Re[2]: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Amal

Thank you for this key question which can be answered like follows:

Healthy ocean phytoplankton layer (PL) plants and green microbes cannot 
assimilate carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide solutions like the 
continental plants. (PL) plants are forced to use bicarbonate instead of 
CO2. As a consequence of this fact the PL needs to generate one hydroxyl 
ion for every bicarbonate carbon assimilated to organic carbon.


This is no disadvantage for the PL as it seems at first sight. This 
assimilation effect produces a basicity membrane at the surface of the 
globes ocean which prevents the bicarbonate carbon from leaving the 
ocean and which activates the atmospheric CO2 to get absorbed by the 
basicity of the ocean surface. Because every hydroxyl ion produces a new 
bicarbonate ion by CO2 absorption from the atmosphere the PL cannot not 
go short in carbon delivery for organic carbon production.


Additional to organic carbon PL plants need nitrogen, sulphur and 
halogens for production of organic N, S, and halogen compounds. Also 
this organics become fertilized by the PL life from dissolved salts like 
sulphates, nitrates, and halogenides and also generate OH ions during 
their conversion to organic hetero compounds. Also this metabolic 
reactions of the PL produce additional alkalinity.


Healthy PL can compensate excessive basicity generation which would 
increase the pH values to >9 that is adverse to healthy metabolism. The 
sequestration of solid carbonate shells and skeletons from bicarbonate 
is a measure to compensate such uncontrolled pH increase because every 
carbonate generated produces one molecule carbonic acid which 
neutralizes the OH ions by bicarbonate generation. Such carbon shell 
producers in the PL for instance are coccolithophores and foraminifera. 
Even within extreme productive PL layers like the Humboldt Current 
upwelling system in front of the South American west coast this kind of 
carbonate sequestration keeps the pH well within the metabolic optimum.


Because the assimilation reaction and basicity generation is only active 
during daytime the pH decreases during the night and even may drop to 
values of 8 or even below. This phenomenon of the dark is the cause of 
the CO2 escape from upwelling deep water within the polar parts of the 
ocean during the long lasting winter night because during this season 
the basicity membrane of the ocean has a hole within these regions.


So called "Ocean Acidification" said to be a cause of the increased CO2 
concentration in the atmosphere has not been caused by this effect. 
Actual cause are damages to the complex PL layer ecosystem which reduces 
their assimilation activity and OH ion productivity: During the very 
warm Cretaceous epoch the phytoplankton and ocean life flourished as can 
be seen from the chalk cliffs of Dover and many fossilized remains found 
in many other regions of the world. The cliffs had built from the 
carbonate preciptating healthy and productive PL life. During the epoche 
of the Cretaceous the CO2 levels within the atmosphere had been up to 5 
times of the recent level.


Franz D. Oeste



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Amal Bhattarai" 
An: "Robert Tulip" 
Cc: "carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com" 
; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 
"geoengineering" ; 
markcap...@podenergy.org

Gesendet: 02.06.2019 23:20:39
Betreff: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] High Level Review of a Wide Range of 
Proposed Marine Geoengineering Techniques


Regarding kelp forests for marine sequestration, how is one to 
understand that it is atmospheric carbon that is being sequestered, and 
not the oceanic dissolved carbon, of which there is plenty?



On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:09 AM 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide 
Removal  wrote:

Dear Mark

Thank you for sharing your AdjustaDepth Phase 1 Final Report 
DE-AR916 
 
on the potential for seaweed forests to address global needs for food, 
fuel and climate.  I encourage readers to review the linked report, as 
it provides a compelling scientific agenda for reversing global 
warming and cleaning up the oceans.


I would like to know if there has been media coverage of this project, 
as it seems to me one of the biggest and most important efforts now 
underway for practical climate action.


Best wishes

Robert Tulip





On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 4:44:08 am AEST,  
wrote:



A non-geoengineering approach could reverse climate change faster than 
the Marine Geoengineering techniques listed in the GESAMP report.  
Estimated initial investments in attached "$100B-Proposal..." presume 
that the Feed the world and Fuel the world produce profits and quickly 
snowball to full global capacity.


The Reverse climate change step might be classified as geoengineering. 
 It could use any good-for-millennial and ocean restorative carbon 
storage technique.



Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, 

[geo] Re: [CDR] Visualization: Fork in the road.

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Very impressive! If the figure had a scale it might do additional 
impression.


Franz D. Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "dan weinshenker" 
An: "Carbon Dioxide Removal" ; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Gesendet: 25.03.2019 13:13:18
Betreff: [CDR] Visualization: Fork in the road.


We're still only seeing previews.  And why this work is important.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAFn4COz5z4FytSN14%3DSYJNvx87K%2BYf4qXZ1fB%3Dh4PCBZaxTFOw%40mail.gmail.com 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[2]: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Is the comment of this author cleaned from any mis-statements and fact 
uncertainties about SRM? Surely no. Contrary to that it is filled up 
with them and obviously keeping secret about some more problematic 
stratospheric SRM (SRM by SAI) properties listed below:
SRM increases the albedo of the planet by mirroring parts of the sun 
radiation back into the space. Accordingly the sun radiation reaching 
the planet's surface is reduced whether or not the residual sun 
radiation reaching the surface is diffuse or notThe plant ecosystems at 
the planets surface are adapted to undiffused sunlight since billions of 
years. Only those plants which live at places where natural diffused 
sunlight exists, like at the bottom of forests or in the shadow of 
plants or rocks are natural adapted to permanent diffuse sunlightAll the 
other plants living not below these special shadow conditions are not 
adapted to permanent diffuse light. They will suffer from decreased CO2 
assimilation and water decreased evaporationAll the plants adapted to 
special shadow conditions living for instance at the bottom of the 
rainforest ecosystem like ferns and mosses will even suffer from 
decreased CO2 assimilation and water evaporation and even die 
Atmospheric methane level increases because of the decreasing UV 
radiation dependent hydroxyl radical level which acts as a methane 
degradation toolStratospheric ozone shield will weaken because of the 
decreasing UV radiation dependent hydroxyl radical level which acts as a 
depletion tool of the ozone layer depleting chloro and bromo methanesIt 
is well known that the reaction of ozone with stratospheric cloud 
droplets or particles which consists of hydrated droplets of nitric acid 
and sulphuric acid which appear in spring time are mainly responsible 
for the ozone hole. Meanwhile no facts have been revealed ruling out 
such reactions with particle and/or droplet surfaces considered as SRM 
substance like sulfuric acid aerosol, calcium carbonate, titanium 
dioxide

Franz D. Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Veli Albert Kallio" 
An: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; 
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" ; 
"oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" 

Gesendet: 07.01.2019 11:13:00
Betreff: Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in 
the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience



There appears to be a clear mis-statement here:

" Any reduction of the sun radiation at the surface decrease the 
assimilation by which plants transform CO2 into organic C and oxygen."


SO2 causes diffusion of sunlight and other research has indicated that 
the diffused light penetrates better through the tree foliage and any 
layers of plants - more plant surface is exposed to light. Direct 
sunlight is too hard for the plants to use efficiently, thus during 
cloudy weather the diffuse light penetrates indirectly from many 
directions. The same diffusion of light happens when SO2 laden air 
occurs during volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo. The author appears 
to be partisan, not neutral as he views - attempting through 
mis-statements and confirming uncertainties as facts. However, I agree 
him with my gut-feeling that SRM is probably quantitatively ineffective 
(or too expensive to maintain), and can ultimately lead to same 
problems as low level SO2 - acidification of soils and natural water 
resources. However, its relative simplicity and limited positive 
effects on photosynthesis (also improved by lowered air temperatures 
for food crops and wild life and increase in aerosols - nuclei to form 
cloud droplets). As you see, the "neutral" author cherry-picked only 
the negatives, so do not rely on him 100% as you see...

----
From:geoengineering@googlegroups.com  
on behalf of Franz Dietrich Oeste 

Sent: 24 November 2018 11:48
To:andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in 
the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience


Thanks to Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner for their work! Their paper may 
open our eyes to the probable unsuitability of the climate influencing 
tool Stratospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or as named by the 
authors Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI):


SRM shall act within the stratosphere 20 km above the ground. To gain a 
temperature reduction of 0.30 K in 2047 it needs a yearly uplift to 
this height of 1,5 million tons of sulfur. The sulfur shall be burned 
by new kind of aircrafts in situ to gain gaseous SO2 (boiling point -10 
°C) which becomes transformed by oxidiation and hydration to about 6 
million tons aerosol made of a rather concentrated sulfuric acid - per 
year. This aerosol shall spread around the globe and mirror parts of 
the sun radiation back into the space.


With the existing aircraft design sulfur lifting t

Re: [geo] Re: Analysis_of_global_methane_changes_after_the_1991_.pdf

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Beside sulfur compounds, water vapour and ash particles volcanic 
eruption plumes contain even hydrogen chloride. Ash particles contain 
oxidic iron in the single digit percent range. Within the eruption plume 
at least parts of said ash iron exists as iron(III) oxides. Because of 
the presence of hydrogen chloride (HCl) in the eruption plume the ash 
particles will contain even iron(III)chloride. The content of iron 
chlorides in the eruption ash had been revealed by Suzuki & Dingwell, 
(2014). Wittmer & Zetzsch (2016) revealed that iron(III) oxide aerosol 
absorbs HCl even in the ppb concentration range and evolves atomic 
chlorine by sunlight photolysis. Baker et al., (2011) revealed atomic 
chlorine content in the Eyjafjallajökull eruption plume and Rose et al., 
(2006) found volcanic plumes depleted in methane. Because atomic 
chlorine is an oxidant to methane acting about 20 times faster than OH 
radicals all these findings coincide with the direct methane depletion 
effect of volcanic plumes.


Both publications presented in the post below did not take into account 
this direct methane depletion effect by atomic chlorine in the volcanic 
eruption plume induced by the iron(III) content of the ash aerosol.
Because the iron salt content of volcanic ash is easyly dissolvable it 
presents a micronutrient to plants and even the phytoplankton. This well 
established eruption ash effect increases the CO2 depletion.


Usually the whole cause of the Pinatubo eruption cooling effect is 
attributed gladly to the stratospheric sulfate aerosol cooling. This is 
wrong because the two greenhouse gas depletion effects are mostly 
overlooked as demonstrated.


