all. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu US wants to paint the world white to save energy 1 hr 35 mins ago LONDON(AFP) (AFP) – US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London. The Nobel laureate in physics called for a new revolution in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white. Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said. It was a geo-engineering scheme that was completely benign and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth. For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed cool colours which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades. And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said. Speaking at the start of a symposium on climate change hosted by the Prince of Wales and attended by more than 20 Nobel laureates, Chu said fresh thinking was required to cut the amount of carbon created by power generation. He said: The industrial revolution was a revolution in the use of energy. It offloaded from human and animal power into using fossil fuels. We have to go to a different new revolution that can severely decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the generation of energy. On May 17, 3:50 pm, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: Where I got those numbers from I can't remember but have carried around for some years The best I could easily find for eucalypts, googling yesterday, were outliers described as extraordinary from about 20 years ago and without comment in a 3 yr old article, both about 750 GJ per Ha per yr The amount of land good enough for trees depends mainly on water, which is why I tend to say there's no shortage of land but of investment in land. If you drop water 300 m down a hydro system you get one tenth the energy you get from putting it on water constrained land to grow biofuel. At 40 per cent generation efficiency thats one quarter the amount of electricity and a lot of waste heat if you can find a use for it. Think the sugar figure came from Zambia but google just told me how much is produced there, not productivity. What can be done if we know what we are trying to do, and get focused on achieving technological progress in that direction - e.g. the Manhattan project - is very different from statistics of past performance Peter... read more » - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: Peter Read Cc: xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; Leonard Ornstein Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum) To put Peter's numbers into SI units: 1000Gj/Ha-yr = 3.2 W / m2 1300Gj/Ha-yr = 4.1 W / m2 These numbers seem mighty optimistic (are they supposed to include losses from inputs, processing etc?). (Most estimates I see are an order of magnitude lower [cf.http://www.biofuel2g.com/Ponencias/wim_corre.pdf].) How to reconcile this difference? How much land is there with good conditions that would not be better allocated to other purposes [food, biodiversity, etc]? Even so, land requirements are substantial for a high energy lifestyle ... And efficiency
[geo] Re: [clim] Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum)
The 11-year offset from cars is quite misleading considering how difficult it would be and how long it would take. I still can't get over calling this geoengineering when the term has such a negative connotation. However, it does fit my definition of mitigating warming without reducing source emissions. I also would still need to be convinced that having the government purchase white colored cars would make any difference at all. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu US wants to paint the world white to save energy 1 hr 35 mins ago LONDON(AFP) (AFP) – US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London. The Nobel laureate in physics called for a new revolution in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white. Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said. It was a geo-engineering scheme that was completely benign and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth. For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed cool colours which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades. And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said. Speaking at the start of a symposium on climate change hosted by the Prince of Wales and attended by more than 20 Nobel laureates, Chu said fresh thinking was required to cut the amount of carbon created by power generation. He said: The industrial revolution was a revolution in the use of energy. It offloaded from human and animal power into using fossil fuels. We have to go to a different new revolution that can severely decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the generation of energy. On May 17, 3:50 pm, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: Where I got those numbers from I can't remember but have carried around for some years The best I could easily find for eucalypts, googling yesterday, were outliers described as extraordinary from about 20 years ago and without comment in a 3 yr old article, both about 750 GJ per Ha per yr The amount of land good enough for trees depends mainly on water, which is why I tend to say there's no shortage of land but of investment in land. If you drop water 300 m down a hydro system you get one tenth the energy you get from putting it on water constrained land to grow biofuel. At 40 per cent generation efficiency thats one quarter the amount of electricity and a lot of waste heat if you can find a use for it. Think the sugar figure came from Zambia but google just told me how much is produced there, not productivity. What can be done if we know what we are trying to do, and get focused on achieving technological progress in that direction - e.g. the Manhattan project - is very different from statistics of past performance Peter... read more » - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: Peter Read Cc: xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; Leonard Ornstein Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:36 AM Subject: [geo] Re: [clim] Fwd: White/Cool Roofs Memo to MEF (Major Economies Forum) To put Peter's numbers into SI units: 1000Gj/Ha-yr = 3.2 W / m2 1300Gj/Ha-yr = 4.1 W / m2 These numbers seem mighty optimistic (are they supposed to include losses from inputs, processing etc?). (Most estimates I see are an order of magnitude lower [cf.http://www.biofuel2g.com/Ponencias/wim_corre.pdf].) How to reconcile this difference? How much land is there with good conditions that would not be better allocated to other purposes [food, biodiversity, etc]? Even so, land requirements are substantial for a high energy lifestyle ... And efficiency improvements only help bring about a low energy lifestyle if they are coupled to (or brought about by) strong incentives to reduce energy use. ( Remember James Watt and his steam engine !! ) On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net wrote: Thanks Ken, I think you are absolutely right re the Pielke approach. I think we are possibly quite near the edge of some tipping point precipice [and of course quite possibly not, but inaction is not a rational response to uncertainty] What I estimate could be done by mid century with a huge effort, using 1Gha of land, could have been done much more easily using 600 MHa starting 15 years ago, when my book Responding to Global Warming was published. Pielke is just
[geo] Not Piloted by Little Green Men or Launched by Wizard
