RE: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols:sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer
I am surprised that this conversation has not mentioned the negative effect on the ozone layer. This would seem to be a reason for injecting at lower altitude eg 16 km or 55,000feet. I see the fairly minor increase in quantity needed at lower altitude to be a reason for injecting at lower altitude considering the massive extra difficulty in injecting at the higher altitudes. John gorman From: Douglas MacMartin Sent: 17 December 2019 17:24 To: Andrew Lockley; Govindasamy Bala Cc: geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols:sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer I think it is clear that we don’t know that yet. If you want my guess, it would be the same as Bala’s, that once you’re far enough from the tropopause there’s not that much benefit to going higher. The answer will also depend on the latitude of injection. One of a long list of questions that, if there were any appreciable funding, would not be fundamentally hard to answer. From: Andrew Lockley Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:36 AM To: Govindasamy Bala Cc: geoengineering ; Douglas MacMartin Subject: Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer Considering all effects, what's your view on the ideal height? Andrew On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:47 Govindasamy Bala, wrote: 26 km is probably not going to add any more benefit compared 25 km if you consider the effect identified in our paper but it is better when sedimentation effect is considered. More experiments with the NCAR WACCM model would be good to precisely nail this down. On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:10 PM Andrew Lockley wrote: Is 26k less good than 25? On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 08:37 Govindasamy Bala, wrote: Andrew, Sedimentation effect works in the same direction as the effect we identified in our study. Therefore, higher the altitude of injection, the better. My judgement: 25 km would be good. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:54 PM Andrew Lockley wrote: So what's your judgement on the ideal injection altitude? Andrew On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 10:36 Govindasamy Bala, wrote: Andrew, Many modeling groups (e.g. Tilmes and others) have already performed simulations that inject aerosols at different heights and thus have included the sedimentation effects and many many other effects. These studies simulate the NET effects and hence hard to interpret and quantify the individual effects. The strength of our ESD paper is that it changes only one variable and identifies its individual contribution to the total problem. What we have learnt during the course is that there are too many variables in the aerosol SRM problem (transport, location of injection, aerosol-cloud interaction, aerosol-radiation interaction, aerosol micro physics and the resulting size distribution of the aerosols, etc.) and the resulting uncertainties could be too large. This is of course known to many of us for a long time.. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 3:41 PM Andrew Lockley wrote: If I understand from the email below , you used aerosols with no fall speed. Are experiments planned to simulate aerosol descent? Andrew On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 05:43 Govindasamy Bala, wrote: Andrews, We did not do experiments with aerosols above 22 km. It is likely that the cooling effect will be larger when aerosols are at 25 km. Beyond that it is likely that the additional cooling benefits disappear. We need more experiments to confirm this. The sensitivity to height in our paper arises mainly because of the increases in stratospheric water vapor (which partly offsets the cooling efficiency of the aerosols) that is associated with the stratospheric heating by the aerosols. This increase in stratospheric water vapor is largest when the aerosols (and the heating) is close to the tropopause. In our paper, we have isolated the effect of just one factor. As Doug has pointed out, the sedimentation effect would also lead to more cooling if aerosols are injected at higher altitudes... Best, Bala On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 9:05 PM Douglas MacMartin wrote: This is a great study to understand the effectiveness per unit mass *in the stratosphere*. Also keep in mind that there’s an additional factor, that at lower altitudes it takes higher injection rates to achieve the same burden in the stratosphere (i.e., lower lifetime at lower injected altitude). If the only thing you cared about was cost, then since there are existing studies demonstrating that you can design an aircraft to get to ~20-21km, we roughly know that it could be done, but higher altitude injection means less total sulfur injected and hence smaller side effects, and should be better understood both on the modeling and implementation cost as the trade may well be worth it. doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Govindasamy Bala Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:38 PM To: Andrew Lockley Cc
[geo] Do contrails warm or cool?