Baker et al., (2011): Investigation of chlorine radical chemistry in the 
Eyjafjallajökull volcanic plume using observed depletions in non-methane 
hydrocarbons. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L13801
Rose et al., (2006): Atmospheric chemistry of a 33-34 hour old cloudfrom 
the Hekla Volcano (Iceland): Insights from direct sampling and the 
application of chemical box modeling. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 111, 
D20206
Suzuki & Dingwell, (2014): HCl uptake by volcanic ash in the high 
temperature eruption plume: Mechanistic insights. Geochimica et 
Cosmochimica Acta, 144, 188-201
Wittmer & Zetzsch (2016): Photochemical activation of chlorine by 
iron-oxide aerosol. J. Atmos. Chem., doi:10.1007/s10874-016-9336-6


Franz D. Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Andrew Lockley" 
An: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: 03.12.2018 16:01:57
Betreff: [geo] Re: 
Analysis_of_global_methane_changes_after_the_1991_.pdf



Other papers exploring the issue

Can we explain the observed methane variability after the Mount 
Pinatubo eruption? Banda et al (2016) 
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/195/2016/
The effect of stratospheric sulfur from Mount Pinatubo on tropospheric 
oxidizing capacity and methane, Banda et al (2014) 
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022137


On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 14:50 Andrew Lockley wrote:

Poster's note: really interesting paper on
SO2/CH4 interactions. Tl;dr it's complicated


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Thanks to Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner for their work! Their paper may 
open our eyes to the probable unsuitability of the climate influencing 
tool Stratospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) or as named by the 
authors Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI):


SRM shall act within the stratosphere 20 km above the ground. To gain a 
temperature reduction of 0.30 K in 2047 it needs a yearly uplift to this 
height of 1,5 million tons of sulfur. The sulfur shall be burned by new 
kind of aircrafts in situ to gain gaseous SO2 (boiling point -10 °C) 
which becomes transformed by oxidiation and hydration to about 6 million 
tons aerosol made of a rather concentrated sulfuric acid - per year. 
This aerosol shall spread around the globe and mirror parts of the sun 
radiation back into the space.


With the existing aircraft design sulfur lifting to these heights is 
impossible. A new kind of aircraft needs to be developed to do the job. 
This new aircraft should be able to lift a payload of 25 tons of liquid 
sulfur to 20 km above the ground then keeping at this height and burn 
there the sulfur load which emits with the flue gas as SO2. About 60 000 
flights per year are necessary to gain the global temperature reduction 
of 0,30 K.


Thankfully this article discusses very clearly within chapter 6 that 
such activities could not remain undetected. Their conclusion is that it 
would be rather impossible that those activities remain undetected or 
might kept as a secret.


According to this low result of 0,30 K global temperature decrease 
gained by this huge expense and 1,5 Million tons of sulfur burned in the 
stratosphere the SRM method seems completely unsuitable to solve our 
climate problem. Not only that the SRM method does not reduce any of the 
increasing levels of the essential greenhouse gases CO2 and methane, it 
surely increases the CO2 gas level. Any reduction of the sun radiation 
at the surface decrease the assimilation by which plants transform CO2 
into organic C and oxygen. Further SRM would increase the methane level 
by decreasing the UV radiation dependent hydroxyl radical level which 
acts as a degradation tool to methane and further volatile organics 
because the sun radiation decrease by SRM concerns particularly the UV 
fraction.


It is my very hope that this article helps to reduce the hype about SRM.

Franz D. Oeste



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Andrew Lockley" 
An: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: 23.11.2018 16:36:27
Betreff: [geo] Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the 
first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience



http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/meta

Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years 
of deployment

Wake Smith1 and Gernot Wagner2

Published 23 November 2018 • © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP 
Publishing Ltd

Environmental Research Letters, Volume 13, Number 12
Download Article PDF DownloadArticle ePub
Article has an altmetric score of 157

Abstract
We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods 
intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a 
future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase 
in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by 
deploying material to altitudes as high as ~20 km. After surveying an 
exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an 
aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive 
study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), 
we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive 
modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also 
conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with 
substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically 
difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of 
~$1500 ton−1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ~$2.25 
billion yr−1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further 
calculate the number of flights at ~4000 in year one, linearly 
increasing by ~4000 yr−1. We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, 
such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the 
need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft 
operating from an international array of bases.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 

Re: [geo] Response of Surface Ultraviolet and Visible Radiation to Stratospheric SO2 Injections

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

The essential of this article describes one of the main problems of 
climate engineering by Solar Radiation Management (SRM): SRM will induce 
a substancial reduction of the UV radiation to the troposphere. The 
tropospheric photochemistry depends in a significant proportion on 
photochemical reactions including the short waved visible fraction and 
the UV fraction of the sun radiation. Particularly the greenhouse gases 
methane, the volatile organic compounds (VOC) and the indirect acting 
acting carbon monoxide (by hydroxyl radical consumption) become depleted 
by the tropospheric oxidants hydroxylradicals and chlorine atoms. These 
oxidants become emerged within the troposphere by the photolytic 
activity of the UV radiation and the short wave fraction of the visible 
solar radiation.


As a consequence of the described substantial UV reduction by SRM the 
life times of said greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would elongate and 
their concentration level would strongly increase. As a result of the 
greenhouse gas increase the much more efficient radiation absorption of 
the troposphere would wipe out the intended climate cooling effects of 
SRM.


Franz D. Oeste


gM-Ingenieurbüro

Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168 

Mobile +49 (0) 171-9526068 

oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com

www.gm-ingenieurbuero.com





The Solar Radiation Management (SRM) would reduce

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Simone Tilmes" 
An: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Sasha Madronich" 
Gesendet: 07.11.2018 17:54:57
Betreff: [geo] Response of Surface Ultraviolet and Visible Radiation to 
Stratospheric SO2 Injections



Just published:
Sasha Madronich et al., Atmosphere 2018, 9(11), 432; 
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110432 



Abstract:
Climate modification by stratospheric SO2 injections, to form sulfate 
aerosols, may alter the spectral and angular distributions of the solar 
ultraviolet and visible radiation that reach the Earth’s surface, with 
potential consequences to environmental photobiology and 
photochemistry. We used modeling results from the CESM1(WACCM) 
stratospheric aerosol geoengineering large ensemble (GLENS) project, 
following the RCP8.5 emission scenario, and one geoengineering 
experiment with SO2 injections in the stratosphere, designed to keep 
surface temperatures at 2020 levels. Zonally and monthly averaged 
vertical profiles of O3, SO2, and sulfate aerosols, at 30 N and 70 N, 
served as input into a radiative transfer model, to compute 
biologically active irradiances for DNA damage (iDNA), UV index (UVI), 
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and two key tropospheric 
photodissociation coefficients (jO1D for O3 + hν (λ < 330 nm) → O(1D) + 
O2; and jNO2 for NO2 + hν (λ < 420 nm) → O(3P) + NO). We show that the 
geoengineering scenario is accompanied by substantial reductions in UV 
radiation. For example, comparing March 2080 to March 2020, iDNA 
decreased by 25% to 29% in the subtropics (30 N) and by 26% to 33% in 
the polar regions (70 N); UVI decreased by 19% to 20% at 30 N and 23% 
to 26% at 70 N; and jO1D decreased by 22% to 24% at 30 N and 35% to 40% 
at 70 N, with comparable contributions from sulfate scattering and 
stratospheric O3 recovery. Different responses were found for processes 
that depend on longer UV and visible wavelengths, as these are 
minimally affected by ozone; PAR and jNO2 were only slightly lower 
(9–12%) at 30 N, but much lower at 70 N (35–40%). Similar reductions 
were estimated for other months (June, September, and December). Large 
increases in the PAR diffuse-direct ratio occurred in agreement with 
previous studies. Absorption by SO2 gas had a small (~1%) effect on 
jO1D, iDNA, and UVI, and no effect on jNO2 and PAR.



--
Simone Tilmes,
Atmospheric  Chemistry, Observations & Modeling Lab
National Center for Atmospheric Research
PO Box 3000
Boulder, Colorado  80307-3000
303-497-1445
303-497-1400 (fax)
til...@ucar.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Hurricane moderation

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Hi all,

The basis of the MCB method of Salter et al. is sea water. Sea water is 
a salty water with a slightly alkaline pH value above 7. The ISA method 
generated FeCl3 aerosol (ISA) has an acidic pH around 2.
This are not the only differences of the methods: The ocean surface 
needs an efficient cooling to prevent from hurricane developement. 
Salter's method delivers this cooling only by cloud whitening. The ISA 
method use cloud whitening plus several additional cooling methods like 
sea surface whitening/brightening by algae, methane depletion. 
According to this much more efficient sea surface cooling the ISA method 
is the better hurricane prevention than MCB.


Another article about the physics of hurricanes below.

Best,
Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Russell Seitz" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 16.09.2018 00:49:39
Betreff: [geo] Re: Hurricane moderation

Stephen, I'd direct your editors to Kerry Emmanuel's seminal paper on 
hurricane track cooling, as the published basis for considering both 
hurricane track cloud nucleation and sea surface albedo modulation to 
moderate strorms


On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 4:19:10 AM UTC-4, Stephen Salter 
wrote:

Hi All

I was asked to write something about hurricanes for a well known 
popular news outlet but they thought that it was too technical. 
However it might still be useful.   I hope that the ETC group can 
comment.




The formation of a hurricane depends on many factors including 
atmospheric water vapour, distance from the equator and the recent 
history of wind patterns.   But an essential requirement is a high sea 
surface temperature. To get from a tropical storm to the lowest 
category of hurricane requires a temperature of 26.5 C.  We can 
moderate hurricanes, or even prevent them, by reducing water 
temperature.


A useful start to any engineering project is the estimation of all the 
energy flows. One cubic metre of air at a temperature of 30 C can hold 
about 30 grams of water vapour. The energy to evaporate this is about 
the same as in 13 grams of TNT, enough for a nasty anti-personnel 
mine.  A cubic kilometre of such air contains the same energy as the 
Hiroshima bomb.  Hurricanes can be hundreds of kilometres in diameter 
and so contain tens of thousands of Hiroshimas.  If you have read this 
far you will know about the billions of lost dollars and thousands of 
deaths from this amount of energy.


Most of the hurricanes that reach America (with the exception of 
Harvey), start on the African side of the Atlantic near Cape Verde and 
grow as they move west. We can use Google Earth to measure the 
hurricane breeding area.  The US National Weather Service gives a warm 
water depth of 45 metres. To cool this volume by 2 C in 200 days needs 
more than 600 times the mean US electricity power generation. If you 
want to moderate a hurricane tomorrow, today is much too late.  You 
should have started last November.


All this heat has come from the sun.  Some could be reflected back out 
to space by clouds. The reflectivity of clouds was studied by Sean 
Twomey.  He flew over many clouds, scooped samples and measured the 
solar energy reflected from their tops.  He showed that reflectivity 
depends on the size distribution of drops.  Lots of small drops 
reflect more than the same amount of liquid water in fewer, larger 
ones.  In typical conditions, doubling the cloud drop number increases 
reflectivity by a bit over 0.05.