This is an example of a stratospheric balloon like the ones that would be used to carry H2S or SO2 mixed in with H2 or He as the lifting gas. Note that the balloon is completely inflated and appears almost spherical and is translucent. When launched, the balloons are partially deflated to allow for expansion as air pressure decreases by about a factor of 2 with every 15,000 ft gain in altitude. Thus, the balloon volume increased by nearly a factor of 9 from the surface. This particular balloon carried a payload of around 2 tons. The largest launched to date can carry around 4 tons. In recent conversations with a group member familiar with this technology, he noted that if the precursor gas is carried in the envelope and there is no payload attached, the reduced strain and the lower altitudes required (70,000-90,000 ft) may allow for much larger balloons to be launched, carrying as much as 20 tons of H2S. A balloon at 90,000 ft would require about 6X less volume than at 130,000 ft. This, would of course, greatly reduce the number required to achieve the daily targets. One 20 ton balloon payload would equal about what a single airplane could deliver per day. If the goal is to add 4000 tons of S to the stratosphere per day to achieve 1.5 Mt in a year, 200 launches per day would be required. This, of course, requires confirmation. It is also interesting that the balloon was brought down from the ground, meaning there was some kind of mechanism for releasing the gas and because of the need to recover the payload, open a parachute. This particular balloon traveled approx. 600 miles in about 36 hours, making around 17 mph when the time to float altitude is considered. It had traveled about 500 miles by 2pm when it was sighted over Sedona, AZ. Winds that high in the stratosphere blow from east to west and the path from the launch to Kingman is almost due west, following I-40. Balloons launched to deliver aerosol precursor could be allowed to travel long distances, but probably would be brought down as soon as they reach float altitude, meaning that the debris field would be small, less than 25 miles in diameter. This would solve the problem of recovery of fragments, unless the landing area was over water. Stratospheric balloon launches are generally done early in the morning to avoid siginficant winds at the surface that could cause the balloon to rip apart. The group member speculated that to avoid this and run launches on a production schedule, the balloons would be inflated in an enclosed structure with a retractable roof. As soon as inflation is complete, the roof is moved back and the balloon released. Repeat. Just like blowing bubbles Dorothy. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/18/20090518abrk-ufosightings0518.html Ye Olde UFO Store This photograph, taken Monday at Ye Olde UFO Store in Sedona, shows a mystery object that was later seen in Scottsdale. Mystery solved: Object in sky identified 121 commentsby Heather Hoch - May. 18, 2009 09:25 PM The Arizona Republic The mysterious UFO hovering over Arizona Monday has been identified. It isn't a weather balloon and it doesn't carry aliens. The object was actually a massive 4,000-pound research balloon released from a NASA organization used to measure gamma ray emissions in high altitudes, according to Bill Stepp of the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas. The balloon was launched Sunday morning at about 7:30 a.m. from Fort Sumter, N.M., [it's Fort. Sumner] and was grounded at about 9 p.m. Monday just south of Kingman, Ariz. Stepp said the balloon usually floats at an altitude of 130,000 feet, so on a clear day it can be seen for about 170 miles. He said the balloon has raised concern from Albuquerque to Phoenix. “It's something unusual,” Stepp said. “People just don't know what it is.” Sightings all over Arizona Monday afternoon had several residents wondering what exactly the object was. Marshall Valentine works in an office off Scottsdale Road and Acoma Drive and said he and about five other co-workers spotted the object high in the sky around 2 p.m. He said the object stayed in place for over an hour. “It looks like someone blew a bubble in the sky and it stayed there,” Valentine said. “A plane flew under it and it looked like it was a mountain higher than a plane flies.” Similar descriptions of an unidentified flying, clear orb were also reported out of Sedona. Jennifer McCoy, who runs the UFO Store in Sedona with her husband, said a local resident told her about the object in the sky at about 2 p.m. She said she went into the parking lot and saw the object in the cloud line. It was about the same time Valentine spotted the object over Scottsdale. McCoy said the object “looked like the gigantic bubble from the Wizard of Oz.” She also said it stayed in one place for a while. McCoy said she thinks some people will be skeptical of
[geo] Re: Submit your climate-fighting ideas
I posted below the details of the contest. It clearly does not apply to any geoengineering ideas as the objective is to reduce emissions, which I interpret as meaning at the source. So no air capture, CROPs, OIF, aerosol or cloud, land or roof/asphalt whitening types need apply, the latter possibly qualifying in the partial effect category. Somewhat disappointed the Brits are excluding the non English speaking under 16 crowd as we have probably heard from all the over 16 English speakers already. Some 14-year-old German savant may have the solution and MIF will never know. I would recommend however, someone submit the idea of oxidizing atmospheric methane. We spent some time knocking this one around back in Jan. http://www.mail-archive.com/geoengineering@googlegroups.com/msg01096.html Lockley proposed using diesel engines run by wind power to compression oxidize the methane, but I thought it too inefficient and too little was known about the feasibility and size of the engines to be used. Along the way, however, I ran across work done for the USDOE and EPA on thermal and catalytic oxidation systems. These are used to oxidize methane in coal mine ventilation air, have been shown in benchscale studies to work down to 800ppm (half ambient) and in full scale operation from 3000 to 9000ppm methane, reducing the methane to nearly zero, including that from the ambient air used in dilution. Further research today determined that such thermal systems are in use at coal mines around the world. The MegTec Voxidizer is used to treat 250,000 cubic meters of air per hour at a coal mine in Australia with the steam generated from the 0.9% methane gas used to sell electricity back to the grid and/or operate the system. Catalytic systems work at lower temperatures, but haven't been field tested at this scale. http://www.megtec.com:80/energy-from-coal-mine-ventilation-methane-p-682-l-en.html The system was first field tested in Britain in 1994 at levels as low as 3000ppm. Ambient is now around 1800ppm. http://www.megtec.com/documents/Coal%20Mine%20Leaflet.pdf While this is a proven technology for coal mine ventilation gas, it has not been applied to ambient air. Although methane in ambient air is not a source emission and thus doesn't meet the strict definition for mitigation, I think the argument can be made that installing such systems nearby non point source emitters like livestock feedlots or rice paddies would qualify as a mitigation technology just as do systems that trap the methane from animal waste and burn it. Levels of methane at these locations are somewhat above ambient, although that would not be the principal criterion on which to base the location. A source of renewable energy would be the primary requirement. One can argue that this is no different than Lackner wanting to apply air capture to offset CO2 emissions from transportation and thus it is simply air capture and not mitigation. Make your case. I would propose running these systems off wind energy or landfill methane. They require some amount of electricity to get going and if the methane concentration is high enough, when the flow is reversed, the heat from the combustion is used to keep the combustion zone hot. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj248.pdf The system in Australia can process 2 billion cubic meters of air per year. At a methane concentration of 1.27g/m3, this represents around 2500 tons of methane per year from ambient air. About 11,000 such units would be needed to oxidize 27 million tons of methane, the amount of the increase in 2007 or 5000 for the 12 million ton increase in 2008. Lowering the ambient methane level to zero would require even more units, more than 2 million as the current burden is over 5 billion tons. Of course, this is the requirement if the goal is to reduce atmospheric methane to zero in one year. Carried out over 100 years, 20,000 such units could greatly reduce ambient methane. The important point is that we are now talking about thousands of units, not millions or hundreds of millions as was the case with the diesel compression engines. What could be done, what is the energy cost, the carbon footprint and how important is it to worry about methane anyway? ENTRY FORM Please return the completed form to themanchesterrep...@mif.co.uk by 5pm on Friday 29th May 2009 Name of Entrant ? Contact Address ? Contact Telephone Number ? Email address ? Please provide a summary below, in no more than four hundred words, of your idea to combat climate change. Please do not include diagrams, designs or drawings at this stage. To what extent has the idea been tested or proven? Please include any relevant links.? How big a difference would your proposed solution make? Please be as specific as possible. Please provide a brief résumé of no more than 200 words of yourself (e.g. work, interests and affiliations) and summarise any previous
[geo] Re: SEED Magazine: Will the future be geoengineered?