The report that got me into this was a research paper showing that the lack of contrails just after 911 allowed a warming of the atmosphere. So I came up with an idea to increase and simulate the cooling effect of contrails. At the time I had never heard of the this group or the word geoengineering. I now see in a recent post that contrails warm the earth. Which is correct? John Gorman -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d29a2ee.1c69fb81.57666.3e93SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération
This diagram from the paper says it all in my opinion, and simply!! With, of course some variation in angles. Eg SRM could be angled down and I don’t believe cutting emissions will ever result in zero emissions. Good realistic paper! John gorman From: Benoit Lambert Sent: 09 July 2019 18:39 To: Carbon Dioxide Removal Subject: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development // Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération https://cologie.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/elon-musk-vs-regenerative-development-elon-musk-vs-le-developpement-de-regeneration-french-below-en-francais-plus-bas/ -- 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/8b7c44ee-316a-4c1b-af45-666ec73df1fe%40googlegroups.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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d25a35f.1c69fb81.4c0a8.6ed0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] RE: [CDR] My posts
Please keep posting. You clearly spend time finding things and this is really useful whether these things are pro or anti geoengineering. John Gorman. From: Andrew Lockley Sent: 04 July 2019 14:12 To: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com Subject: [CDR] My posts I post a lot, almost always stuff I've found and hardly ever my own opinions. Is this helpful? Please let me know. I don't want to carry on if people don't find it useful. Maybe you only find some of the content useful? Should I give my views, or keep them to myself? Looking forward to hearing from you all. Reply privately or publicly as you wish. Andrew Lockley -- 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/CAJ3C-06t3VZKU8%2BxN2ZO%3DRvd-0OGOmZEXNGW1n12aW32N-aGVw%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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d1e2ea7.1c69fb81.848c1.192cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Stratospheric imperialism: Liberalism, (eco)modernization, andideologies of solar geoengineering research - Kevin Surprise, 2019
Just a vote of thanks to Andrew for digging through the literature to keep us all informed about the sort of papers that get published opposing our work. This one does again raise the question of how such work gets funding when Stephen Salter’s work on a real solution gets none. John Gorman From: Andrew Lockley Sent: 02 July 2019 19:39 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Stratospheric imperialism: Liberalism, (eco)modernization, andideologies of solar geoengineering research - Kevin Surprise, 2019 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2514848619844771 • ermissions Explore More Download PDF Stratospheric imperialism: Liberalism, (eco)modernization, and ideologies of solar geoengineering research Kevin Surprise First Published April 18, 2019 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619844771 Abstract Once a fringe notion, solar geoengineering via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is gaining traction as a climate management tactic within mainstream institutions and factions of the climate justice movement. Cautious considerations of SAI are driven by the layered realities of climate urgency, political inaction, and the potential for climate impacts to harm the most vulnerable. This narrative is difficult to dispute, yet it originates from leading centers of SAI research—particularly the Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program (HSGRP)—that construct the “necessity” of research, experimentation, and potential deployment under ideological pretenses aimed at maintaining the hegemony of liberal-capitalism. Hence, advanced under the auspices of HSGRP, SAI would constitute a form of imperialism rather than a tool for climate justice. I link SAI to theories of capitalist imperialism, and situate HSGRP within Harvard’s legacy shaping U.S. imperialism and position as a nodal point of liberal-capitalist power. In this context, I identify three dominant ideologies undergirding SAI research at Harvard—ecomodernism, Realist International Relations theory, and Keynesianism—that construct a specific narrative whereby established climate solutions (liberal-capitalist ecomodernism) are frustrated by “anarchical” international politics, leaving the poor vulnerable to near-term climate impacts. SAI is thus positioned as a mechanism capable of buying time for market-driven policy and reducing near-term climate risk. HSGRP directly counter poses this approach to radical elements of the climate justice movement that address capitalism as the root cause of both climate change and global poverty. Keywords Geoengineering, capitalist imperialism, ideology, climate justice, Harvard University -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04SE6iz311OLRxGerB9VU5D_VxTqjsm_oR0PA4o43nGZw%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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5d1c6422.1c69fb81.a61ad.073cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: [geo] UK Political Party Positions on SRM
At the time I got involved in global warming (2005ish) there was quite a lot going on with a Royal Society report, a parliamentary report, some special funding (which I like many others applied for) lots of interest and letters from my MP, a new person in the funding authority for this specific area who came to see me to get himself up to date. Etc etc -its a long time ago!! Result—a project using a balloon which was eventually killed because it wasn’t seen as politically correct to talk about. Tangible results 17 years on? Nothing that I know of! John Gorman Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Gideon Futerman Sent: 04 June 2019 16:02 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] UK Political Party Positions on SRM Dear All, Does anyone have informatiopn on the positions of the major UK political parties (Conservative, Labour, LibDems, Greens, DUP, SNP, Plaid, ChangeUK, Brexit Party)- I already have Conservatives and Greens- on SRM, as I am struggling to find them. Moreover, does anyone have the names of any MPs or Lords who have taken an interest in SRM at any point in the past? Thanks, Gideon Futerman -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/8499a1a2-e24c-4619-826e-078e1e3504d6%40googlegroups.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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/5cf6957b.1c69fb81.d1e47.68d0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] RE: [CDR] Frequently Asked Questions on 1.5°C and Geoengineering
Does anyone know how the name of Heinrich Boell, the German author who died in 1985, has become associated with the naive and impractical ideas of the ETC group? John Gorman From: Andrew Lockley Sent: 19 September 2018 22:55 To: geoengineering; Carbon Dioxide Removal Subject: [CDR] Frequently Asked Questions on 1.5°C and Geoengineering Poster's (very restrained) note: some list members may feel the linked answers can be improved upon. Perhaps someone might care to create another version, expressing a different viewpoint? https://www.boell.de/en/2018/09/11/faq-15degc-target-geoengineering?dimension1=ds_radicalrealism Frequently Asked Questions on 1.5°C and Geoengineering Answers to the most frequently asked questions about the 1,5°C target and the topic of geoengineering. 18. September 2018 Creator: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. All rights reserved. • • • • • FAQs: • Why 1.5°C? • What's the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C? • Can we limit global warming to 1.5°C? • But don't the climate scenarios say that 1.5°C is almost out of reach? • What are "negative emissions"? Is it true that we can't manage without them? • What is geoengineering? • What's the problem with geoengineering? • Who are the main players / key drivers of geoengineering? • Why and how is the Heinrich Böll Foundation working on the topic of geoengineering and the 1.5°C limit? • What alternatives exist to keep global warming below 1.5°C? • Are there any international rules on geoengineering? • What does the international civil society say about geoengineering? -- 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/CAJ3C-06-Ewfo3Doi-wY9%3DEjJzOBX%2BNJCw8DXifMk3Ajn1xoQhw%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: [geo] Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering Strategies?