Making cloud drops needs a high humidity but also some kind of ‘seed’ 
called a condensation nucleus on which to start growth.  There are 
thousands of condensation nuclei per cubic centimetre of air over land 
but fewer in air over mid ocean, often less than 50. John Latham 
suggested that the salt residues left from the evaporation of a spray 
of sub-micron drops of sea water would be excellent condensation 
nuclei. They would be moved from the sea surface by turbulence to 
produce a fairly even distribution upwards through the marine boundary 
layer to where clouds form.


The condensation nuclei could be produced by wind-driven sailing 
vessels cruising along the hurricane breeding areas getting energy 
from their motion through the water. We can make spray by pumping 
water through very small nozzles etched in the silicon wafers used for 
making microchips. The main technical problem is that sea water is 
full of plankton much larger than nozzles.  This can be filtered using 
ultra-filtration technology with back-flushing, originally developed 
for removing polio viruses from drinking water. Each vessel would 
produce 0.8 micron diameter drops at 1017 a second.


Spray operations would depend on the pattern of sea surface 
temperatures as measured by satellites. We want the trajectory of 
temperature rises through the year from November to the following July 
to be those that an international panel of meteorologists think will 
give a desirable rainfall pattern from ‘gentle’ tropical 

Re: [geo] A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Michael Wolovick's idea remembers to SRM: such methods try to cool the 
planet's fever, but don't remove its cause.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Renaud de RICHTER" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 12.01.2018 10:22:44
Betreff: [geo] A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level 
Rise



https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/a-new-geo-engineering-proposal-to-stop-sea-level-rise/550214/


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed | Nature Energy

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Unfortunatly this paper cannot be printed or downloaded!

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Leon Di Marco" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 05.01.2018 02:19:27
Betreff: [geo] Re: [CDR] Open discussion of negative emissions is 
urgently needed | Nature Energy


this Nature paper is available open source. Their argument is worth 
making but it barely mentions DACS (once) and is really a continuation 
of Kevin Andersons argument about the use of CDR in models being a way 
of avoiding the otherwise large necessary reductions in emissions.
Unfortunately the use of the term sequestration in  DACS always seems 
to refer  to the burying CO2 whereas a more  viable technique is to use 
mineralisation


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0055-2.epdf?shared_access_token=z9LbPci40RVKj0RQ_ZyRItRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NdQSexgHYhXb9n4Co_y53y9zRasVs-0I9FQMRRQdHMG9tXISn7ZQP5wCVJQJDTrAYwUmmwgy_gRuTZ9jcOJukl1SzPGePulty9Rmk5LVo5atbGFncShgML7CPJzynqarYf31khToc0VQ98tnfLoF1fQOw1oJ6kqHe9aogK1TpaH0TT-VJglyVbRo8MbLN1134%3D_content=buffera7f45_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer




On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 10:50:29 PM UTC, Andrew Lockley wrote:

x-post
-- Forwarded message --
From: Greg Rau
Date: 18 December 2017 at 07:25
Subject: Re: [CDR] Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently 
needed | Nature Energy

To: Carbon Dioxide Removal 


I receive a copy of the paper from the author. I can send to 
individuals if interested.


This paper seems to argue that we might have the luxury of not using 
NETs (even if available) and seems to assume that the risks of using 
NETs could outweigh the risk of not using them:


"If NETs are not implemented, the inevitable conclusion
is that, given the lifetime of most energy
infrastructure, not only is an immediate
decarbonization of new investments
needed, but most likely also a premature
replacement of existing capital."
GR - Sounds like we are giving up on CCS, esp retrofit CCS? But, 
curiously, CCS is at the heart of BECCS. How is CCS magically going to 
be widely used for BE, but not for FE?


"in terms of technology development
per se, development needs for BECCS do
not seem overly challenging.."
GR - Except it will increase in the cost of electricity by 80% (IPCC 
2014).

And then there's this:
"A possibly much more problematic factor
than technological feasibility, certainly in
the short term, is the lack of societal and
governmental support for CCS. Several
CCS demonstration projects proposed in the
past few years (such as Barendrecht in the
Netherlands and Peterhead in the UK) have
been cancelled because of public opposition
or lack of broad political support
although other projects have been more
successful."
GR - Why can we expect BECCS to be more acceptable?

"If it becomes clear over time that the (theoretical) potential
of NETs cannot be exploited to the levels
currently anticipated by the scenarios,
there is only little room left for alternative
approaches to compensate for the overshoot
of the carbon budget. For other low-carbon
or zero-carbon technologies, in contrast,
there are many more substitutes. Wind
power, for example, can be replaced by
both photovoltaics and nuclear power,
if it performs worse in the future than
anticipated in the scenarios.

GR We very well may run short of NETs capacity unless we have policy 
and R programs that better define the capacity and characteristics 
of the approaches currently on the table and that solicites and 
evaluates new ideas.  For example there are ways to convert 
high-capacity, emissions-neutral electricity (your wind, solar, 
nuclear, ocean) to negative-emissions energy.  Job 1 should be to find 
out what all of our CDR options are before locking in policies and 
technologies on the current favorites.


"Given the tight carbon budget consistent with the 2 °C target, a 
timely decision needs to be made on how much we want to limit (or even 
totally avoid) NETs or not, otherwise 2 °C might already be beyond 
reach within a decade."


GR How about - Given the tight carbon budget consistent with the
2 °C target, a timely decision needs to be made on 1) how much we will 
limit emissions and if this is inadequate, 2) how much NETs will be 
needed to mitigate the emissions reduction shortfall and 3) what are 
the best ways to do this??? Otherwise,

2 °C will, indeed, be beyond reach (save SRM?).

"In fact, for 1.5 °C, such discussion would realistically focus on how 
much NETs is
acceptable [? surely they meant "needed"]. This poses an acute and 
very
difficult policy challenge, as meeting the Paris targets most likely 
either means a
very rapid immediate decarbonization of the energy system (with no or 
limited
NETs) or accepting the risks associated with pathways relying greatly 
on NETs."


GR The difficult policy challenges are 1) acknowledging the very real 

Re[2]: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

 
became the restriction to present only that poster out of the four 
presenting the causes and dangers by icecap melt induced euxinia to 
marine life. This of our posters had the smallest part of information 
about the ISA method. Why did the SRM lobby do this? Might be they know 
about the disadvantages of their SRM method and they might fear any 
honest discussion about the pros and cons of the different CE methods 
SRM and ISA? Or might be there are other reasons hidden behind this 
unscientific behaviour?


Franz Dietrich Oeste

gM-Ingenieurbüro

Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168 <tel:+49%206422%2085168>

Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068 <tel:+49%20171%209526068>

oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk>
An: "'Andrew Lockley'" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>; 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Gesendet: 19.10.2017 12:20:32
Betreff: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC


Dear Andrew,



Neither calcium chloride or calcium carbonate are going to cause 
pollution if dispersed at large scale.  I suspect that you have no 
concerns about calcium carbonate (chalk) but are thinking about calcium 
chloride. Calcium chloride has been widely used as a de-icer for the 
last hundred years in very large quantities. Millions of tons per year 
are applied to roads. When it dries and powders, it creates dusts that 
have not been linked any environmental problems as far as I know. Above 
oceans, dusts containing chloride and calcium ions are common as sea 
water contains both of these ions in large quantities. Calcium 
chlorides have been used as refrigerator brines for more than my 
lifetime. Any text book on this will cover calcium chloride brines. I 
don't think paper references are need for this.




Regarding the creation of fine particle aerosols using spinning disks, 
this came out of discussion with Adrian Faulkner, one of the owners of 
PNR UK Limited which produces and distributes spray nozzles for making 
fine particle sprays. The conversation came about because we were 
trying to make fine particle high surface area sprays of slurries of 
gypsum and calcium carbonate under very low energy input conditions. 
This was challenging and we were experiencing repeated clogging 
problems. After many trials with a number of nozzles, Adrian explains 
an alternative method for making fine particle sprays as we were 
getting pretty frustrated. He suggested dropping the pumped slurry 
(needs to not be too thick and watery enough to spread and film) onto a 
disk that is spinning. The higher the speed, the greater the throw and 
the finer the spray. He also indicated that fine grooves in the disk 
would aid creation of finer particles. This is a low energy means of 
making fine particle sprays as fluids can be released at essentially 
zero pressure onto the spinning disk. Normally spray heads are energy 
intense because the fluids have to be pumped at high pressure to drive 
the atomisation process. The rule of thumb is the finer the spray, the 
higher the pressure. The spinning disk method avoids this problem and 
solves the clogging issue. The principles he outlined are sound. 
Unfortunately spinning disks give significant "throw" of the created 
particles which is not as useful in a confined space if you want to 
dense mists of fine particles for carbon capture. If you set up several 
spinning disks,  the particles collide and become bigger which was not 
helpful for us. This would not be a problem if you were trying the 
create an aerosol in the high atmosphere from a single spinning disk.




Dave





From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 October 2017 14:35
To: David Sevier
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC



How would it disperse in (sub) micron sizes?



Please answer on the list - maybe with a proposal paper?



Small volumes may not be polluting, but large volumes may be a problem.



A



On 18 Oct 2017 12:29, "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> 
wrote:


Andrew,



Now I understand your question. There is no propellant. Nothing in the 
slurry  of water, calcium chloride (widely used on roads as a de-icer 
and occurs naturally) and fine powder calcium carbonate is polluting.  
The pressure washer creates pressure via cylinder compression. The 
antifreeze properties are needed because the temperatures are cold in 
the high atmosphere.




Dave



From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 October 2017 19:08
To: David Sevier
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC



How are you getting the propellant down?



Pls answer on list



On 17 Oct 2017 18:41, "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> 
wrote:


I believe that you will find that rail guns are rather more developed 
than you believe but all of it is classified and basicall

Re[2]: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon Emissions

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Prof. Crutzen,

many thanks for your friendly comment to our ISA method. It is your 
second one I got from you during the long lasting period about the ISA 
method. Remember, in 2002 you gave a first comment about the ISA method 
to Dr. Rolf Sartorius of the German Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Since these 
old days a huge quantity of new aspects of this complex natural climate 
cooling process became revealed. But every week new surprising aspects 
of this process arise as you could notice from my comment.


Please let me take this chance to correct the bad mistake I did in my 
comment within the first line of the fourth paragraph: Instead of the 
lowest part of the stratosphere the ISA method is restricted to the 
lowesst part of the troposphere!


Warm regards,
Franz D. Oeste


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Crutzen, Paul" <paul.crut...@mpic.de>
An: "oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
Gesendet: 02.09.2017 21:36:47
Betreff: Re: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon 
Emissions



Thank you for these comments.