Except for Ken's contribution, a largely useless waste of electrons and/or server space. A recent report from McAfee stated the millions of tons of car equivalents in CO2 emissions from spam via the electricity required to send them. I calculated the impact at around 0.1% of global emissions. McAfee (they sell spam filtering software) argued that it was the sending of the emails that created the emissions and thus, adding more of their spam filters would reduce emissions. In reality, it is the extra server capacity required to handle the emails that produces the emissions as the Internet is an on demand service. Putting things into proper perspective is always helpful. Unfortunately, 3/5 Seedlings didn't. I've already sliced, diced, ground and pureed World Changing IAOA's arguments, so I'll be brief on what he said this time. He says we can cut emissions by 90% over the next 20-30 years. To offer up a reverse Obama, No We Can't. No one says this is possible, feasible or likely. Since he considers misrepresentation of geoengineering such an important issue, I would suggest he spend his time correcting all the biased and inaccurate arcticles and other reports about geo and the people working on it. Ken is correct in his assessement except for the reference to placing dust in the stratosphere. Aerosols are not dust. Aerosols are not dust. Pielke, Jr. sets up a strawman argument in which geoengineering has to be evaluated as a solution to global warming instead of a delaying tactic. Since the premise is false, the rest of the argument is meaningless. He does, however, group air capture separately, but doesn't bother addressing its potential value. Geo-engineering does not directly address the cause-effect relationship between emissions and increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases). Geo- engineering addresses the effects, and only in indirect fashion. Mostly true with respect to industrial and agricultural emissions, but not so true with regard to emissions from feedbacks in the Arctic. The effects of geo-engineering on climate impacts of concern — including phenomena such as extreme events, global precipitation patterns, sea ice extent, biodiversity loss, food supply, and so on — would be difficult if not impossible to assess on timescales of relevance to decision makers. Research on weather modification provides a cautionary set of lessons in this regard. This isn't true either. If you believe this, then you shouldn't believe any of the models. What is a timescale of relevance to a decision maker? One year, 10? 100? Bioethanol is a good analogy from the solutions department. There is still a debate about whether it is carbon neutral or not, yet policymakers on all sides of the political spectrum and globe seem enthusiastic about it. Perhaps more modeling needed there also. A test of geoengineering technologies over several sets of seasons (real ones, not in a computer model) would tell us a great deal about what to expect. Wait too long, though as some suggest we do and the medicine may have to be tried on the patient without first going through clinical trials and getting FDA approval. Research on weather modification doesn't provide any lessons at all as it is largely ineffective except in the case of seeding clouds that are already about to produce rain. My comments on the Owning the Weather movie(s) and hurricane modification on the way. Ivanova imagines a Copenhagen agreement so comprehensive and far reaching in the emission reduction limits set that there would be no need to pursue geoengineering or the opposite, a weak, Kyoto-like accord that kicks the can down the road again. In the latter instance, there would be more motivation to develop geoengineering technologies. An accord that sets unachievable limits would be the worst outcome in my opinion. Delusion is bad, but of course self delusion is the worst kind of delusion. Something in between is harder to analyze, but given the failure of past agreements, who wants to bet the farm on a piece of paper? She also falls into the trap of the INS (Ignorant Non Scientist) of accepting the canard that geoengineering could easily be done by individuals, corporations or single nations, not recognizing the cross boundary issues that would necessarily require multilateral agreements as well as the resource and logistical issues that would also involve more than a single actor. The governance issue is an important one, but just like the report issued under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations, obsessing on an imaginary and impossible threat does little to address real ones. I have much more to say about the governance issue in a few days. Robin Bell only made general statements mostly supportive of geoengineering research. Robin rules. - Original Message - From: Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com To:
[geo] Project Storm Without the Fury
In lieu of the fact that I still haven't posted my review of Owning the Weather, I offer instead the Science Channel presentation Superstorm as a team of scientists attempt the impossible, to control the weather. From 10-12 eastern. Spoiler alert: they all die, one zapped by a lightning bolt hurled by Jehovah himself! Nature wins. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/superstorm/superstorm.html http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/superstorm/about/about.html http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.15728.30513.34819.0 In this exciting, factually-based thriller, a team of scientists attempt to do the seemingly impossible - control the weather. The dates below were original play dates from 2007. Superstorm Sun, Aug. 5, at 9 p.m. ET/PT Can scientists alter the weather? Should scientists alter the weather? What are the implications for humans? When it comes to the often deadly, always destructive force of hurricanes, those are important questions to answer. The factually based drama [hahahaha] Superstorm immerses viewers in a fictional account of a modern-day weather experiment. A team of top scientists attempts to divert a large hurricane threatening Miami using a man-made weather system. However, the system needed to create such a diversion will cause devastating flooding in other areas of the United States. At the final hour the scientists forgo their plan. But the U.S. government seizes control in an attempt to divert the hurricane from Miami. The category 5 storm merges with another weather system and heads on an unforeseen path toward New York City. Now, the team must conduct a further experiment to help save lives by diverting the system from a direct hit on America’s most populous city. Sun, Aug. 5, at 8 p.m. ET/PT In Can We Control the Weather, explorer Josh Bernstein investigates whether scientists will ever be able to tame one of Nature's most destructive forces: hurricanes. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some scientists believe that global warming will make superstorms more frequent — and even more deadly. As leading climatologist Greg Holland says, Where a hurricane might have been a category 5 in the current climate we might have to invent a category 6. Bernstein investigates the cutting-edge science that could one day be used to weaken or divert hurricanes, and uncovers the fascinating — and sometimes sinister — history of weather manipulation. He also explores the massive political and moral dilemmas that playing God with the weather would bring. Along the way he does some seriously hands-on research: firing storm debris at skyscraper glass, making it rain in Texas, and even putting himself in the firing line of hurricane force winds. [How brave.] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering
No, that's about the position of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Maggie Thatcher. Lawson is a climate change denier, which makes taking a position in favor of geo hard to understand and probably explains why the hard core deniers won't take a more active role in promoting geoengineering. It would require them to admit there is a problem. Explains why Bush never did anything about geo, while spending the country broke on everything else. - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: ds...@yahoo.com Cc: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:26 PM Subject: [geo] Re: New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering I have spoken to some, like Nigel Lawson, who appeared to take the position that the risk of climate catastrophe is small but that the cost of a geoengineering insurance policy is so tiny compared to the risks that it is nonetheless worthwhile developing geoengineering options as a hedge against the remote (in his opinion) possibility of climate catastrophe. NOTE: My representation of Nigel Lawson's position is no doubt a misrepresentation (filtered through imperfect memory and my own biases) and no doubt his true position differs from what is stated above. On 4/28/09, dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com wrote: The idea that deniers are promoting geoengineering is so loopy it's hard to believe that anyone can say it with a straight face, let alone believe it. Are there people out there who honestly believe it, or is it just being pushed cynically? If the latter, who and why? On Apr 27, 7:58 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I wish his conspiracy theory were true, because then we would be awash with denialist dollars for our research. I'd happily get into bed with Beelzebub (let alone ExxonMobil) if I thought it would give us the research money - before we all fall over the waterfall. Doubtless, a husk of truth, but I think the grain has slipped away. A 2009/4/27 Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com Journalists tend to sell the planetary engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak. I don't know what journalists he is talking about as nearly all of the articles, reports and quasi-editorials have been extremely negative. If anything, journalists have a bias against geoengineering. I suppose Angry Old Alex (AOA) thinks any publicity is good publicity, although as Greg pointed out, he didn't spell his name right. AOA also imagines the lukewarm endorsements from the right carries the same weight as financial support. If so, I like some of the rest of you are waiting for my checks from John Tierney, Jerry Taylor and the Hudson and Heartland Institutes among others. Also, where was the Newster's impassioned plea to Congress on Friday for geoengineering research? He works out of AEI. Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them [geoengineering ideas] believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. No one in their right mind believes a quick, massive reduction in GHG emissions is possible. And nearly 100% of the people I have read about or run across involved in geoengineering don't propose it as a substitute for emissions reduction. AOA also forgets about the legacy CO2 in the atmosphere that emissions reductions won't eliminate. ...while climate treaty opponent and delayer Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz. If I recall correctly, Pielke, Jr. has only expressed support for air capture. Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of any offset systems in carbon trading regimes. [Sorry, Dan.] We need first to drive greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a last resort. Again, AOA shows his ignorance of mitigation technologies and what they can accomplish. They aren't going to be used to drive greenhouse gas concentrations down. At best, we could expect them to slow the growth of CO2 levels and in the second half of the century they might begin to fall, but who actually believes that is likely given the slow progress made to date? Then, IAOA (Ignorant Angry Old Alex) assumes adaptation will be used. So spend 50 years trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, then try adapation (also known as death in some circles--won't reduce the carbon, but will reduce the carbon based units) and as a final last gasp hail