I spent my post graduate year (1964-5!) and my early career on control engineering (analog computer control of steel rolling mills, digital three term control of motors mixing of stone for road surfaces etc etc ) I would hate to see the subject of controlling the global temperature made excessively complicated. We are not trying to control the weather. That would be complicated! We are trying to control the overall global temperature. Just make the adjustments of control inputs very slow to avoid over reaction. (oscilations/ instabilities) I am sure David Keith at Harvard has got good information on this for his proposals. John Gorman Ps -and the same subject, control theory, is called homeostasis in medicine where I find my previous knowledge very useful in my second career. From: Andrew Lockley Sent: 25 August 2018 22:48 To: geoengineering Cc: t.bo...@reading.ac.uk Subject: [geo] Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering Strategies? Poster's note: a primer on linear response theory is available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_response_function - I hope that the corresponding author will be available to join the group and post a plain English summary. The application of control theory to geoengineering is IMO an important advance, and apparently a relatively recent one. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-30/esd-2018-30-AC1-supplement.pdf=en=X=8709275723963611654=AAGBfm1hG13oxCRJ0QzTgJdX4Jg-35qpxg=1=scholaralrt=tDjNe6QJ:15126857386591841230:AAGBfm3hgOHpwz-gQp1d_Wc583FiI4qafA Can We Use Linear Response Theory to Assess Geoengineering Strategies? Tamás Bódai1,2, Valerio Lucarini1,2,3, and Frank Lunkeit3 1Centre for the Mathematics of Planet Earth, University of Reading, UK 2Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Reading, UK 3CEN, Meteorological Institute, University of Hamburg, Germany Correspondence: T. Bódai (t.bo...@reading.ac.uk) Abstract. Geoengineering can control only some variables but not others, resulting in side-effects. We investigate in an intermediate-complexity climate model the applicability of linear response theory to assessing a geoengineering method. The application of response theory for the assessment methodology that we are proposing is two-fold. First, as a new ap- proach, (I) we wish to assess only the best possible geoengineering scenario for any given circumstances. This requires 5 solving the following inverse problem. A given rise in carbon dioxide concentration [CO2] would result in a global climate change with respect to an appropriate ensemble average of the surface air temperature ∆h[Ts]i. We are looking for a suit- able modulation of solar forcing which can cancel out the said global change – the only case that we will analyse here – or modulate it in some other desired fashion. It is rather straightforward to predict this solar forcing, considering an infinite time period, by linear response theory in frequency-domain as: fs(ω) = (∆h[Ts]i(ω)−χg(ω)fg(ω))/χs(ω), where the χ’s are 10 linear susceptibilities; and we will spell out an iterative procedure suitable for numerical implementation that applies to finite time periods too. Second, (II) to quantify side-effects using response theory, the response with respect to uncontreolled observables, such as regional averages hTsi, must of course be approximately linear. We find that under geoengineering in the sense of (I), i.e. the combined greenhouse and required solar forcing, the response ∆h[Ts]i asymptotically is actually not zero. This turns out to be not due to nonlinearity of the response under geoengi- 15 neering, but that the linear susceptibilities χ are not determined correctly. The error is in fact due to a significant quadratic nonlinearity of the response under system identification achieved by a forced experiment. This nonlinear contribution can be easily removed, which results in much better estimates of the linear susceptibility, and, in turn, in a five-fold reduction in ∆h[Ts]i under geoengineering. This correction improves dramatically the agreement of the spatial patterns of the pre- dicted linear and true model responses (that are actually consistent with the findings of previous studies). However, (II) 20 due to the nonlinearity of the response with respect to local quantities, e.g. hTsi, even under goengineering, the linear prediction is still erroneous. We find that in the examined model nonlinearities are stronger for precipitation compared to surface air temperature. -- 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 opti
Re: [geo] Aladdin Diakun Gives Public Lecture On Geoengineering And IP Law | Global Catastrophic Risk Institute
I remember a very eminent lawyer explaining. to me, the difference between the laws of any country and agreed international law. The former is phrased in order to close off all predicted loopholes. The latter is phrased to include all the loopholes that each participating country wants. john gorman - Original Message - From: Fred Zimmerman To: Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Aladdin Diakun Gives Public Lecture On Geoengineering And IP Law | Global Catastrophic Risk Institute This is an interesting approach which brings to mind a few thoughts. 1. Heaven help us if we are relying on IP law for governance. IP is a woefully distorted regime that in practice has little to do with its ostensible objectives. It is also not well accdepted outside the OECD. 2. There are a great many other international phenomena that are poorly governed and lack coherent topic-specific regimes. Are they all governed by IP too? Or do other bodies of law operate? How are we to decide which body of law applies to a particular inchoate regime? 3. Common law legal systems already have well developed mechanisms for generating law where it is not provided by legislation by elaborating from existing examples (common law). 4. So-called customary international law is roughly the same thing. (International lawyers, feel free to correct and amplify my remarks.) Examples of practice generate principles or rules of international law even in the absence of specific written law. Thus, e.g., the precautionary principle. 