Sent from my iPad

On 1. Sep 2017, at 13:54, Franz Dietrich Oeste 
<oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com> wrote:


Gaia's system is much more complex as most climate engineers might 
imagine: plant roots use chemical, mechanical and biological means to 
extract nutrients and micronutrients out of the ground within they 
grow. Roots excrete CO2 and organic complexants into the ground and 
they cooperate with mykorrhiza fungi to activate the dissolution of 
all kind of minerals like quartz, fieldspar, calcite, magnetite, 
hematite, goethite, phosphate minerals etc. Additional the roots creep 
into smallest rock joins and use mechanical pressure induced by growth 
to widen the joints. The CO2 concentration level within the soil where 
plant roots grow is up to two orders of magnitude higher than in the 
atmosphere. Plants living within anaerobic wetland habitats like 
willow, alder, reed, rush, water lilly even pump oxygen by their roots 
into their anaerobic habitat to help microbes living around their 
roots to oxidize toxins like ammonia and hydrogensulfide. The positive 
effect to the climate of these wetland plants is their direct help to 
minimize emissions of methane from the wetlands and to produce 
microbial generated sulfate even from sulfur containing minerals like 
pyrite. The plant root induced oxidation products sulfate and nitrate 
act as fertilizer and further, additional to the root-exceted oxygen, 
are used by the wetland soil microbes to oxidize methane before it has 
the chance to emit from the wetland.


Summing up, plants do much more than greenhouse gas depletion by 
assimilation: additional they enhance CO2 capture by weathering of 
continental surfaces and prevent from methane emission. Further they 
generate sulfate which is used as methane depletion oxidant in oxygen 
depleted parts of the ocean and at the surfaces of the sediments. The 
latter even reduces methane emission.


These efficient plant-induced climate cooling methods deserve support. 
The rcent most praised and supported CE measure is the SRM method. SRM 
has no greenhouse depleting potential. And SRM does just the opposite 
to this natural climate control: the sunshine-dimming SRM method 
generates its aerosol plume above the whole planets surface. According 
to the SRM solar radiation dimming the CO2 depletion of all planets 
plant and cyanobacterial life doing CO2 and methane depletion by 
assimilation and weathering enhancement becomes reduced. Thus SRM does 
probable more harm to planets ecosystems than helping them to survive.


We analyzed the most efficient natural climate cooling system by dust 
which was activ during the glacial times. It is simple, needs only 
iron-containing dust and sea spray, acts only in restricted regions 
within the lowest part of the stratosphere. According to the results 
of our analysis we developed the technical equivalent of Gaia's 
greenhouse gas depletion CE method: the ISA method  - description can 
be found at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/  The ISA method 
activates even the part of natural CE methods described above.


But as often as we tried to gain notice, resonance or discussion by 
the google group about our ISA method, attention kept very restricted. 
Reason for this low attention level can't be the "disadvantage" of the 
ISA method's technical simplicity and its low technic and economic 
expense. According to the SRM method aerosols or aerosol precursors 
have to become lifted to hights of at least 20 km above ground: this 
catapults technic and economic expenses into ranges orders of 
magnitude higher than necessary for the ISA method. Might be 
difficulties in comprehension the complexicity of its acting the 
reason?


Franz D. Oeste


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
An: "Geoengineering" <geo

Re[2]: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon Emissions

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Steven

Yes I know that very well. I only speak of stratospheric aerosol as you 
can notice from the last abstract in my mail. Additional to the many 
photochemical, chemical and biological greenhouse gas depletion 
mechanisms of the ISA method its plume of hygroscopic iron and halogenid 
containing aerosol particles has excellent cloud condensation properties 
and acts in the same way than your cloud whitening method by albedo 
increase of the the lowest cloud layer of the troposphere. Because our 
methods can be restricted to parts of the globe any possible impact on 
ecosystems keeps regional restricted - opposite to the global action of 
stratospheric SRM.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>
An: oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com
Gesendet: 01.09.2017 15:24:58
Betreff: Re: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon 
Emissions



Franz

The objections you raise about SRM do not apply to marine cloud 
brightening.  We are working over mid-ocean. By cooling the water 
surface we may even increase  nutrients for phytoplankton.  We can even 
target young hurricanes.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 01/09/2017 12:54, Franz Dietrich Oeste wrote:
Gaia's system is much more complex as most climate engineers might 
imagine: plant roots use chemical, mechanical and biological means to 
extract nutrients and micronutrients out of the ground within they 
grow. Roots excrete CO2 and organic complexants into the ground and 
they cooperate with mykorrhiza fungi to activate the dissolution of 
all kind of minerals like quartz, fieldspar, calcite, magnetite, 
hematite, goethite, phosphate minerals etc. Additional the roots creep 
into smallest rock joins and use mechanical pressure induced by growth 
to widen the joints. The CO2 concentration level within the soil where 
plant roots grow is up to two orders of magnitude higher than in the 
atmosphere. Plants living within anaerobic wetland habitats like 
willow, alder, reed, rush, water lilly even pump oxygen by their roots 
into their anaerobic habitat to help microbes living around their 
roots to oxidize toxins like ammonia and hydrogensulfide. The positive 
effect to the climate of these wetland plants is their direct help to 
minimize emissions of methane from the wetlands and to produce 
microbial generated sulfate even from sulfur containing minerals like 
pyrite. The plant root induced oxidation products sulfate and nitrate 
act as fertilizer and further, additional to the root-exceted oxygen, 
are used by the wetland soil microbes to oxidize methane before it has 
the chance to emit from the wetland.


Summing up, plants do much more than greenhouse gas depletion by 
assimilation: additional they enhance CO2 capture by weathering of 
continental surfaces and prevent from methane emission. Further they 
generate sulfate which is used as methane depletion oxidant in oxygen 
depleted parts of the ocean and at the surfaces of the sediments. The 
latter even reduces methane emission.


These efficient plant-induced climate cooling methods deserve support. 
The rcent most praised and supported CE measure is the SRM method. SRM 
has no greenhouse depleting potential. And SRM does just the opposite 
to this natural climate control: the sunshine-dimming SRM method 
generates its aerosol plume above the whole planets surface. According 
to the SRM solar radiation dimming the CO2 depletion of all planets 
plant and cyanobacterial life doing CO2 and methane depletion by 
assimilation and weathering enhancement becomes reduced. Thus SRM does 
probable more harm to planets ecosystems than helping them to survive.


We analyzed the most efficient natural climate cooling system by dust 
which was activ during the glacial times. It is simple, needs only 
iron-containing dust and sea spray, acts only in restricted regions 
within the lowest part of the stratosphere. According to the results 
of our analysis we developed the technical equivalent of Gaia's 
greenhouse gas depletion CE method: the ISA method  - description can 
be found at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/  The ISA method 
activates even the part of natural CE methods described above.


But as often as we tried to gain notice, resonance or discussion by 
the google group about our ISA method, attention kept very restricted. 
Reason for this low attention level can't be the "disadvantage" of the 
ISA method's technical simplicity and its low technic and economic 
expense. According to the SRM method aerosols or aerosol precursors 
have to become lifted to hights of at least 20 km above ground: this 
catapults technic and economic expenses into ranges orders of 
magnitude higher than ne

Re: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon Emissions

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Gaia's system is much more complex as most climate engineers might 
imagine: plant roots use chemical, mechanical and biological means to 
extract nutrients and micronutrients out of the ground within they grow. 
Roots excrete CO2 and organic complexants into the ground and they 
cooperate with mykorrhiza fungi to activate the dissolution of all kind 
of minerals like quartz, fieldspar, calcite, magnetite, hematite, 
goethite, phosphate minerals etc. Additional the roots creep into 
smallest rock joins and use mechanical pressure induced by growth to 
widen the joints. The CO2 concentration level within the soil where 
plant roots grow is up to two orders of magnitude higher than in the 
atmosphere. Plants living within anaerobic wetland habitats like willow, 
alder, reed, rush, water lilly even pump oxygen by their roots into 
their anaerobic habitat to help microbes living around their roots to 
oxidize toxins like ammonia and hydrogensulfide. The positive effect to 
the climate of these wetland plants is their direct help to minimize 
emissions of methane from the wetlands and to produce microbial 
generated sulfate even from sulfur containing minerals like pyrite. The 
plant root induced oxidation products sulfate and nitrate act as 
fertilizer and further, additional to the root-exceted oxygen, are used 
by the wetland soil microbes to oxidize methane before it has the chance 
to emit from the wetland.


Summing up, plants do much more than greenhouse gas depletion by 
assimilation: additional they enhance CO2 capture by weathering of 
continental surfaces and prevent from methane emission. Further they 
generate sulfate which is used as methane depletion oxidant in oxygen 
depleted parts of the ocean and at the surfaces of the sediments. The 
latter even reduces methane emission.


These efficient plant-induced climate cooling methods deserve support. 
The rcent most praised and supported CE measure is the SRM method. SRM 
has no greenhouse depleting potential. And SRM does just the opposite to 
this natural climate control: the sunshine-dimming SRM method generates 
its aerosol plume above the whole planets surface. According to the SRM 
solar radiation dimming the CO2 depletion of all planets plant and 
cyanobacterial life doing CO2 and methane depletion by assimilation and 
weathering enhancement becomes reduced. Thus SRM does probable more harm 
to planets ecosystems than helping them to survive.


We analyzed the most efficient natural climate cooling system by dust 
which was activ during the glacial times. It is simple, needs only 
iron-containing dust and sea spray, acts only in restricted regions 
within the lowest part of the stratosphere. According to the results of 
our analysis we developed the technical equivalent of Gaia's greenhouse 
gas depletion CE method: the ISA method  - description can be found at 
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/  The ISA method activates even 
the part of natural CE methods described above.


But as often as we tried to gain notice, resonance or discussion by the 
google group about our ISA method, attention kept very restricted. 
Reason for this low attention level can't be the "disadvantage" of the 
ISA method's technical simplicity and its low technic and economic 
expense. According to the SRM method aerosols or aerosol precursors have 
to become lifted to hights of at least 20 km above ground: this 
catapults technic and economic expenses into ranges orders of magnitude 
higher than necessary for the ISA method. Might be difficulties in 
comprehension the complexicity of its acting the reason?


Franz D. Oeste


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Greg Rau" 
An: "Geoengineering" 
Cc: "scott.john...@arstechnica.com" 
Gesendet: 31.08.2017 21:03:41
Betreff: [geo] The Tricky Future of Capturing the World’s Carbon 
Emissions






https://medium.com/s/how-geoengineering-really-works/the-tricky-future-of-capturing-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-218963d12f97

"If you’re thinking the solution is as easy as planting trees, I have 
some bad news for you: While it’s true that photosynthesizing plants 
take in carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen, they really only take up 
enough carbon to build their own cells. And when a plant dies and 
decays, most of that carbon ends up right back in the atmosphere.
Forests aren’t so much “lungs” that constantly filter out carbon 
dioxide as they are standing stores of it. That means that, practically 
speaking, reforestation could only pull as much CO2 out of the 
atmosphere as past deforestation put up there in the first place.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report 
 estimated that human changes to the 
landscape (mostly deforestation) added about 180 billion tons of carbon 
to the atmosphere between 1750 and 2011. Globally, the next decade of 
our greenhouse gas emissions could just 

[geo] Developement of a scoring system able to perform an independent and honest CE method comparison

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

it!