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Shame on you. Were they white rabbits? I was certainly very bad to introduce rabbits to Australia. But horses to America? - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:07 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Hi All A comment about John's item G2 'that we make such a hash of everything in the past that we are bound to make a hash of geo-engineering'. Everyone likes to believe this but the reality is that we magnify the hashes and ignore the many successes. I was certainly very bad to introduce rabbits to Australia. But horses to America? Potatoes to Europe? Thalidomide was tragic. But antiseptics? Antibiotics? Anesthetics? Vaccines? The Titanic sank but must most ships do not sink and do not get films made about them not sinking. I suggest that the success-to-hash ratio is at least a hundred to one and we can improve it by having the time and money to do the research properly. Stephen John Nissen wrote: Hi all, Alan Robock has said: Whether we should use geoengineering as a temporary measure to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming requires a detailed evaluation of the benefits, costs, and dangers of different options. As you may already know, I am keen for rapid development and deployment of SRM (solar radiation management) in the Arctic, with some benefits (if successful): B1. Save the Arctic sea ice and associated ecosystem. B2. Slow (and preferably halt) Arctic warming. B3. Reduce discharge of CO2 and methane, contributing to global warming and ocean acidification. B4. Reduce risk of massive methane discharge, sufficient to add several degrees of global warming. B5. Slow the rise in sea level from Greenland glaciers. B6. Reduce risk of Greenland ice sheet destabilisation, and associated 6 metres of sea level rise. B7. Develop the SRM techniques to use at other latitudes. B4 amounts to a reduction in the risk of such catastrophic global warming that human civilisation could not survive. Against this we have the concerns of those who currently benefit from a warmer Arctic: C1. Oil and mining industries, prospecting in the Arctic region. C2. Traders who use the North-West passage. C3. Greenlanders and others who may prefer a warmer climate (cf. Inuit, who are having their way of life destroyed). I think we should try to counter people's natural fears about SRM geoengineering, especially stratospheric sulfur aerosols. What are the most frequent objections? One often reads that the remedy (geoengineering) may be worse than the disease (global warming). We need to present a balanced picture. General fears: G1. Geoengineering is interfering with nature. (I heard that fear only this morning.) G2. We've made such a hash of interventions in the past, we're bound to make a hash of geoengineering. G3. Moral hazard - geoengineering is a licence to continue CO2 pollution. G4. Geoengineering is being offered as a silver bullet, which it cannot be. G5. You'll need international agreement - and that will be even more difficult to get than agreement on emissions reduction. G6. Too expensive - we always underestimate. G7. Too cheap, so anybody could do it. G8. It will not work. (We heard at the DIUS hearing if emissions reduction doesn't work, why should geoengineering work) G9. It will work - but you might overdo it by mistake, leading to an ice age. G10. High risk of unknown unknowns turning out to be disastrous side-effects. G11. Our understanding is too limited. To quote the Climate Safety report: .. even with the extraordinary advances in climate science to date, our understanding of it has not developed to such a point as to allow confidence that deploying direct cooling techniques would not cause more harm than good. [1] Specific fears of stratospheric aerosols (from Robock [2]): S1. Could have adverse effect on some regional climate(s) and ecosystem(s) [4] S2. Doesn't help with ocean acidification. S3. Ozone depletion. S4. Effect on plants (but more diffuse light has positive benefit?) S5. Acid rain (noting that Alan Robock has withdrawn this particular objection) S6. Effect on cirrus clouds. S7. Disappearance of blue skies (and appearance of red sunsets?) could have negative psychological impact. S8. Less sun for solar power. S9. Environment impact of implementation (e.g. if put sulfur in jetliners fuel). S10. If stop, previously suppressed global warming will spring back to hit you. S11. Cannot stop quickly enough, if you did need to. S12. Human error, with means of delivery, causing dreadful accident. S13. Moral hazard = G3. S14. Cost = G6 S15. Commercial control of technology S16. Military use of technology S17. Conflict with
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
The Kasotchi eruption column only went up to 35,000 ft, the Lowermost Stratosphere, not the Lower Stratosphere, so no global or regional climatic impact would have been expected. Concept correct, example wrong. What one means by full scale has yet to be determined. A level that would produce a measurable decrease in downwelling solar radiation might not have any seasonally detectable climate impact even though the aerosol itself could be measured. I would guess that 100,000 tons could be measured, 250,000 would affect solar radiation and 500,000 would affect climate. Discrete samples can be collected from existing high altitude aircraft so that size distribution can be estimated. As to your continuous concern about aerosol droplet size, I think it is important that everyone understand that there are three scenarios being debated: droplets small enough to maximize backscattering (about the size of the background aerosol), droplets the size of the Pinatubo aerosol and droplets much larger than Pinatubo's. If the latter is the general result, then it won't produce the desired effect. At this point, we simply don't know. Unlike the volcanos, however, we have the options of releases of precursor at different times, places and altitudes some or all of which may enable us to tailor the droplet size, number and distribution. http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/satellites_see_kasatochi_eruption An explosive eruption occurred at Kasatochi Volcano (52.18ºN, 175.51ºW) on the afternoon of August 7th, 2008, sending volcanic ash and gas 35,000 feet into the atmosphere Read more: Satellites See Kasatochi Eruption: Volcano Erupts in Alaska's Aleutian Island Chain August 7, 2008 - http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/satellites_see_kasatochi_eruption#ixzz0E5Ho14KfA - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Eugene I. Gordon euggor...@comcast.net Cc: wf...@utk.edu; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; 'geoengineering' geoengineering@googlegroups.com; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:56 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Dear Gene, The problem with a small controlled experiment of stratospheric geoengineering is that you would not be able to measure either the resulting aerosol cloud or the climate effects. In fact, nature has done this for us. The Kasatochi volcano in Alaska erupted in August, 2008, putting 1.5 Tg SO2 into the lower stratosphere. Climate model experiments and observations both show that the effects were too small to detect above weather variability. The only way to test the climate effects of stratospheric geoengineering is to actually do it full-scale. Furthermore, we have no means to inject the SO2 if we wanted to. Furthermore, existing observing systems for stratospheric aerosols are difficult to use. The SAGE satellites are no longer working. There is a spare SAGE III on the shelf at NASA, but there are no plans to launch it. Calipso lidar can make episodic measurements along very narrow tracks, but cannot measure the properties we want, like size distribution. We could start to design injection systems, such as from airplanes, and test how well they produce small aerosol clouds, but how they would work injecting SO2 or H2S into existing stratospheric clouds could not be tested, except theoretically. Even if we can inject the precursor gases, can we create particles of the desired size distribution? Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Eugene I. Gordon wrote: I don't get it. The potential benefits are mostly real and possibly essential. Most of the objections are hypothetical; but certainly something to be concerned about and not ignored. However, done in careful moderation they are reversible. There is no obvious runaway effect from geoengineering. I would like to see a list of objections to a small controlled experiment. I anticipate that small controlled experiments do not invoke the list G1 through G11. If correct such experiments will help to cull or eliminate the list without danger. _ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:53 AM To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: geoengineering; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Dear John: I did not see a principal advantage of SRM listed. That is that it is reversible, at
[geo] Re: EGU meeting, April 19-24
Darren McGavin is dead. For a more tangible treatment of how Hollywood, specifically the people who brought you Stargate and BSG, view climate modification, check out Stargate Atlantis tonight at 11pm on the SciFi Channel. Bill Nye, the Geoengineering Guy and his pals including a Stephen Hawking lookalike, attempt to shut down their own interdimensional effort to stop global warming that instead causes ice lightning to strike their research facility and freeze the research and the researchers. http://www.scifi.com/atlantis/episodes/episodes.php?seas=5ep=0516act=1 When the Atlantis team is given two weeks of vacation leave, Dr. Rodney McKay reluctantly accepts an invitation by his former rival, Malcolm Tunney. Tunney wants McKay to attend a scientific demonstration that he claims will be the solution to global warming. Feeling bold, McKay asks Dr. Jennifer Keller to accompany him and she accepts. Upon reaching Earth, they are flown, by private leer [You'd think the Sci Fi Channel website people could spell, but no! It's Lear Jet.] jet, to a top-secret facility in the middle of a desert. Once there, McKay is shocked by Tunney's brazen claims that he's invented a device that can cool the Earth by venting excess heat from our space/time into another space/time - an idea McKay had already pursued two years earlier. Despite Rodney's mounting concerns over its safety, Tunney activates his new technology, dropping the heat contained inside the facility by 10 degrees. But when the device reaches this goal and will not disengage, McKay realizes he has to work fast or everyone trapped inside the premises will freeze to death within the hour. The people responsible for Discovery Project Earth and Walking with Dinosaurs, Impossible to Work with Pictures also recycle their prehistoric monsters on Primeval at 10pm on Sci Fi, while on Discovery Planet Green, it's Roger Angel's Space Sunshield. Keeping the real stuff and the fake stuff straight is important as the fake stuff influences public opinion just as much if not more and serves as the platform on which journalists base their objections. Science experiments in sci fi movies and TV are almost never successful, except for the ones that stop the original one, usually after the deaths and destruction have already occurred. And in keeping with the spirit of the long expired Hays Code, the creators usually pay the ultimate price for violating the natural law. Note: now that the Google appears to be working again for me (the tubes and trucks are running), I'll provide the report on the Owning the Weather Movie, also delayed by some dental engineering gone bad (root canal antibiotic allergic reaction followed by split tooth resulting in extraction leading to bone graft--side effects are part of the price for advances in technology). - Original Message - From: David Schnare To: r...@andy-taylor.org Cc: geoengineering Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: [geo] Re: EGU meeting, April 19-24 I've obtained movie rights. Here's the current The Pinatubo Option casting line-up: Tom Hanks playing David Keith Paul Giamatti playing Ken Caldeira George Clooney playing Alan Robock and Darren McGavin (in his persona as Carl Kolchak) playing David Schnare. It will be easier to get funding for the movie than it will be to get research dollars. Hence, we can require all action sequences to be actual field tests. We still need a female lead. Please advise. ;-))) d. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ray Taylor r...@andy-taylor.org wrote: Hi Ken I searched the archive and web and note this is the first time anyone used the phrase: Pinatubo option. Are you happy for this to become a fixed phrase for deliberate injection of stratospheric aerosols? It sounds good - like a movie title. And it might be a good benchmark vid: This is what we have to start doing in Copenhagen, to avoid having to resort to the Pinatubo option. Ray On Apr 21, 12:03 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu wrote: For future sulfur emissions, seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/5-20.htm For past sulfur emissions, see the attached paper. Current sulfur emissions are on the order of 50 Tg/yr and for this half century is likely to be in the range of 50 to 100 Tg/yr. The EGU abstract (http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4831.pdf) foresees emissions rates of 5 to 10 Tg/yr for the first half of the century, which is roughly the 10% range of current emissions, with this percentage scaling up if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and tropospheric sulfur emissions decline. So, this is not negligible, but it is unlikely to be a game changer either. It is my view that there would need to be some mighty
[geo] Re: USA Today on Geoengineering.