5. The author's conclusions are basically unremarkable. Let's not let IP govern geoengineering. Even the people who have filed patents say they don't want IP to drive geoengineering. (And I take them at their word absent evidence to the contrary). --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Key point : Aladdin argued that IP law is a de facto form of governance when there is no other meaningful legal regime, as is the case for geoengineering http://gcrinstitute.org/aladdin-diakun-gives-public-lecture-on-geoengineering-and-ip-law/ On Thursday 16 May, GCRI hosted an online lecture by Aladdin Diakunentitled ‘Towards the Effective Governance of Geoengineering: What Role for Intellectual Property?’ Aladdin is an MA Candidate at the Balsillie School of International Affairs who is researching how IP law can serve as a form of de facto governance of geoengineering.The UK Royal Society defines geoengineering as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” With the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere recently having reached 400ppm—higher than any point in at least 800,000 years—and international climate change governance having shown scant progress, geoengineering is increasingly discussed as a climate change strategy. One branch of geoengineering is carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which includes technologies like carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and ocean fertilization, the latter of which was controversially tested when an American entrepreneur dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into the coastal waters of British Columbia in 2012. The other branch of geoengineering is solar radiation management (SRM), which, rather than removing CO2 from the atmosphere, lowers the planet’s temperature by reflecting sunlight via techniques like cloud seeding, landscape modification (e.g. painting all roofs white), and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).These forms of geoengineering could help combat the effects of climate change, but they also pose a global catastrophic risk (GCR). For example, pretend that the United States decides to artificially lower Earth’s temperature using SAI. As described in a recent paper by Seth Baum, Tim Maher, and Jacob Haqq-Misra, if a pandemic, nuclear war, or some other global catastrophe interferes with our ability to continue using SAI, then global temperatures would rapidly increase to their natural levels, potentially resulting in a second global catastrophe. SAI also neglects other negative effects of runaway greenhouse gas emissions, like ocean acidification.While no countries propose that we deploy the more exotic forms of geoengineering right now, there is a growing call to research geoengineering and develop international norms so that we make smart decisions down the road.So what do patents have to do with all of this?Many people’s experience with patents primarily consists of watching Samsung and Apple trade punches in court over whether Apple invented rounded black rectangles or square app icons. But under the radar
[geo] Re: [AMEG 3461] FW: Join Thomas C. Schelling for Geoengineering: Time for Some Gentle Experimentation at RFF
FW: Join Thomas C. Schelling for Geoengineering: Time for Some Gentle Experimentation at RFFThis announcement of a lecture on geoengineerig by Thomas Schelling and all the recent posts on the ethics and morality of geoengineering seems like another opportunity to mention Thomas Schellings comment; The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless. I keep reading in the ethical posts that we have and ethical decision to make between geoengineering and emissions reductions. Unless global warming is at the lowest end of the spectrum of seriousness in all problem areas, we don't have a choice. As I wrote recently to another group; Interesting to see that your 1,2 and 3 are the same as my 1,2 and 3 in my website that I wrote in 2006 ! www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm The important thing for AMEG is that the timescales for each part are completely different. My 3, controlling global temperature (and therefore sea level and methane release -we hope) is urgent (A M Emergency !! G ) I wrote then that reducing emissions would take most of this century. My first job as an engineer was in power generation and it really worries me when I read that reducing carbon emissions will be easy and only needs political will . Its not easy at all and the only mature large scale option (nuclear) looks much less viable and politically acceptable after Fukishima. regards john gorman - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken To: Geoengineering Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 10:40 PM Subject: [AMEG 3461] FW: Join Thomas C. Schelling for Geoengineering: Time for Some Gentle Experimentation at RFF I thought that this talk might be of interest. They live-stream these talks so that they are viewable over the Web (check their web site for information). Mike -- Forwarded Message From: Resources for the Future listmana...@rff.org Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:11:56 -0600 To: mmaccrac...@climate.org Subject: Join Thomas C. Schelling for Geoengineering: Time for Some Gentle Experimentation at RFF You are cordially invited to join RFF in celebrating its 60th anniversary with the Resources 2020 Nobel Laureate lecture series. Thomas C. Schelling 2005 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Geoengineering: Time for Some Gentle Experimentation Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. Resources for the Future First Floor Conference Center 1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036 Please join us for a reception immediately following the lecture. Registration is required. To RSVP for this event, please visit RFF's event registration http://e2ma.net/go/12952627754/214212006/238659538/1407838/goto:http://www.rff.org/Events/Pages/EventRegistration.aspx page. Celebrate RFF's 60th anniversary with Resources 2020 http://e2ma.net/go/12952627754/214212006/238659539/1407838/goto:http://www.rff.org/Resources2020 , a yearlong exploration of how economic inquiry can address future environmental challenges. Special events