Best regards,

Franz Dietrich Oeste


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[2]: [geo] Master’s thesis comparing CDR strategies

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Mark,
We support your plan to release a report about CO2 removal options 
because the sustained greenhouse gas removal is the only option of a 
successful fight against the climate warming problem.
Nonetheless, we want to direct your attention to the ISA method. This 
method mimics the natural process of climate cooling by removal of 
several greenhouse gases (methane, CO2, and tropospheric ozone) from the 
atmosphere and by increase of the cloud albedo. To our opinion it is the 
most efficient climate cooling method according to its simplicity and 
its outstanding economy. You will find its full description at 
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017.pdf

All best,
Franz D. Oeste

gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168
Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068
oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com
www.gm-ingenieubuero.com

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Mark Barteau" 
An: durb...@gmail.com; "geoengineering" 


Gesendet: 27.07.2017 01:42:29
Betreff: Re: [geo] Master’s thesis comparing CDR strategies

It has been. It is student work of uneven quality.  We are actively 
editing it and plan to release as a report from the University of 
Michigan Energy Institute within the next two months. I will post it 
when we do.


Mark Barteau
Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute

On 7/26/2017 6:47 PM, Eric Durbrow wrote:



Forgive me if this has already been posted. It is a U Mich Master’s 
thesis (2017) comparing a dozen or so CDR strategies by gigatons of 
carbon captured.


https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/136610/315_CarbonDioxideRemovalOptions.pdf?sequence=1=y

Comparison table starts page 17
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[2]: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

To my opinion even the growing industry of fish farming and further 
similar actions to breed sea food do much harm to ocean ecosystems. May 
be much more than this iron fertilizing action - if it becomes 
controlled and monitored by independant experts.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Russell Seitz / Bright Water" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Cc: briancady...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net
Gesendet: 10.06.2017 01:06:40
Betreff: Re: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

The cosmos  seems to have a hands on policy with regard to the 
"pristine" ocean.


The annual micrometeorite dust flux exceeds 20,000 tonnes, and 
macroscopic meteorites average  roughly 12 %  metallic irom containing 
4-12%  nickel ,  some 73% of which lands in Earth's  oceans.


 As this flux accordingly exceeds that from marine corrosion of 
man-made iron ships and structures  by several orders of magnitude , 
and  the biogeochemical cycle of iron dwarfs both of these sources,  It 
is hard to  understand  why  opponents of  the proposed iron 
experiments presume to advertise them as existential threats.


On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:11:23 AM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote:
For some perspective on why we haven't converted ocean deserts to C 
sinks, see these early arguments from some very influential 
oceanographic heavyweights
http://www.bio.miami.edu/prince/Chisholm.pdf 



Ken and I offered an alternative to this "hands off the ocean" view 
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5553/275.4.full 
 but to 
little effect.


Now that we've learned that land biology manipulations aren't going to 
singelhandley save our bacon (or the ocean):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2016EF000469/asset/eft2203.pdf?v=1=j3pbjnzv=8ecb4ce810928afd86afbe71a43e4c644cb0149a 

is it time yet to revisit what the other 70% of the Earth's surface 
and 99% of it's livable volume might have to offer? Or shall the false 
concept of preserving a "still pristine" ocean remain the enemy of 
research into potentially planet-saving actions?


Greg




From: Brian Cady 
To: geoengineering 
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 5:17 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

Perhaps it will help to emphasize the scale of the OIF opportunity. It 
takes energy to fix air's carbon, and sunlight is a most sustainable 
energy source. Much earth-incident sunlight is already used by life on 
earth, but desert areas as well as High Nutrient - Low Chlorophyll 
ocean (HNLC) areas both have low productivity. Deserts cover 10% of 
earth’s dry land, while HNLC waters stretch across 1/5th of the 
oceans, Dry land covers nearly 30% of earth, while water covers about 
70%. 10% of 30% is 3%; 20% of 70% is 14%, 4.8-fold more, hence, 
opportunities for engaging sunlight energy in carbon reduction in HNLC 
waters may exceed those in deserts. Providing trace iron to HNLC areas 
may be the least expensive carbon fix, and, as Russell Weitz points 
out, we're already doing it unintentionally through ship rusting, as 
well as through combustion of iron-containing fuel in ships, etc. that 
cross HNLC areas.


On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-4, Russell Seitz / Bright 
Water wrote:
Let me repeat the essence of what I wrote in response to Jeff in 
Nature--


Marine corrosion  results in every  unprotected square meter of a 
steel ship's immersed surface sheding an average of 8 g/m2  or more 
of iron a year. The average laden vessel-  a 30,000 tonne Handymax, 
has an immersed surface of  ~8,000 m2, and large containerships and 
tankers run up to 2 hectares each.  so each ship may be expected to 
shed  roughly six to twentty kg a year. As the world fleetin service 
exceeds 10,000 such ships, iron fertilization in the sea lanes is 
already  in the range of 60 to 200 tonnes of iron.. not counting 
smaller but more numerous  craft, many correctly classified as 
'rustbuckets, ' sunken vessells and iron wharfage and coastal 
protection.


If as little as  a few %  of  the  immersed  steel has been 
imperfectly maintained ,the 10 tonne  release criterion has been met 
or exceeded -annually, for roughly the last 100 years-




On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 3:11:24 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote:


https://www.nature.com/news/ iron-dumping-ocean-experiment- 
sparks-controversy-1.22031 



Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy
Canadian foundation says its field research could boost fisheries in 
Chile, but researchers doubt its 

Re[2]: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Hi Robert,

The drill cores taken from Arctic and Antarctic ice shields and ocean 
sediments revealed for the last million years, that the iron containing 
dust driven through the atmosphere had several influences on surface 
temperature processing: During times of high dust concentration, 
manyfold higher than recent, the surface temperature level decreased up 
to 8 °C below normal. During times of low dust concentration, lower than 
recent, the surface temperature increased to levels above the recent 
surface level generating subtropical climate in central Europe. While 
the dusty glacial age eolic dust sediment generated fertile soils on the 
continent surfaces it produced phytoplankton blooms at the ocean 
surfaces and activated the conversion of the gaseous greenhouse carbons 
into solid carbon fixed as carbonate rock and organic bound carbon in 
ocean sediments and ocean crust fissures. This dust-induced carbon 
conversion had been very active because it induced more than halfening 
of the greenhouse gases methane and CO2 levels.


On the basis of todays scientific knowledge nobody can deny the iron 
induced activation of the transformation of the greenhouse gases into 
solid and other condensed carbon forms. Further: any CO2 carbon bound by 
the phytoplankton as organic and carbonate carbon becomes at last fixed 
as sediment carbon or mineralizes within the ocean crust. And the 
pretended CO2 desorption of reoxidized former phytoplankton organic 
carbon litter back to the atmosphere is nothing but a mystery: it has 
been assertet often but has never been proved. And as far as the oxygen 
content of the fertilized ocean areal is kept at sufficient levels and 
as far as no algae toxins develope, even the food chain including fish 
might become activated.


But additional to this phytoplankton ferilizing effect dust has some 
more cooling effects on the climate. Even within the atmosphere dust 
induces photolytic methane depletion, cloud whitening, and depletes 
tropospheric ozone greenhouse gas.
And said fertilizing effect of dust may be spread over a multiple of the 
ocean surface of the square which can be fertilized by the liquid iron 
salt dump method.


The ocean fertilization tests by liquid iron salt solution dumping into 
the ocean carried out so far aiming to induce the activation of certain 
parts of the ocean food chain undoubtly might have had success; but to 
my opinion these methods are rather unlike to the natural example and 
they might induce problems to the ecosystems. But the latter can be 
avoided by a closer mimic to the natural processing. In the order to do 
this and inspired by this natural dust process we developed the ISA 
method to optimize this nature process and made it technical 
controllable and described it very recently. If interested you can 
dounload our paper at:http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/.


Franz


gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168

Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068

oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com



-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" 

An: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ; 
"geoengineering" 

Gesendet: 26.05.2017 14:28:35
Betreff: Re: [geo] Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy

This article from Nature 
 
contains an appalling lie about the 2012 Haida Salmon Experiment.


The Nature article falsely states "scientists have seen no evidence 
that the experiment worked."  This alleged failure to see any evidence 
ignores extensive data and theory supporting the Haida Salmon results.


Here is one link to the scientific evidence that Nature claims does not 
exist.  Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | 
PlanetSave 
 
states the Haida Salmon Restoration Project may have "worked much more 
dramatically than anyone could have foreseen... satellite imagery 
showed that a massive 10,000 square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had 
developed in the Gulf of Alaska, centred around the area which was 
seeded with iron sulfate. The following year, in 2013, catches of pink 
salmon from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% increase over the 
previous year."


The corrupted politics of the climate lobby are vividly illustrated by 
this failure of Nature magazine to apply basic standards of rigour and 
fact checking to its false statement about evidence for the Haida 
Salmon experiment.


Best of luck to the Chile entrepreneurs.  You are up against a venal 
climate lobby who do not appear to care about biodiversity or climate 
repair, and who are happy to promote false claims denigrating ocean 
iron fertilization in support of dubious political objectives.


Robert Tulip

Ocean 

Re[4]: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

I am not in opposition to your arguments, that the biotic carbonates 
presents the biggest fraction of fixed carbon on the continents and a 
multiple of any organic carbon remnant. Because this kind of biotic 
generated sediments precipitated in shallow shelf seas and not within 
the ocean crust they kept mostly part of the continents and could pile 
up to huge mountains like the dolomites or impressive cliffs like that 
of dover. While these caronate rock sediments piled up on the 
continents they represent today the most prominent remnants of former 
atmospheric CO2. Do you believe that biogene deposition of carbonate 
rock is of greater importance than abiogene carbonate deposition within 
the ocean crust?


If you would gather the carbonate rock stored within the ocean crust and 
generated during only some million years and pile them up on a 
continents surface you might even generate mountain ranges or imposant 
cliffs not smaller than your examples. But the ocean crust becomes 
subduced and sinks back into the mantle. Only crust remnants are 
subduction volcanic exhalations and eruption plumes and only some sparce 
remnants like the ophiolite mountains of Oman.


Your original argument was: "weathering of olivine sand that is spread 
over land or in shallow seas is much more effective" than "activation 
of the vertical oceanic currents". I can't find any proof in your 
arguments for that.