Movement of aerosols and air in general above 53,000 ft is governed by the rotation of the Earth and the Brewer Dobson circulation that transports air towards the poles. Aerosols formed from tropical volcanic eruptions will be carried to both poles, although the distribution may be uneven and seasonal. CSP is an old technology attracting interest in part due to the cost of PV. Most projections have it used in concentrated arrays in selected desert or other areas with significant numbers of cloudless days, e.g. the US southwest, N. Africa, parts of Spain. It could also be used in Australia. Problems facing CSP are how to tie it into the transmission system as the prime real estate is usually far from population centers and how to store heat energy generated during the day to provide for on demand usage. It is true that the percentage contribution of CSP has yet to be determined and it may not be as important 50 years from now as today. The problem with the Murphy study (and I haven't read the paper yet) is that it probably obsesses on what a Pinatubo-like reduction in sunlight would do to concentrator performance. Opponents of geoengineering always like to worst case it as they know the media will pick up on that. Proposals to launch whatever from the moon or to capture asteroids are the stuff of 22nd century technology and won't help us now. Why would you want to go 250,000 miles from the Earth to do this when the stratosphere is only 15 miles away? On Apr 22, 3:17 am, dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com wrote: To what extent do stratospheric aerosols cross the equator? I doubt there's all that much concentrating solar power in the southern hemisphere. And who knows whether CSP will still have such an edge over PV by the time we would get an aerosol program in place anyway. Most of the CCN for stratospheric aerosols are meteoritic in origin (they came from Outer Space, not leaded gasoline) A base on the moon, or a captured asteroid, might be useful to put CCN into selected parts of the atmosphere. The design of the objects to be dropped into the atmosphere, and their trajectory, should be able to give some control over what size particles are produced and at what altitude. On Apr 20, 5:55 pm, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: Francois--- Is this related to geoengineering somehow? D On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM, f.m.maugis f.m.mau...@wanadoo.fr wrote: To all of you, Please be informed of this interesting symposium: http://www.evgars.com/ «REORGANIZATION OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENERGY»-2009 XVIII-th International Scientific Symposium Saint-Petersburg, Rostov-on Don, Russia, 28-30 April, 2009 Regards, François MAUGIS http://assee.free.fr === -Message d'origine- De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Dan Whaley Envoyé : lundi 20 avril 2009 23:07 À : geoengineering Objet : [geo] USA Today on Geoengineering.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: this is probably just ridiculous
There is no way to cause a volcanic eruption or for that matter, to prevent one. The forces that control magma movement are miles below the surface and beyond the reach of any human technology. When a volcano erupts, that is the end of a process, not the beginning. Undersea volcanoes would only produce aerosols if the gases reached the surface. I doubt most of them have much of an effect as they are not explosive enough to send gases into the stratosphere. Here is an article about the recent eruption of an undersea volcano in Tonga: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/undersea-tongan-volcano-d_n_177005.html The impacts are mostly local. On Apr 21, 8:54 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Bearing in mind that volcanoes seem to do a pretty good job of cooling the planet, could you trigger them artificially? Perhaps drilling holes in them, moving scree off their cones or just blowing them up would do the trick? Here's some thoughts on the subject:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/2019/ I couldn't find any 'serious' research on this with a brief spot of googling. As an aside, do undersea volcanoes help cool the planet by altering the sulfur cycle and creating aerosols? A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Low Mass Spinning Space Mirrors
What you have described includes Roger Angel's proposal to launch remote controlled refractors from the surface of the Earth to the L1 point. All of these ideas involve advanced technologies most likely not available until the second half of the 21st century. Think about how primitive the ISS and its associated delivery systems are and the difficulty with launching and controlling satellites is today. I hadn't seen the idea of increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth before as almost all of the current discussion is on reducing sunlight. Boosting the solar radiation could be helpful in terraforming other planets or moons and longer term may play an important role in colonization of these worlds. What we learn from geoengineering to stop global warming may pay dividends for thousands of years. On Apr 21, 9:17 am, John Hampson hampso...@gmail.com wrote: The idea of reflecting sunlight using mirrors at the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point is well established. It appears to be based on manufacturing mirrors on the Moon from refined regolith and launching them for assembly at L1: this is to reduce the launch costs of a massive mirror. But has consideration been given to launching very low mass mirrors directly from Earth? Many large mirrors (say 100m diameter) made from thin reflective sheet (like space blanket) could be launched directly from Earth. The problems arise when you try to wallpaper a vacuum with them and then maintain their shape, orientation and position. A rotating space-station, similar to the one in the film 2001 could be used for this purpose. The sheet would be unfurled across the sunward face of the space station and the rotational forces would stretch and maintain the mirrors shape, keeping it rigid. Once the mirror was stable the space station would detach and move on to the next piece of vacuum to be wallpapered, leaving hundreds of spinning mirrors in its wake. Two types of mirror might be considered. A “passive mirror” would float away to be recovered and reused once out of position. To maintain its orientation it could be convex shaped against the solar wind and it might initially be launched against the solar wind using puffs of thruster gas from the space station to extend its life. A better option would involve an “active mirror” having a number of solar-powered miniature ion-thrusters installed around its outer edge. These would maintain the mirrors rotation, orientation and position in space. This would avoid (or at least reduce) the hazardous activity of recovering out of position mirrors. Active mirrors would be flexible because they could be remote- controlled and might be useful in Earth orbit to reduce warming, manipulate the weather and even replace street lighting in urban areas. At Lagrange points L4 and L5 they could reflect sunlight towards Earth in the event of cooling brought on by natural disaster (volcanic eruption or asteroid impact). A spinning Earth orbit space station built for scientific purposes could include facilities to unfurl mirrors at relatively little extra cost. An entire fleet of low mass mirrors sent to this station might require less launch mass than is needed just to build a Moon base and could be a flexible and relatively low cost means to control global warming. John Hampson --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Earth Day/Green Week TV
Discovery Planet Green is rerunning the Discovery Project Earth Series this week, with Hungry Ocean tonight. Raining Forests and Infinite Winds have already aired. Meanwhile, Andy Revkin was on MSNBC yesterday talking about the upcoming NBC programs on the future of the Earth. While he recounted his experiences at the N. Pole and Greenland and noted that climate change is still gradual enough not to be easily noticed, a graphic at the bottom of the screen stated: Sea ice may be completely gone by 2100. We should be so lucky. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Wouldn't stratospheric aerosols ruin astronomical observations?