are planned throughout the year, including a distinguished lecture series featuring Nobel Laureates in Economics. Learn more at www.rff.org/Resources2020 http://e2ma.net/go/12952627754/214212006/238659540/1407838/goto:http://www.rff.org/Resources2020 . Thomas C. Schelling earned his PhD in economics from Harvard University in 1951, was on the faculty of Yale University from 1953-1957, spent 1958-1959 at the RAND Corporation, and then 1959-1990 at Harvard, in the Department of Economics, Center for International Affairs, and John F. Kennedy School of Government. From 1990-2005 he taught at the University of Maryland's Department of Economics and School of Public Policy. Prior to his PhD studies, Schelling was a fiscal analyst at the US Bureau of the Budget from 1945-1946 and then spent 1946-1948 doing graduate work at Harvard. He was in the Marshall Plan Mission to Denmark during 1948-1949 and the European Office of the Marshall Plan in Paris during 1949-1950. He then served on the White House Foreign Policy Staff during 1950-1951, and in the Executive Office of the President (foreign aid programs) from 1951-1953. Schelling's main theoretical interests have been bargaining, conflict and cooperation, racial segregation, and techniques of self-management. His main policy interests have been nuclear weapons, the limitation of war, climate change, foreign aid, and nicotine. Major books authored by Schelling include The Strategy of Conflict (1960), Strategy and Arms Control (1961, with Morton H. Halperin), Arms and Influence (1966
Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wil
And I cant help noticing how much research money seems to be available for researching the ethics and other social aspects of geoengineering while there is none for researching the technical side. john gorman - Original Message - From: Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library The idea that ethical merit can be diagnosed before we know much about how it works, and how well, is...useless. I find it curious that the ethicists want to jump on a subject when it's still barely begun. Reminds me of a decade ago for SRM, about which we still know little, because we don;t do experiments. Gregory Benford On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. Amen. - Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 10, 2012 4:34:02 PM Subject: [geo] Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal - Preston - 2012 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.198/abstract Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal Christopher J. Preston Article first published online: 8 NOV 2012 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.198 Abstract After two decades of failure by the international community to respond adequately to the threat of global climate change, discussions of the possibility of geoengineering a cooler climate have recently proliferated. Alongside the considerable optimism that these technologies have generated, there has also been wide acknowledgement of significant ethical concerns. Ethicists, social scientists, and experts in governance have begun the work of addressing these concerns. The plethora of ethical issues raised by geoengineering creates challenges for those who wish to survey them. The issues are here separated out according to the temporal spaces in which they first arise. Some crop up when merely contemplating the prospect of geoengineering. Others appear as research gets underway. Another set of issues attend the actual implementation of the technologies. A further set occurs when planning for the cessation of climate engineering. Two cautions about this organizational schema are in order. First, even if the issues first arise in the temporal spaces identified, they do not stay completely contained within them. A good reason to object to the prospect of geoengineering, for example, will likely remain a good reason to object to its implementation. Second, the ethical concerns intensify or weaken depending on the technology under consideration. The wide range of geoengineering technologies currently being discussed makes it prudent that each technique should be evaluated individually for its ethical merit. WIREs Clim Change 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcc.198 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] SRM: More with less?
Can anyone get me a copy of this. I note with some annoyance that more and more of this scientific information, that we have already funded through our taxes, is being hidden behind paywalls. This also applies to my other field of back pain research. john gorman - Original Message - From: Rau, Greg To: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:46 AM Subject: [geo] SRM: More with less? Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management a.. F. D. Pope, b.. P. Braesicke, c.. R. G. Grainger, d.. M. Kalberer, e.. I. M. Watson, f.. P. J. Davidson g.. R. A. Cox a.. Affiliations b.. Corresponding authors Nature Climate Change 2, 713–719 (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1528 Received 14 November 2011 Accepted 10 April 2012 Published online 12 August 2012 The deliberate injection of particles into the stratosphere has been suggested as a possible geoengineering scheme to mitigate the global warming aspect of climate change. Injected particles scatter solar radiation back to space and thus reduce the radiative balance of Earth. Previous studies investigating this scheme have focused primarily on sulphuric acid particles to mimic volcanic injections of stratospheric aerosol. However, the composition and size of volcanic sulphuric acid particles are far from optimal for scattering solar radiation. We show that aerosols with other compositions, such as minerals, could be used to dramatically increase the amount of light scatter achieved on a per mass basis, thereby reducing the particle mass required for injection. The chemical consequences of injecting such particles into the stratosphere are discussed with regard to the fate of the ozone layer. Research questions are identified with which to assess the feasibility of such geoengineering schemes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?)