-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>
An: "'Franz Dietrich Oeste'" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
Gesendet: 09.05.2017 15:16:36
Betreff: RE: Re[2]: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich

These data are rather irrelevant regarding the capture of CO2 after 
olivine weathering. The Mg-bicarbonate water produced by olivine 
weathering on land is transported to the sea by rivers. In the sea 
corals, shellfish and plankton make their skeletons from this, and when 
they die, these shells sink to the bottom and form limestones. 
Limestones contain approximately 1 million times (!!!) more CO2 than 
all the seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together, so they are 
the safe and sustainable storage of CO2. Best regards, Olaf Schuilin






From: Franz Dietrich Oeste [mailto:oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com]
Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 14:57
To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
Subject: Re[2]: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich



Dear Olaf,



Olivine sand spread over land or in shallow seas reacts with CO2 by 
generation of MgCO3, or dissolved MgH(CO3)2. According to several 
reasons the igneous ocean crust is much more efficient in production of 
carbonate rock by CO2 fixation:


Olivine containing crust rocks becomes transformed by the warmed up 
ocean water by heat generation and volume expansion into serpentine 
rock, magnetite and hydrogen. Hydrogen and its microbial reaction 
product methane react with the ocean water sulfate by generation of 
sulfide. This again increases the pH and initiates additional carbonate 
rock precipitation from seawater CO2 and HCO3-.The elevated 
temperatures of the solidified igneous rock and generated by the 
serpentinization reaction induce further precipitation of carbonate 
rock from dissolved CO2 and HCO3-.The volume expansion during the 
serpentinization reaction as well as the sudden cooling by contact of 
hot stone with cold ocean water induce lots of cracks and opens 
countless vains as new reaction sites and places for carbonate 
precipitationThis increases and optimizes the carbonate precipitation: 
without any additional CO2 producing artificial energy input which is 
necessary to crush peridotites, serpentinites, diabases or olivine-rich 
basaltes to induce artificial weathering
According to Rausch et al. (2013) the carbonate rock generated within 
the veins of crust rock from ocean water rock reaction is about 1.6 
vol.%. According to Li et al. (2016) the production rate of crust rock 
is recently at about 20 cubic kilometers per year. This responds to 
about 0,32 cubic kilometers new carbonate rock per year. After the 
reaction with ocean water and assuming a dolomite like composition of 
the precipitating carbonate rock in the veins and assuming a carbonate 
rock density  of 2.9 x 10 exp. 9 t/cubic kilometer this corresponds to 
about 0,93 x 10 exp. 9 t of dolomite or 0,12 x 10 exp. 9 t of carbon.




According to this result an equivalent mass of CO2 is absorbed every 
year by extraction of CO2 from the air by ocean water and HCO3- by 
surface water run-off into the ocean and becomes transported from the 
ocean surface by the vertical cycling ocean currents to the ocean 
bottom. Even a great part of the dead phytoplankton and further food 
chain litter produced at the ocean surface becomes reoxidized on its 
way down: this part of CO2 and/or HCO3- even becomes part of the 
carbonatized ocean crust.




Literature

Li M, Black B, Zhong S, Manga M, Rudolph ML, Olson P, 2016: 
Quantifiying me

Fw: Re[2]: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Olaf,

Olivine sand spread over land or in shallow seas reacts with CO2 by 
generation of MgCO3, or dissolved MgH(CO3)2. According to several 
reasons the igneous ocean crust is much more efficient in production of 
carbonate rock by CO2 fixation:
Olivine containing crust rocks becomes transformed by the warmed up 
ocean water by heat generation and volume expansion into serpentine 
rock, magnetite and hydrogen. Hydrogen and its microbial reaction 
product methane react with the ocean water sulfate by generation of 
sulfide. This again increases the pH and initiates additional carbonate 
rock precipitation from seawater CO2 and HCO3-.The elevated temperatures 
of the solidified igneous rock and generated by the serpentinization 
reaction induce further precipitation of carbonate rock from dissolved 
CO2 and HCO3-.The volume expansion during the serpentinization reaction 
as well as the sudden cooling by contact of hot stone with cold ocean 
water induce lots of cracks and opens countless vains as new reaction 
sites and places for carbonate precipitationThis increases and optimizes 
the carbonate precipitation: without any additional CO2 producing 
artificial energy input which is necessary to crush peridotites, 
serpentinites, diabases or olivine-rich basaltes to induce artificial 
weathering
According to Rausch et al. (2013) the carbonate rock generated within 
the veins of crust rock from ocean water rock reaction is about 1.6 
vol.%. According to Li et al. (2016) the production rate of crust rock 
is recently at about 20 cubic kilometers per year. This responds to 
about 0,32 cubic kilometers new carbonate rock per year. After the 
reaction with ocean water and assuming a dolomite like composition of 
the precipitating carbonate rock in the veins and assuming a carbonate 
rock density  of 2.9 x 10 exp. 9 t/cubic kilometer this corresponds to 
about 0,93 x 10 exp. 9 t of dolomite or 0,12 x 10 exp. 9 t of carbon.


According to this result an equivalent mass of CO2 is absorbed every 
year by extraction of CO2 from the air by ocean water and HCO3- by 
surface water run-off into the ocean and becomes transported from the 
ocean surface by the vertical cycling ocean currents to the ocean 
bottom. Even a great part of the dead phytoplankton and further food 
chain litter produced at the ocean surface becomes reoxidized on its way 
down: this part of CO2 and/or HCO3- even becomes part of the 
carbonatized ocean crust.


Literature
Li M, Black B, Zhong S, Manga M, Rudolph ML, Olson P, 2016: Quantifiying 
melt production and degassing rate at mid-ocean ridges from global 
mantle convection models with plate motion history. Geochemistry, 
Geophysics, Geosystems, 17(7), 2884-2904.
Rausch S, Böhm F, Bach W, Eisenhauer A, 2013: Calcium carbonate veins in 
ocean crust record a threefold increase of seawater Mg/Ca in the past 30 
Million years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 362, 215-224.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>
An: "'oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com'" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
Gesendet: 09.05.2017 10:14:20
Betreff: RE: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich

How do you know that activation of the vertical oceanic currents is the 
most effective? I think that weathering of olivine sand that is spread 
over land or in shallow seas is much more effective, Olaf Schuiling




From:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich 
Oeste

Sent: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 9:50
To:andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich



This "Beyond Carbon Neutral" multidisciplinary research initiative 
shall "increase the rate at which carbon is removed from the global 
carbon cycle".




This is impossible: any removal of carbon from the global carbon cycle 
is impossible - except the carbon would be placed outside of the globe. 
What only can be done is the activation of carbon transfer from 
atmosphere back into the geosphere. Direct and sustainable carbon 
transfer from the atmosphere into the geosphere is possible for 
instance by the Terra Preta method. But the most efficient method to do 
this is the activation of the vertical oceanic currents as carbon 
transport medium between atmosphere and ocean sediment and/or the 
igneous ocean crust aquifer, for instance by the ISA method.




Franz



-- Originalnachricht --

Von: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>

An: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>


Gesendet: 09.05.2017 01:19:13

Betreff: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich





http://beyondcarbonneutral.org/




· BEYOND CARBON NEUTRAL
Climate change is a defining challenge of the 21st Century. To address 
it, we must deploy a diverse set of solutions to minimize or reverse 
global warming and adapt to its impacts

Re: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

This "Beyond Carbon Neutral" multidisciplinary research initiative shall 
"increase the rate at which carbon is removed from the global carbon 
cycle".


This is impossible: any removal of carbon from the global carbon cycle 
is impossible - except the carbon would be placed outside of the globe. 
What only can be done is the activation of carbon transfer from 
atmosphere back into the geosphere. Direct and sustainable carbon 
transfer from the atmosphere into the geosphere is possible for instance 
by the Terra Preta method. But the most efficient method to do this is 
the activation of the vertical oceanic currents as carbon transport 
medium between atmosphere and ocean sediment and/or the igneous ocean 
crust aquifer, for instance by the ISA method.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Andrew Lockley" 
An: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: 09.05.2017 01:19:13
Betreff: [geo] Beyond Carbon Neutral UMich



http://beyondcarbonneutral.org/


BEYOND CARBON NEUTRAL
Climate change is a defining challenge of the 21st Century. To address 
it, we must deploy a diverse set of solutions to minimize or reverse 
global warming and adapt to its impacts. To complement existing efforts 
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the University of Michigan 
Energy Institute is developing a new initiative called Beyond Carbon 
Neutral. This multidisciplinary research effort investigates 
technologies, processes and policies to increase the rate at which 
carbon is removed from the global carbon cycle.

Why “Beyond” Carbon Neutral?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from fossil fuel use is the largest source 
of anthropogenic GHG emissions that are warming the earth’s atmosphere, 
and a range of critical efforts are currently underway to reduce 
emissions from these sources. However, long-term climate stabilization 
goals such as those announced in 2015 in Paris will be difficult, if 
not impossible, to achieve with these solutions alone.


Enter Beyond Carbon Neutral, which supports research on carbon dioxide 
removal (CDR), approaches that increases the rate at which CO2 is 
removed from the atmosphere. This CO2 can then be converted into 
carbon-based materials that are either sequestered or substituted for 
fossil carbon. Sometimes called “negative emissions,” what 
distinguishes CDR is that its aim is not merely to achieve carbon 
neutrality, but rather to greatly increase the rate of negative 
emissions through mechanisms that go Beyond Carbon Neutral.


What is carbon dioxide removal?
A well-known example of CDR is reforestation, which can increase the 
rate of CO2 uptake for decades. Others include agricultural practices 
that increase soil carbon uptake and other forms of terrestrial carbon 
management. If productive lands are appropriately managed, bioenergy 
with carbon capture and storage is a possible CDR mechanism. A range of 
advanced technologies can also be developed to further expand CDR 
capability. Beyond Carbon Neutral supports research into each of these 
areas, examining ways to increase carbon uptake, as well as methods for 
storing and utilizing excess carbon.


Beyond Carbon Neutral at the University of Michigan
Why U-M?
Beyond Carbon Neutral is designed to take the necessary steps to 
develop this crucial area and raise its profile for action at local and 
global levels.
The Energy Institute has worked with over 60 faculty to develop more 
than 45 inventive research proposals investigating different aspects of 
CDR. These research activities fall into three overlapping areas: the 
biosphere, technology, and human systems. Some Beyond Carbon Neutral 
research activities fall clearly into one research area, while others 
bridge the conceptual divides that too often limit the scope and 
ambition of academic research



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] Re: Science Dialogue Climate Engineering

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Any information of the public in order to address crucial ethical, 
social, environmental, political and economic concerns and questions of 
the different Climate Engineering (CE) methods discussed in the 
scientific communities on the basis of social values and democratic 
process by scientific institutions should be as complete as possible. 
Such information has to include even any established, probable and 
possible advantages, disadvantages, risks, efficiencies and economy of 
the methods. According to said requirements the posted "Science Dialogue 
Climate Engineering" and "White Paper" is an example of incompleteness: 
Neither the CE methods mentioned are complete nor relevant informations 
about the discussed methods have been presented.