I tried to post this on the 15th and it never appeared, so to keep it within the same thread, here it is. One of the other articles I previously posted in this thread also mentions the effect on observing lunar eclipses. I think the term vog also has some future. Will the apocalyptic obsessed critics of aerosol geoengineering now refer to the Vognerian strategy? Makian is yet another one of those bad boy stratovolcanoes in Indonesia, located right on the equator. In all of the articles I've seen to date, including the mention in the first one of Pinatubo also having affected observation of a lunar eclipse, no one has noted that the eruptions had a negative impact on visible or other types of astronomy other than on lunar eclipses. I couldn't find any numbers on the SO2 emitted from Makian in 1760-1761, so it's hard to gauge its impact relative to that of Pinatubo. Remember also that large pre-industrial eruptions lowered temperatures below the normal level, while those today would first have to offset the AGW greenhouse forcing. So Makian may have been a much smaller eruption than Pinatubo, yet had a greater impact on climate. Regardless, it doesn't seem like aerosols represent a problem for astronomers. What say you about this, Roger Angel? http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0608-07= http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090116-eclipse-volcano.html Missing Moon Linked to Major 1761 Eruption? Ker Than for National Geographic News January 16, 2009 A disappearing moon that preceded an unusually bitter winter in China was most likely the result of a mysterious volcanic eruption in the 1700s, a retired NASA scientist says. Astronomer Kevin D. Pang collected evidence from the fields of geology, biology, and Chinese history that suggests a major eruption belched out enough dust and gas to completely blot out the moon during a 1761 total lunar eclipse. A total eclipse occurs when the moon enters completely into Earth's shadow. (Watch video of the February 2008 lunar eclipse-the last total eclipse of the moon until December 2010.) Lunar eclipses can vary in brightness and color based on the angle of the moon's path and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. While no sunlight hits the moon directly, some gets filtered by Earth's atmosphere and is bent toward the moon, causing it to shine in hues ranging from bright orange to blood red. But when there's a large volcanic eruption, Pang said, the moon can drop in brightness by a million times, or in some cases disappear altogether. Pang presented his results last week during the 213th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, California. Volcanic Winter Heavy amounts of particles in the air could explain why, in May of 1761, astronomers reported that the moon appeared very dark or disappeared altogether, even with the aid of telescopes. An atmosphere clogged by a powerful volcanic eruption would also lead to global cooling and trigger extended bouts of strange weather, experts say. (Related: Ancient Global Dimming Linked to Volcanic Eruption [March 19, 2008].) To test his theory, Pang searched the scientific literature about tree rings and ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland. He found evidence of a volcanic winter around the same time as the dark eclipse. For example, sulfur dioxide gas ejected during a volcanic eruption can react with water vapor in the air to form acid rain, which then leaves chemical fingerprints in polar ice. Furthermore, bristlecone pine trees high in the Sierra Nevada mountains experienced stunted growth and frost damage in 1761, Pang said. The researcher also looked through old Chinese weather chronicles from the early 1760s. Those records revealed that large parts of China experienced an unusually bitter winter and heavy snowfall in 1761 and 1762. Rivers and wells across central China froze, ships could not sail, and innumerable trees, birds, and livestock died due to the cold, the chronicles state. Finding a Culprit A good candidate for the cause of the 1761 events is the Makian volcano on the Indonesian island of Halmahera, Pang thinks. Records show that this volcano experienced a series of eruptions beginning in September of 1760 and lasting until spring of the following year. Makian's equatorial position could explain why evidence of its eruption was found at both poles. But it's also possible the culprit volcano went unrecorded, Pang added. Richard Keen is a climatologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder who was not involved in the study. [Pang] is absolutely correct in saying that volcanoes can darken a lunar eclipse, Keen said. But for the 1761 event, he noted, historical accounts about the dimness of the moon varied by geographical location. Most of the reports of the moon disappearing
[geo] EGU Meeting
There are several additional presentations besides the ones you mentioned. For the last week, I have stopped receiving emails from the group and my messages also no longer post, so you will probably need to post this one for me if you want anyone else to see it. There may be other papers, but I don't have time to look. The paper by the Russians sounds like the one presented at AGU last December, but I would have to check. Regardless, it is incorrect in its conclusions that aerosols created between 50 and 70 N would be more uniformaly distributed than from the tropics. The 50-70 N region is where the maximum aerosol deposition occurs. Since they didn't specify altitude, I can't say whether this is based on stratospheric or tropospheric aerosol creation. The Kenzelmann paper is also a mess. http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-13073.pdf The conclusions are that only 60% of the aerosol survives stratospheric injection of precursor. A 10Mt injection of S would, in their model form the equivalent aerosol from a 6Mt injection, with larger droplets falling out of the stratosphere rapidly. It is true that 10Mt of S were injected by Pinatubo and after a year, 6Mt equivalent remained, so if the man-made injections were identical to Pinatubo, this might be expected. It might also be a coincidence and the other 4Mt from Pinatubo may not have crossed the tropical tropopause. However, I would have to see how and where their injections took place. In the absence of significant water vapor allowing more rapid formation of H2SO4 as was the case with Pinatubo, it is likely that the precursor will be much more widely distributed before any aerosol is formed and thus, their heterogeneous nucleation scenario is much less likely. Varying the precursor injection points might also help somewhat. Their ozone destruction scenario is also built upon the large aerosol droplet sedimentation case and if this didn't occur, the ozone destruction would be much less. They also seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that 10Mt of sulfur will be required immediately to offset a doubling of CO2. I would have to see the timetable as to when the 10Mt is needed in their modeling. Most likely, active chlorine will be nearly gone by then. Ironically, they admit their modeling that showed upper tropospheric increases in water vapor from large aerosol droplet absorption of upwelling IR which led to the ozone depletion didn't mesh with what happened with Pinatubo. Based on this, they conclude that models can't properly predict the outcome of aerosol geoengineering. They fail to realize that injection of 10Mt of S over a period of a year is very different from what happened with Pinatubo, where all the aerosol precursor was injected over a few days. The Goes paper http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-5694.pdf also appears to be a rerrun from AGU. It goes like this. If geoengineering with aerosols was stopped, the temperature would go back up and therefore, geoengineering as a substitute for emissions reduction is a bad idea. Someone was paid to write this. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: USA Today on Geoengineering.