Sounds like another case for the quote from Robert Samuelson (economist) The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless. john gorman (engineer) - Original Message - From: John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk To: kcalde...@gmail.com; a.r.gam...@gmail.com Cc: ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 11:09 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?) Hello Ken et al, Not having an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, and my involvement with the subject being confined to participating in demonstrations and marches led by Bertrand Russell in the 1950/1960s, I am not competent to challenge or comment on any of the specific points Ken raises. But I wonder whether - since geoengineering is related to issues concerned with a novel situation: the possible extinction of many of Earth's life-forms and associated massive planetary disruption - there may be philosophical questions hitherto not recognised or fully examined, perhaps not thought to be important or valid, which could profitably be addressed now. I do not know the answer to this question. All Best Wishes, John. John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu or john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:27 PM To: a.r.gam...@gmail.com Cc: ise...@listserv.tamu.edu; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Ethics of Geoengineering (anything new?) Having but an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, you can forgive me for asking stupid questions, but ... Does geoengineering raise any ethical issues not already considered by historical figures such as Aristotle, Hume, Kant, and so on? Isn't the ethics of making decisions that affect others not involved in making the decisions a problem as old as humanity? I just don't understand how there is anything new here for philosophy. Surely there are difficult decisions to be made with moral dimensions, but I just can't imagine how geoengineering could pose fundamentally new philosophic problems. Perhaps someone can compensate for my failure of imagination and tell me in what way geoengineering poses fundamentally new philosophic problems not previously addressed. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Currently visiting Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)http://www.iass-potsdam.de/ and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Resarch (PIK)http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ in Potsdam, Germany. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Andrea Gammon a.r.gam...@gmail.commailto:a.r.gam...@gmail.com wrote: The Mansfield Center for Ethics and Public Affairs at the University of Montana (with support from the National Science Foundation) is pleased to announce the launch of the Ethics of Geoengineering Online Resource Center. We have attempted to make this an exhaustive resource for materials, organizations, and events related to geoengineering and ethics. We will continue to work to make the site increasingly comprehensive, accessible, and engaging. We welcome feedback and suggestions about significant resources that are not yet included. Please bring to our attention any papers, events, and other media you think may be missing. Visit the site at: https://ch1prd0102.outlook.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=OWAMf8GxrUmH3DmLPhvEmRVCg4-F5s4Ia3rgDEllyFha_7YuC8CjtGrFU9mOVuqXWwDCLmctAsw.URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.umt.edu%2fethics%2fresourcecenter%2fdefault.php http://www.umt.edu/ethics/resourcecenter/default.php Please email feedback or suggestions to mailto:geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com geoengineeringeth...@gmail.commailto:geoengineeringeth...@gmail.com Thanks! Andrea Gammon Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Philosophy University of Montana, '13 Christopher Preston Associate Professor of Philosophy and Fellow at the Program on Ethics and Public Affairs University of Montana -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science
I am surprised that this post didn't get any replies. It seemed rather important to me because reduction in the Indian monsoon has always been one of the arguments against stratospheric aerosol. (Together with damage to the ozone layer) My answer has always been that the Indian monsoon has already reduced considerably over the last 30 years probably due to some aspect of global warming The paper was quite difficult for a non climate scientist but the conclusion seems to be that global warming alone would probably increase the Indian monsoon but that industrial smog over Asia (aka tropospheric aerosol) disturbs the North-South circulation between the northern and southern hemispheres leading to a reduction. An early solution to the industrial smog problem in Asia is probably as unlikely as an early reduction in CO2 emissions. So maybe global stratospheric aerosol plans should start by offering a solution to the problem of the Indian monsoon reduction as well as giving an overall reduction in global warming. Maybe the same climate models that produced this conclusion could be used to produce a suitable geoengineering plan. Regards John Gorman - Original Message - From: Wil Burns To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:50 AM Subject: [geo] New Article on Aerosols and South Asian Monsoons in Science Anthropogenic Aerosols and the Weakening of the South Asian Summer Monsoon, Massimo A. Bollasina et al. Changes in monsoon rainfall are caused by human-produced aerosols slowing the tropical atmospheric circulation. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/334/6055/502 === Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director Master of Science - Energy Policy Climate Program Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 104J Washington, DC 20036 202.663.5976 (Office phone) 650.281.9126 (Mobile) wbu...@jhu.edu http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns Teaching Climate/Energy Law Policy Blog: http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Diatomaceous Earth patent
As I read this document it is a patent application. No patent has been granted and there is a period of evaluation during which it is easy to challenge. If it is ever granted then it could be a real nuisance. I filed a UK provisional patent 27th October 2006 referring specifically to silica.. My first article in any press was a regional weekly newspaper on1st DEc 2006 I had article in the magazine of the Ski Club of Great Britain specifically mentioning silica in January 2007 in my website:// www.naturaljointmobility.info/pressarticles.htm All of that was before I had ever heard of the word geoengineering or this group. Only later did I find out about Greg Benford's work -and other similar work.Prior to that I thought my work was original as possibly Mr Neff thinks! Can someone in a US university with a patent department investigate and put a challenge in before its too late. I will provide details of the above three bits of evidence. john gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 7:17 PM Subject: [geo] Diatomaceous Earth patent James Cascio has kindly pointed out that a patent has been issued for the use of silica particles for stratospheric sunshade geoengineering. (see attached). The patent was filed on 30 Sep 2009, with a provisional patent filed on 30 Sep 2008. I note that this idea of using silica particles was discussed on this group at least as early as 1 May 2007: https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#search/googlegroups+silica/11243cfe473291d8 and I have email from Greg Benford from that period specifically referring to diatomaceous earth. One would assume that any rational court would find that this patent describes things that are obvious to those skilled in the relevant arts. (I suppose the question then is whether an expectation of encountering a rational court is itself rational.) Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira See our YouTube: Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in international trade Past land use decisions and the mitigation potential of reforestation Near Zero videos -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program