Any democratic public decision processes pro or contra CE, respctively 
pro or contra a definite CE method, needs precise information as a basis 
of decision. In this sense said "Science Dialogue Climate Engineering" 
seems to me as an example of desinformation. And I am sure, such kind of 
information is not helpful and may push the public opinion in the 
opposition to CE.


Franz D. Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Matthias Honegger" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 06.05.2017 11:45:49
Betreff: [geo] Re: Science Dialogue Climate Engineering


Thanks for posting, Andrew.

I'd like to provide a bit more background on the white paper for the 
readers of the geoengineering list:


The attached white paper, which was drafted by the participants in a 
workshop series held in Zurich, Switzerland, makes the case for public 
deliberation on the societal dimensions of possible measures toward 
climate change mitigation, negative emissions, and solar radiation 
management. We make a call onto public servants to support deliberation 
in the public realm in order to address crucial ethical, social, 
environmental, political and economic concerns and questions in order 
to improve the long-term quality of future decisions on the 
inextricably linked issues of cutting GHG emissions, utilising negative 
emissions technologies and addressing solar radiation management on the 
basis of social values and democratic process. While we felt that the 
need for such public deliberation is universal, we situate the white 
paper in Switzerland reflecting for the countries' specific 
circumstances. The key messages are as follows:
To limit climate risk, 197 nations agreed at the Paris conference in 
2015 to cap warming well below 2 °C or even at 1.5 °C. There is growing 
evidence that both goals may not be achievable by cutting greenhouse 
gas emissions alone, given that without other measures full 
decarbonisation would be needed before 2050. This is not reflected in 
current policy plans. Mitigation remains key: Decisive cuts of 
greenhouse gas emissions with a global decline starting no later than 
2020 are essential for limiting climate risks. A rapid and systematic 
reduction of CO2 emissions is the most important requirement, and 
delays would significantly increase the risk of dangerous climate 
change. An open societal conversation needs to address the emerging 
topic of climate engineering. The possibility of novel approaches to 
limit climate risk is increasingly discussed among researchers and 
carries important social, environmental, and ethical implications and 
risks. Tough questions on governance, protection against misuse, costs, 
benefits and risks of both climate change and climate engineering 
demand an open conversation in order to build a robust basis for 
reasoned and democratic decisions in Switzerland and indeed the whole 
world. Negative emissions: Capturing CO2 from ambient air and storing 
it underground is sometimes termed as a type of climate engineering, 
which will likely be needed at large scale later this century. 
Switzerland alone might need to remove 280 million tons of CO2 before 
2100. Besides raising important social, environmental and ethical 
questions, it is unclear whether CO2 removal can actually be funded and 
implemented at such scales. Relying on CO2 removal now could be 
detrimental later, if it turns out to be infeasible. Solar radiation 
management e.g. by redirecting sunlight through reflective particles in 
the atmosphere is a fundamentally different type of climate 
engineering. While it could help prevent some severe consequences of 
climate change, it introduces significant novel risks and it could be 
misused to justify delays in mitigation or negative emissions. Again, 
many scientific, political, social, and ethical questions are to be 
addressed and explored transparently in order to judge its merits. 
Switzerland can take an active role in reaching the goals of Paris and 
establishing a frank conversation – by promoting research to better 
understand the urgency and challenges of CO2 emissions reductions, by 
working to address the governance challenge 

Re: [geo] Comments on draft guidelines

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

The term "Greenhouse Gases" should not be restricted to gaseous 
constituents. It should incorporate even the aerosol constituents of the 
atmosphere that absorb visible light and re-emit infrared radiation, 
like for instance carbon black aerosol. CE processes enhancing the 
oxidation capacity of the atmosphere like the ISA method reduce both: 
greenhouse gases and aerosols like carbon black aerosols and further 
organic aerosol constituents of the atmosphere.


Franz Dietrich Oeste

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
An: "Oxford Geoengineering Programme" 
<geoengineer...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>; "geoengineering" 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

Gesendet: 01.05.2017 00:38:54
Betreff: [geo] Comments on draft guidelines


(Sent in a private capacity)
Attached are my comments on this consultation
http://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/request-public-comments-1

In its current form the document has several systematic weaknesses
1) Ignores the potential for trivial, small-scale deployments
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461452916630082
2) Imposes cumbersome, unnecessary bureacracy
3) Holds geoengineering activities to an absurdly higher standard than
applies to the ongoing emissions of GHGs - including, it appears, to
impose a moratorium on deployment.
4) Assumes/endorses a statist approach to research and deployment,
when many alternative non-state models of research and deployment may
exist
jetpress.org/v26.1/lockley.htm

5) Uses ambiguous language in several key instances


A

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] TED speakers duke it out over GE

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

The TED speaker climate scientist Kate Marvel said about climate 
engineering: Geoengineering is like going to a doctor who says ‘You have 
a fever, I know exactly why you have a fever, and we’re not going to 
treat that. We’re going to give you ibuprofen, and also your nose is 
going to fall off.’ Her critics is appropriate if she aims on those SRM 
methods that do nothing more against greenhouse gas reduction than light 
reflection.


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Greg Rau" 
An: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
Gesendet: 29.04.2017 10:39:43
Betreff: [geo] TED speakers duke it out over GE


https://www.businessinsider.nl/ted-talk-speakers-geoengineering-2017-4/

"...Al Gore closed out the discussion, suggesting that geoengineering 
might have a place in the future, but not as the only (or primary) 
solution."


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


 release massive amounts of chalk into the atmosphere





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[4]: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Pietro,

according to my opinion greenhouse gas removal seems to be the most 
promising way to fight against climate warming. The ISA method has the 
advantage of the removal of both: CO2 plus CH4 and additional to that 
SRM by tropospheric cloud albedo increase plus removal of further 
climate warming factors. You can find a brief description of the ISA 
method at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/. It is an open 
access paper.

Kind regards,
Franz


-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Goglio, Pietro" <pietro.gog...@cranfield.ac.uk>
An: "oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>; 
"rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au" <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au>; 
"gh...@sbcglobal.net" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "macma...@cds.caltech.edu" 
<macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
"kgeo...@middlebury.edu" <kgeo...@middlebury.edu>; "Jim Thomas" 
<j...@etcgroup.org>; "moo...@etcgroup.org" <moo...@etcgroup.org>; 
"di...@etcgroup.org" <di...@etcgroup.org>

Gesendet: 12.04.2017 12:34:06
Betreff: RE: Re[2]: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: 
Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization



Dear all,

 I am starting a project assessing greenhouse gas 
removal technologies. I was wondering if some of you know some experts 
in ocean alkalinisation, ocean fertilisation and on the 
socio-political-economical drivers which would affect the introduction 
of these technologies.


Thanks  a lot for the collaboration.







Kind regards



Pietro Goglio PhD

Lecturer in Life Cycle Assesment and Systems Modelling

School of Water, Energy and Environment

Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL

Tel: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (extension 4293)

E: pietro.gog...@cranfield.ac.uk

W: www.cranfield.ac.uk





This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are 
intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named 
addressee, please accept our apology, notify the sender immediately and 
then delete the email. We request that you do not disclose, use, copy 
or distribute any information within it.




Any opinions expressed are not necessarily the corporate view of 
Cranfield University. This email is not intended to be contractually 
binding unless specifically stated and the sender is an authorised 
University signatory.




Whilst we have taken steps to ensure that this email and all 
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that, in keeping with 
good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually 
virus free.








From:geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Franz Dietrich 
Oeste

Sent: 12 April 2017 10:46
To:rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; gh...@sbcglobal.net; 
macma...@cds.caltech.edu
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
kgeo...@middlebury.edu; Jim Thomas <j...@etcgroup.org>; 
moo...@etcgroup.org; di...@etcgroup.org
Subject: Re[2]: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, 
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization




Within the carbon cycle all kind of natural iron input into the oceans 
like volcanic ash aerosol, ice age mineral dust aerosol, mineral 
particle suspension generating ice bergs, black smoker exhalations, as 
well as suspensed and dissolved iron input by rivers and sediments are 
well-known actors that activate the sustainable CO2 carbon burial as 
organic carbon or carbonate rock within oceanic sediment and crust. Any 
iron input into the ocean accelerates the carbon transfer between 
atmosphere and carbon burial ground. More than 99 % of all of carbon 
captured by the iron-fertilized phytoplankton will arrive at the burial 
ground - independent how much of the phytoplankton litter or further 
food chain litter becomes oxidized to hydrogen carbonate. Only the very 
small part of carbon by capture like fish or seaweed by men or birds or 
by independent escape from ocean to continent like salmon or eel, will 
return to the atmosphere.




If any kind of climate engineering by iron fertilization would be done 
in a similar way like the natural operation it would not do any harm to 
any ocean ecosystem. But the harm to any ecosystem would be serious, if 
we go on to do nothing against the man-made climate catastrophe!




Franz



-- Originalnachricht --

Von: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>


An: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; 
"macma...@cds.caltech.edu" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>


Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
"kgeo...@middlebury.edu" <kgeo...@middlebury.edu>; "Jim Thomas" 
<j...@etcgroup.org>; "moo...@etcgroup.org" <moo...@etcgrou

Re[2]: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Within the carbon cycle all kind of natural iron input into the oceans 
like volcanic ash aerosol, ice age mineral dust aerosol, mineral 
particle suspension generating ice bergs, black smoker exhalations, as 
well as suspensed and dissolved iron input by rivers and sediments are 
well-known actors that activate the sustainable CO2 carbon burial as 
organic carbon or carbonate rock within oceanic sediment and crust. Any 
iron input into the ocean accelerates the carbon transfer between 
atmosphere and carbon burial ground. More than 99 % of all of carbon 
captured by the iron-fertilized phytoplankton will arrive at the burial 
ground - independent how much of the phytoplankton litter or further 
food chain litter becomes oxidized to hydrogen carbonate. Only the very 
small part of carbon by capture like fish or seaweed by men or birds or 
by independent escape from ocean to continent like salmon or eel, will 
return to the atmosphere.


If any kind of climate engineering by iron fertilization would be done 
in a similar way like the natural operation it would not do any harm to 
any ocean ecosystem. But the harm to any ecosystem would be serious, if 
we go on to do nothing against the man-made climate catastrophe!