NO PULITZER FOR USA TODAY, CZICZO RATES A ZERO 1. No acid rain problem, but journalists don't seem to care. Why let the facts get in the way of a bad story. 2. In defense of John Holdren (imagine that, me actually defending somebody!!), he was still acting and speaking like he was head of WHOI and AAAS and not as a spokesman for the WH. Pielke, Jr. took him to task for not checking his name badge before talking to Borenstein, and it is a little embarassing when you have to explain what you really meant to say (Holdren's clarification) and someone else issues a PR also explaining what you meant to say (the WH knee jerked on that one,) but I find Holdren a refreshing change from science hostages like former Science Advisor John Marburger, reduced to reading talking points scripted by policy hacks. I agree that the Administration should speak with one voice, but let's not go the hand-up-the-back-of- the-puppet route so early. 3. The fact that lead is an effective CCN doesn't mean it IS significant as a CCN. The clouds discussed are also in the lowermost stratosphere, not the overworld (above 53,000 ft) and have little to do with use of stratospheric aerosols for geoengineering. Most of the CCN for stratospheric aerosols are meteoritic in origin (they came from Outer Space, not leaded gasoline). There is also no evidence that ice clouds were more abundant when leaded gasoline was widely used. The last paragraph is simply ridiculous. On Apr 20, 5:06 pm, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: Fairly unbalanced reporting here http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-04-19-geo... Scientists weigh geoengineering in global warming battle By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY Not every crazy idea, say dropping out of Harvard to start a software firm, is a bad one. But you don't have to be Bill Gates to place your bets that way. Consider atmospheric geoengineering — pumping reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight — seen as a way to cut the effects of global warming. In 1991, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the atmosphere's average temperature worldwide almost one degree Fahrenheit, a kind of global dimming, serving as an inspiration for the idea. Such high-altitude aerosols, different from the ones found in spray cans, can play a big role in climate. A 2006 paper in the journal Science, for example, written by the eminent atmospheric scientist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggested that annually blasting roughly 500,000 tons of sulfur (about 7% of yearly sulfur production) into the stratosphere every year for three decades would prevent global warming. But there is that acid rain issue. Earlier this month, White House science adviser John Holdren found himself at the center of a brouhaha over remarks to the Associated Press that geoengineering of all sorts was mentioned as the administration pondered means of limiting global warming. Holdren later downplayed geoengineering schemes, after news stories appeared linking atmospheric geoengineering to drought, ozone depletion and acid rain, among other concerns. A pair of recent papers point to some unintended consequences of atmospheric geoengineering, ones that add to the sense that it might not be such a good idea. In a study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, federal scientist Daniel Murphy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at what stratospheric aerosols would do for solar cells and mirrored solar power collectors. He turned to 1991 data from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption for an answer. In the study, calculations of sunlight scattering combined with records from Hawaii's Mauna Loa observatory showed that for every one watt's worth of sunlight reflected away from Earth by stratospheric aerosols, another four watts were converted from direct sunlight to diffuse sunlight. Such sunlight is bad news for the large power- generating solar collectors that rely on mirrors to concentrate power. Even though total direct sunlight fell only 3% in 1991, power generated by these collectors dropped by 20%. It turns out that any systems using mirrors to concentrate direct sunlight are much more sensitive than one-for-one, Murphy says, by e-mail. Among all of the possible side effects of geoengineering, the effect on solar power is probably not the most important. It is one of the most certain, Murphy adds. A second paper, out Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, points to another problem with stratospheric aerosols. We are really uncertain about their role in the climate system, says study lead author Dan Cziczo of Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Richland, Wash. Ice condenses around aerosol particles, a process that scientists know leads to high-flying cirrus clouds. Those clouds in turn reflect sunlight, a cooling effect in the global warming equation. But how
[geo] Re: More on that global aerosol experiment we just ran ...
Some interesting work, but realistically, reducing soot and tropospheric ozone are easier said than done and will require about the same number of decades as it will take for the sources of tropospheric sulfate aerosols to become insignificant. To make all of them go away for good, we have to stop using fossil fuels and burning trees. MacCracken also suggested recently that an emphasis on non CO2 sources of greenhouse forcing such as methane and ozone would be beneficial, especially with regard to the developing world. So while it may be true that 45% of recent Arctic warming may be due to non GHG forcing, that still means that 55% is due to these gases, a percentage that is bound to increase significantly as the atmospheric CO2 levels increase. The articles imply that Shindell is suggesting we go slow on reducing CO2 emissions in order to focus attention on these other sources. I believe that would be a serious mistake. Also part of the reason for the slower warming of the Antarctic also has to do with its isolation. Unlike the Arctic, where warmer air is regularly transported north, that doesn't happen as frequently in the south polar region. - Original Message - From: DW dan.wha...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 9:57 PM Subject: [geo] Re: More on that global aerosol experiment we just ran ... This one specifically catches the implications to geoengineering in the context of Holdren's recent remarks... Also interesting that Shindell works under Hansen. Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/ NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London By Lewis Page Posted in Environment, 9th April 2009 12:10 GMT Join the Intel seminar. IT has companies talking New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid aerosol particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance. NASA graphic showing temperature trends vis-a-vis clean air rules Acid rain fixed, woo! Hey, what's that gurgling sound? Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA: Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates. Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up. The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean. Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases, says Shindell. Dirty Chinese coal to save us all? Other scientists have recently suggested that it's not just the Arctic which is subject to aerosol effects. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said (http:// www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/) that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere. Shindell's new NASA study is particularly topical, as President Obama's new science advisor has just suggested that the subject of geoengineering - artificially modifying the climate - must be considered as a countermeasure to global warming. One measure put forward by geoengineering advocates is the deliberate injection of sulphur
[geo] Re: FW: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House
FW: AP story on geo-engineering and the White HouseSeth Borenstein strikes again! - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken To: Geoengineering Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:10 AM Subject: [geo] FW: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House -- Forwarded Message From: Holdren, John P. john_p._hold...@ostp.eop.gov Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:23:55 -0400 Subject: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House Colleagues -- The stance of the White House on geoengineering was garbled in the AP story about an interview with me that went out earlier this week. In the course of a wide-ranging half-hour interview on my new job, high-tech innovation for economic growth, energy, national security, and climate change, I got asked about whether we need to think about geo-engineering as a response to the climate problem and I spent a few minutes on it. I said that the approaches that have been surfaced so far seem problematic in terms of both efficacy and side effects, but we have to look at the possibilities and understand them -- including their shortcomings -- because if other approaches to mitigation fall short the geo-engineering approach will end up being considered. I also made clear that this was my personal view, not Administration policy. I was asked to describe some examples of geo-engineering approaches and mentioned orbiting reflecting particles and sulfates injected into the stratosphere, explaining their shortcomings and making clear that I was not endorsing them. Asked whether I had mentioned geo-engineering in any White House discussions, though, I said that I had. This is of course NOT the same thing as saying the White House is giving serious consideration to geo-engineering - which it isn't at this point -- and I am dismayed that the headline and the text of the article suggest otherwise, as well as dismayed that the entire AP story focused on this minor point in the interview. Cheers anyway, John JOHN P. HOLDREN Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President of the United States jhold...@ostp.eop.gov, 202-456-7116 Executive Assistant Pat McLaughlin pmclaugh...@ostp.eop.gov, 202-456-6045 -- End of Forwarded Message --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: geoeng. article in the Virginia Quarterly Review