I largely agree with this and i am sure the time has come for number 6 -below 6. If there is to be an overarching coordination of relevant research activities, it could be under the rubric climate change risk management or something like that,- We could call it something like The International Parliament for Climate Change( -or IPCC for short.) and charge it with coming up with solutions to avoid serious risks like those you mention -even if low probability or not easily predicted. Such solutions must be such that they can be implemented in the necessary time frame and not rely on very unlikely changes in the wohole of society.. john gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: euggor...@comcast.net Cc: gorm...@waitrose.com ; natcurr...@gmail.com ; geoengineering Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program Responding mostly to Nathan Currier's comments: 1. I do not think it is helpful to research programs to link together very disparate sorts of activities and try to give the appearance that they represent a closely integrated program. So, regardless perception, I do not think a geoengineering research program makes much sense. 2. While there is a blurring of boundaries, we can divide research and development activities into research and development. It is healthy for research to be distributed across the research establishment (universities, national labs, etc) for a number of reasons, including: (a) much of the research is of a disciplinary nature, and best done by disciplinary experts, (b) bureaucracies, once created, have their own survival and expansion as their overriding imperative, thus there will be political pressure to obtain positive results that can justify larger budgets, (c) part of the goal of research is to poke holes in ideas and think up new ideas and these goals are aided by a bit of anarchy. For out-of-the-box thinking and for evaluative functions, however, there is much to be said for a distributed approach. 3. In recommending a distributed approach to research, I am not recommending an under the radar approach, in that all of these funding decisions will require congressional action if they are going to be of meaningful scale. While the research needs some inter-agency coordination, I don't think the research requires significant new bureaucracy or new institutions. 4. There is a political strategy here as well. By emphasizing the distributed nature of the research, and the use of existing research institutions, I would like as many research institutions as possible to see researching the more promising options as an opportunity rather than a threat. 5. Development efforts do require close coordination, and if society has come to the decision that we would like to develop a deployment capability for some technology, then it makes sense to have a development program centered on that technology (or approach). For example, may make sense to have a reforestation program or a stratospheric aerosol dispersal program but it is hard for to me to imagine why anyone would want a single program spanning these two activities. So, I am for development programs if and when a decision is made to develop a deployable system. 6. If there is to be an overarching coordination of relevant research activities, it could be under the rubric climate change risk management or something like that, and could encompass emissions reduction, SRM, CDR, and adaptation. I could also imagine a sensible program organized around addressing specific risks (methane degassing, multiple simultaneous crop failures, rapid sea level rise, etc), which would then take into consideration the full spectrum of approaches to diminishing risks associated with these failure modes. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.net wrote: I agree that little is known and disagree that widespread public acceptance is needed. Public acceptance is not the issue. The public in general does not have the intellect or attention span to understand the issue of global warming except what they see in scare movies. Geoengineering is even more over their heads and one finds little lay discussion of geoengineering other than in specialty blogs. I count 2 lay articles in the NY Times during the last 10 years. I have seen several TV programs on geoengineering on specialty channels. The entire issue is political, economic, business opportunity, and scientific. For example my wife now understands solar cells
Re: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program
I strongly agree with everything in this-and in Mike McCrackens post and attachment of 04.18 on 5th Aug One thing that you academics in the field may not be aware of. At least 99% of well educated professional people have never heard the word geoengineering. I cant think of a single case in the last year or two, where I have mentioned my interest to some social group, where anyone had previously heard of geonegineering or such possibilities. Wide public knowledge doesnt exist and as Nathan said In the end, geoengineering could/should never get deployed unless there is widespread acceptance. john gorman - Original Message - From: Nathan Currier natcurr...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:39 AM Subject: [geo] Re: My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program Hi Ken, It seems your inspiration in this is largely a defensive one. In essence you’re suggesting that organized objection to geoengineering will be too great an impediment, and that if there’s this pejorative connotation that’s grown around “geoengineering,” then let’s get the needed research done under the radar and get around geoengineering adversaries through different add-ons to established research programs, etc. Perhaps that should be one track, sure, but not the only one. In the end, geoengineering could/should never get deployed unless there is widespread acceptance. If the very word has become so stigmatized that one is afraid to deal with it publicly, how can one proceed? Clearly, there needs to be broad change in its image. Another response to the current situation could be to try to push back against the geoengineer-demonizers and attempt, say, to start a media campaign to help the image of geoengineering, and to get broader comprehension of the facts. Sure, image campaigns can take huge sums of money, but without having any money to speak of at all, the anti-geoengineering folks are getting quite far with their message – because they are really the only ones putting out a message meant for the general public. There need to be some pro-geoengineering advocay groups out