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering" 

An: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" ; 
"macma...@cds.caltech.edu" 
Cc: "geoengineering" ; 
"kgeo...@middlebury.edu" ; "Jim Thomas" 
; "moo...@etcgroup.org" ; 
"di...@etcgroup.org" 

Gesendet: 12.04.2017 03:19:21
Betreff: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, 
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization


Copying also to Russ George, whose work on the Haida Salmon Project 
prompted much of this debate.


It is clear that the Haida iron fertilization work successfully 
produced a massive salmon population boom, and that failure to 
fertilize the oceans - along the lines Russ proposes in his "ocean 
pasture" concept - is causing catastrophe.


The UN Convention on Biological Diversity campaign against ocean 
geoengineering deserves primary blame and censure for this catastrophe 
- see 
http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/12/un-to-extend-freeze-on-geoengineering/


A review of the Haida experiment at Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous 
Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave 
 
rightly states that "satellite imagery showed that a massive 10,000 
square kilometer phytoplankton bloom had developed in the Gulf of 
Alaska, centred around the area which was seeded with iron sulfate. The 
following year, in 2013, catches of pink salmon 
 
from the Pacific Northwest showed a 400% increase over the previous 
year."


As Russ George explains at 
http://russgeorge.net/2017/03/22/alaska-salmon-emergency-order-halts-2017-king-salmon-season/ 
the prevention of fertilization means salmon are starving at sea.


As Greg Rau says in his comment below, emission reduction will very 
likely fail.  The UN is using emission reduction as a futile gesture, 
while preventing essential action to protect biodiversity.


Robert Tulip



From: Greg Rau 
To: "macma...@cds.caltech.edu" 
Cc: geoengineering ; 
"kgeo...@middlebury.edu" ; Jim Thomas 
; "moo...@etcgroup.org" ; 
"di...@etcgroup.org" 

Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 5:07
Subject: Re: [geo] Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, 
Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization


Roger that, Doug.  As we've learned casting doubt and fear can be very 
effective in countering reason in the climate change arena, and now 
applied by fringe elements to potential climate solutions.  Given that 
their apparently favored solution, emissions reduction, will very 
likely fail to single handedly solve the problem (IPCC), it would seem 
counterproductive to attack additional actions without making sure that 
a particular action's risks an impacts in fact do out weight its 
benefits. I'm no fan of OIF, but under the circumstances it would seem 
unwise to ignore the ocean's CO2 and climate management potential - 
Mother Nature doesn't.


I cite the following, little-noticed legal review as a counter to the 
"hands off the ocean" governance mentality that dominates some 
quarters:

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771=lawreview
which concludes:
"Until nations sit down for real discussions to support risk 
assessments of ocean fertilization experiments,
rogue 

Re: [geo] Siberian Methane Update

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Hi all,

Yes, we have the key for MR (= Methane Removal): The processing how to 
remove any methane from the atmosphere has been in use by Nature since 
the loess-dusty ice ages: Sunshine photolyzes the small iron(III) 
chloride content of the loess particles by generating iron(II) and 
atomic chlorine (°Cl). °Cl is about 16 times more reactive as methane 
depleting agent than the ordinary methane oxidant hydroxyl radical 
(°OH). This methane depleting reaction is one of the main reasons of the 
effect, that the coldest surface temperatures during the Ice Age 
coincided with the lowest methane levels. Further the soluble iron 
content of precipitating loess dust acts as an inhibitor of the 
microbial induced methane generation generation. Additional the loess 
dust induced phytoplankton blooms by activation of the CO2 assimilation. 
Additional loess dust acted as cloud condensation nuclei and generated 
an cloud albedo increase. This and several more effects induced by 
direct and indirect loess dust actions cooled the surface. This again 
acted against methane generation.


Instead of loess dust we propose the very simple to generate and much 
more active FeCl3 aerosol (ISA). ISA could be emitted simply into the 
lower tropospheric heights of 1000 m above ground. ISA works much better 
than natural loess dust. The °Cl generation capacity of ISA has been 
proven. Even a yearly generation and emission of 100,000 t iron globaly 
might stop and even reverse climate warming. This corresponds to a 
doubling of the recent global precipitation of dissolved iron and 
corresponds to an additional iron precipitation level in the milligram 
range per square meter and year! Find more details at  
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/ 



Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Greg Rau" 
An: "Geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 22.03.2017 18:02:23
Betreff: [geo] Siberian Methane Update



http://www.sciencealert.com/7-000-huge-gas-bubbles-have-formed-under-siberia-and-could-explode-at-any-moment?utm_source=ScienceAlert+-+Daily+Email+Updates_campaign=fe923a93e0-MAILCHIMP_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_medium=email_term=0_fe5632fb09-fe923a93e0-365584569


"Back in 2016, local environmental researchers Alexander Sokolov and 
Dorothee Ehrich decided to pull back the dirt and grass that had been 
blanketing these bulging bumps of earth, and found that the air 
escaping from them contained up to 1,000 times more methane than the 
surrounding air, and 25 times more carbon dioxide.


And things can get even weirder at the bottom of the biggest sinkholes 
- a 2014 investigation into a 30-metre-wide (98-foot) crater on the 
Yamal Peninsula found that air near the bottom of the crater contained 
unusually high concentrations of methane - up to 9.6 percent."


"Researchers have hypothesised that these methane bubbles are linked to 
a recent heatwave that had prompted the Siberian tundra's permafrost to 
thaw."


"A 2013 study found that a global temperature rise of 1.5°C would be 
enough to kickstart an unprecedented period of melting, but thanks to 
abnormally hot summers linked to climate change, local researchers 
suspect that this is already starting to occur, with daily temperatures 
in July 2016 hitting a worrying 35°C (95°F)."


GR - If you have an idea for methane CDR you might be in demand 
shortly.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] geoengineering by albedo modification

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Dear Ramon,

you concept seems problematic, because of the chloride and even bromide 
content of sea salt. The troposphere contains acids like HNO3 and H2SO4. 
These acids will generate HCl and HBr from the sea salt particles as we 
know from tropospheric sea salt particles. Oxidants like O3 or radicals 
like °OH will generate ozone depleting chlorine and bromine spezies like 
atomic °Cl and °Br and their oxides. Within short time these species 
would have depleted the tropospheric ozone layer.


Further your proposal has the disadvantage of all SRM measures: Their 
operation is only able to cool the temperature at the planets surface - 
but they are not able to do anything to deplete the cause of the climate 
warming: the greenhouse gases increase.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Ramon Espino" 
An: "geoengineering" 
Gesendet: 21.03.2017 21:43:54
Betreff: [geo] geoengineering by albedo modification

Hello, i hope you accept me in your group!!! I have been interested in 
this topic both the potential as well as the concerns. I also read the 
report from the NRC on this topic and found it excellent, balanced and 
with good follow up recommendations.My colleague Jimmy Peress and i 
have considered the option of using sodium cloride particles as the 
reflecting particles. Specifically spraying in the upper atmosphere 
concentrated sea watert(25% sea salt in water) that, due to 
sublimation, should yield very small sodium chloride particles. 
Attached is a short report on what we propose..We look forward to hear 
your comments and, if you think is worth pursuing, suggest research 
groups that may want to find out if the concept is worth pursuing


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re[2]: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2

[Franz Dietrich Oeste]

Hi all,

According to our paper published January 2017, available for download 
at: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/ climate warming and ice 
melt begins to deactivate the vertical cycling of ocean, even by 
stratifying parts of it. Increasing temperatures and pH decrease at the 
ocean surfaces, further deactivates their CO2 absorption capacity. Only 
after the ice melt will have increased to much more massive levels 
covering increasing ocean regions with melt water layers of lower 
salinity the activation of phytoplankton assimilation by iron 
fertilization originating from trapped mineral dust and glacial flour 
may stop further greenhouse gas increase and climate warming. Should 
mankind wait until these days when nature might be as friendly as to 
stop any further climate warming in this way? No! Because nature has 
shown us much more efficient tools how to stop climate warming and how 
to turn climate temperatures back mankind should be able to stop climate 
warming now by regulating the levels of the greenhouse gases by 
depleting them just with those tools nature has presented to us many 
times during the last million years.


Franz

-- Originalnachricht --
Von: "Michael MacCracken" 
An: klaus.lack...@asu.edu; "s.sal...@ed.ac.uk" ; 
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 

Gesendet: 19.03.2017 21:28:39
Betreff: Re: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2

I'd only add that in your way of thinking, the drain can also get 
clogged (e.g., if the rate of ocean overturning is slowed by the 
warming, which would also reduce the amount of nutrients coming to the 
surface, so also slow the biological pump). This is how one would 
presumably represent the increasing atmospheric fraction.


Mike


On 3/19/17 2:43 PM, Klaus Lackner wrote:
This is therefore a good time to educate people.  Emissions did not 
increase, but the annual rise in CO2 increased.  It allows you to 
explain that CO2, once put into the air, sticks to it.




I find it amazing that this far more intuitive way of thinking, has 
been wiped out by a conceptually much more complex flow model, which 
in this case is not even correct. I think you see 30 years of 
education of acid rain misapplied to CO2.  It seems much more 
intuitive to consider a bathtub filling up in response to an open 
faucet than to consider the faucet being in equilibrium with a drain, 
and that the drain rate increases with increased fill, and that 
therefore a particular filling rate from the faucet is associated with 
a particular level in the tub.  Note that having a drain is not 
enough. If the drain rate is independent of the fill rate, raising the 
flow rate from the faucet will lead to a continuous and unabated rise.




A sudden increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere, will increase 
the drain rate, but the drain rate slows down as the layer in 
equilibrium gets thicker.  One way of looking at it is to consider the 
CO2 emission rate that holds CO2 in the air constant.  It drops 
rapidly over time, even if instantly it might be 50% of current 
emissions.




Once this is understood, we can begin to worry why the fraction of CO2 
that goes out of the atmosphere seems to shrink.




Klaus









From:  
 on behalf of Michael 
MacCracken  
Reply-To: "mmacc...@comcast.net" 
 


Date: Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 9:30 AM
To: "s.sal...@ed.ac.uk"  
, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
 


Subject: Re: [geo] Record Increase in Air CO2



I'd guess what they meant was that global emissions were about the 
same (I think the Global Carbon Project report has indicated this). 
There is this serious misperception that if emissions don't go up, 
concentrations won't go up, and so all we have to do is stop growth in 
emissions.


Mike



On 3/19/17 6:39 AM, Stephen Salter wrote:


Hi All

The Financial Times story was about reported emissions and the NOAA 
report was about atmospheric measurements.


Perhaps reports have been tweeked or CO2 sinks have become less 
effective.


Stephen



On 19/03/2017 09:16, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering wrote:

The International Energy Agency and Financial Times are claiming the 
opposite.




https://www.ft.com/content/540ebb0c-0a60-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43 
 
makes the false claim