Recently seen on wall at UC Berkeley: IN CASE OF FIRE, DO NOT CALL INEZ FUNG*. And the interview with Caldeira once again demonstrates why he is such an effective advocate for geoengineering research. Or maybe he isn't. Or maybe he shouldn't try to be. Or maybe it doesn't matter if he is or not. Or if something really bad happens, someone else can be an effective spokesman for geoengineering research or maybe not. I'm not sure. What do you think Ken? *Also, in case of Type II Diabetes, don't ask Inez Fung for advice on drug therapies, cause it's just treatin' the symptoms and you won't last long enough for the cure anyway. - Original Message - From: dasilva patjos...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:20 PM Subject: [geo] geoeng. article in the Virginia Quarterly Review See The Ass's Dilemma http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2009/spring/joseph-climate-engineering/ Here's an exerpt: “I’m not a fan,” Inez Fung said flatly when I asked her opinion of stratospheric aerosol injection. A petite woman in a pageboy haircut, Fung is a prominent figure in climatology—professor of atmospheric science at the University of California, Berkeley, co-director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and, like Caldeira, a contributor to the IPCC, which, in 2008, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. I met her in her office last April in Berkeley’s McCone Hall. She sat in her office chair, arms folded tightly across her chest, one foot bobbing impatiently under the desk. “You don’t think it could serve as an insurance policy in the event of abrupt climate change?” I asked. “Heavens, no. What abrupt climate changes are you worried about?” “Well, what if the Greenland ice sheet starts to go far faster than anticipated? Would it make sense then to decrease temperatures in the hopes of stopping that process, since we’re talking about something like a twenty-foot rise in sea level? Would the ramifications be so serious that we could justify . . . ?” “I think a much more important thing is to say sea level will rise,” she answered. “Preventing it is just delaying it. I mean all this geoengineering is just delaying . . . It’s gonna go sooner or later.” “But wouldn’t it at least buy us time?” “What are we doing in the interim if the whole strategy is to buy time? If we just continue to squander energy, I wouldn’t support it.” Her foot bounced under her desk. “Geoengineering is not science fiction, okay?” she continued. “How do we test it? How do we know that it would work? The scientist’s responsibility is not just to propose wild ideas. The scientist’s responsibility is to say, ‘How do we test them?’” Her frustration seemed to grow as our interview progressed, and when I finally gathered my things to leave, I thanked her for putting up with my questions. She said, “No, no, it’s important not to just look at what is the last resort and ignore responsible action. It’s very American to want a quick fix, but the energy problem is the principal challenge for humankind—the two energy problems: not just the squandering of energy, but also the imbalance in energy access in the world.” “Sure,” I answered, “but recognizing that doesn’t do anything to solve the problem of climate change.” She took a deep breath before answering wearily. “There is no solving the problem. There is no solving the problem. All it is is slowing the symptoms.” --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
Wednesday: Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face. Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on. It would be preferable by far, he said, to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet there is already significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade. Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide. The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said. Holdren also addressed other topics during the interview: . The U.S. anti-ballistic missile program is not ready to work and shouldn't be used unless it is 100 percent effective. The system, which would be used to shoot down missiles from countries like North Korea or Iran needs to be essentially perfect ... that's going to be hard to achieve. . Holdren said NASA needs some changes. He said the Bush administration's plan to return astronauts to the moon was underfunded so money was taken from science and aeronautics. Those areas, including climate change research, were decimated, he said. The administration will rebalance NASA's programs so that we have in space exploration, a suitable mix of manned activities and robotic activities, Holdren said. Doing that will only get under way in earnest when a new administrator is in place. Holdren, who advises the president on such decisions, said he hopes Obama will pick a new NASA boss soon. ___ - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: ke...@ucalgary.ca ; dwschn...@gmail.com Cc: kelly.wan...@gmail.com ; geoengineering Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AgWN.UaI3bpVBdthMQx.sxJdRJ54;_ylu=X3oDMTE2YnQ3c24wBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItcmlnaHQEc2xrA3ZpZC11bi1saW5r?ch=4226722cl=12882507lang=en Here is part of the actual video of the interview with Holdren by Seth Borenstein. In it, he refers to injecting reflective particles into low Earth orbit as one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas. It is not. He does seem to be aware of some of the generic arguments for and against SRM. He says SRM would be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft. The other article I posted indicates he has a crude and possibly inaccurate understanding of aerosol formation and effectiveness. I don't expect all people at the senior policy level to be conversant with all aspects of these technologies, but his mixing up and confusion of these ideas concerns me, especially given the low level of understanding of journalists, leading to a blind-leading-the-blind scenario when the time comes to explain this to the public. - Original Message - From: David Keith To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: kelly.wan...@gmail.com ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:22 PM Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table I think this comment is (a) factually incorrect and (b) unhelpful. Holdren has know about this and paid attention for some time, certainly since before we held the 2007 Harvard meeting. I talked with him in the fall on this topic. I don't think it's fair to say that he was backed into a corner. Further, I can think of several senior folks in DC who take geoengineering seriously. (Heck, I am there twice in the next few weeks on the topic.) I think over-statements like this do more harm than good. -David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Schnare Sent: April 8, 2009 8:37 PM To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: kelly.wan...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table Holdren, unlike folks in the environmental advocacy community, can be backed into a corner. Holdren is not stupid and he is not an advocate, so he has to answer the question asked, rather than spin any response
[geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table
There was an idea a long time ago to place particles in orbit. Cost was not an issue. That he refers to it rather than one of the more recent proposals involving aerosols or L1 diffractors shows he is not up to speed on the technologies. - Original Message - From: dsw_s ds...@yahoo.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table he refers to injecting reflective particles into low Earth orbit as one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas. .. He says SRM would be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft. I thought he said one of the classic ideas or something like that, and then said only that that particular approach would be too expensive and interfere with spacecraft. I wonder whether he really conflated mirrors-in-orbit with SRM in general, or whether it just looks that way in a short clip. On Apr 9, 4:46 am, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=AgWN.UaI3bpVBdthMQx.sxJdRJ... Here is part of the actual video of the interview with Holdren by Seth Borenstein. In it, he refers to injecting reflective particles into low Earth orbit as one of the most discussed geoengineering ideas. It is not. He does seem to be aware of some of the generic arguments for and against SRM. He says SRM would be too expensive and would interfere with spacecraft. The other article I posted indicates he has a crude and possibly inaccurate understanding of aerosol formation and effectiveness. I don't expect all people at the senior policy level to be conversant with all aspects of these technologies, but his mixing up and confusion of these ideas concerns me, especially given the low level of understanding of journalists, leading to a blind-leading-the-blind scenario when the time comes to explain this to the public. - Original Message - From: David Keith To: dwschn...@gmail.com ; agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: kelly.wan...@gmail.com ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:22 PM Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table I think this comment is (a) factually incorrect and (b) unhelpful. Holdren has know about this and paid attention for some time, certainly since before we held the 2007 Harvard meeting. I talked with him in the fall on this topic. I don't think it's fair to say that he was backed into a corner. Further, I can think of several senior folks in DC who take geoengineering seriously. (Heck, I am there twice in the next few weeks on the topic.) I think over-statements like this do more harm than good. -David -- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Schnare Sent: April 8, 2009 8:37 PM To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: kelly.wan...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: John Holdren puts geoengineering on the table Holdren, unlike folks in the environmental advocacy community, can be backed into a corner. Holdren is not stupid and he is not an advocate, so he has to answer the question asked, rather than spin any response into the on message screed. Thus, he said the least that he could get away with. Holdren actually understands the moral dilemma of rejecting AGW or admitting it is too late to fix the problem through carbon emissions reductions policies alone. I don't find any more support from Holdren than we have seen from Hawkins. I repeat what I have written to this group before. You have no friends in Washington, D.C. (i.e., the government). David Schnare On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: Not much different than what he said in the Hot Planet documentary. Joe Romm misrepresented Holdren's views on this in an article he write late last year by selectively truncating a quote Holdren made about the use of geoengineering. What he actually said was the same as in these articles. We can't take any option off the table. The problems with air capture extend beyond just cost also. It continues to amaze me how journalists still don't grasp the concept of aerosol precursors. I guess it's like teaching a dog to make a phone call. It can be done with great difficulty, but you still can't have an intelligent conversation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/obama-global-warming-plan_n_... Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air digg Huffpost - Obama Global Warming Plan Involves Cooling Air stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThisSETH BORENSTEIN | April 8, 2009 11:55 AM EST | WASHINGTON - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being