there. Right now, if you google geoengineering, you get “geoengineeringwatch.com” right near the top, just after Wikipedia. It’s absurd. Perhaps the new website Michael’s been talking about should be “Geoengineering.com” and be a simple first step in this direction, a site devoted to debunking the demonizers’ hyperbolic nonsense, to helping public understanding of climate engineering, and to putting forth a well-balanced description of it, its real risks, etc. It could be one very inexpensive way of starting to correct that situation. In some cases, when need be, it also might be better to simply accept having both enemies and supporters, then to avoid having enemies by existing only in the shadows. And I also think in your title, the biggest open question is the “need” part. The real question is how fast one needs to develop things now. Let me give an example: a few months ago I was having an exchange with Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley. I felt he wasn’t taking good account of aerosol negative forcings in something he said, and he shot back, “This is what you do about aerosols,” and sent me a proposal that they have drawn up at Langley for what wouldl be the largest and most advanced chamber for cloud/aerosol studies (maybe I should post it here?.). Anyhow, my first thought was – wow, that’s just what’s needed for those who want to develop aerosol SRM. But then, my second thought: wait, there is no thought at all of getting such a thing operational in less than a decade, minimum. And it’s hard to imagine anyone pushing for expediting it, unless perhaps you could convince the right people of the need of the geoengineering implications of it. So, what if things progress very rapidly in the arctic, and there's nothing ready to deal with it? Lastly, if there were no organized objections to have to fight against, I bet that you would agree that a program devoted to geoengineering research could possibly expedite greatly getting the minimal answers you’ll need to just those problems you’ll face in getting a functional program up and running soon (indeed, many things discussed on this list, like approaches to combining Latham's idea w/ aerosol SRM, go quite against what you're saying here, and demand a unified approach to research, it seems to me). I didn’t enjoy the exchanges about the Manhattan project, and this is August 6th, so I won’t go there, but to take a different example - the lunar missions - it’s a little like Buckminster Fuller’s talking about a “critical path.” That critical path demanded lots of feeding back on itself. It’s fine to have separate bits of research done on aerosol size issues, various aerosol/aerosol interactions or whatever, but as Stuart Kaufmann has said, “Idea space is infinite,” so you can get lots
[geo] Fw: Science CiteTrack: This Week In Science
This Week in Science: 333 (6042)AS couple of relevant items in this john gorman - Original Message - From: This Week In Science To: gorm...@waitrose.com Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:37 PM Subject: Science CiteTrack: This Week In Science View on mobile or on web page Science | Science Signaling | Science Translational Medicine | Science Express | Science Classic This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 333, Issue 6042 dated 29 July 2011, is now available at: Uncover Up During the previous interglacial period, approximately 127,000 to about 116,000 years ago, Earth's climate was warmer than it is currently. Global average sea level was also 4 to 6 meters higher, but it is unclear how much additional ocean volume resulted from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet versus the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Colville et al. (p. 620) examined the Sr-Nd-Pb isotope ratios of silt-size sediment discharged from southern Greenland over the penultimate warm period in order to infer what terrane in Greenland was covered in ice. The results were compared with model outputs of the Greenland Ice Sheet in order to estimate the volume of ice and to calculate how much the ice sheet contributed to sea level. The findings indicate that the Greenland Ice Sheet supplied between 1.6 and 2.2 meters of the excess sea-level rise, which suggests that the Antarctic Ice Sheet also made a major contribution to the sea level. Heating Up Agricultural Production Global temperatures have been increasing over the past several decades, and it is not clear whether this temperature increase is already affecting agricultural output. Lobell et al. (p. 616, published online 5 May) examined global food production and temperature data from the past 30 years. Of the four largest agricultural commodities, corn and wheat production has decreased in response to warming, while soybean and rice production has, on a global scale, remained unaffected. Future increases in temperatures could thus have substantial effects on food production and commodity prices. News | Journals | Careers | Blogs | Multimedia | Collections | Help | Site Map | RSS Subscribe | Feedback | Privacy / Legal | About Us | Advertise With Us | Contact Us © 2011 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, PatientInform, CrossRef, and COUNTER. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: More detail per list member request
I totally agree with these timescales. Somewhere between 2060 and 2100 is the timescale for very low carbon emissions worldwide. Anything earlier is simply unrealistic. This is the central argument for geoengineering- both SRM and carbon capture from atmos. john gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: Ken Caldeira Cc: geo-engineering grp Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:24 PM Subject: [geo] Re: More detail per list member request Ken I understand your position, and I wasn't attempting to suggest you and your co-authors were guilty of 'bad science'. However, the problem with your approach is that, in the absence of broader papers, it is not clear how policy makers could react to the risks I've outlined. The risk is that 'limited' papers, such as yours, could potentially give false hope to policy makers, when 'abject screaming panic' is actually a more appropriate response. My suggestion is that we can approach this problem mathematically. Instead of modelling each factory, you look at the first, second and possibly third differentials on per-capita emissons, and then combine them with population figures to derive maximum transition rates for emissions. The first differential is the rate of technology implementation - equivalent to the potential rate of decommissioning. The second differential is the rate of political/technological change - how quickly the social system is moving to prefer one carbon intensity path or another, equivalent to the potential rate of 'steer' onto a new, low carbon path. The third differential would (I think) be related to the volatility of the political/technological process - how suddenly or otherwise new solutions propagate. This is all perhaps a little abstract, but it's a lot easier than counting planning applications for car factories. This will then give you a somewhat-tolerable estimate of the political and technical intertias in the system. By reversing the observed accelerations, you can work out what a realistic level of decommissioning or diversion of development may be possible. You can also approach the problem sociologically, but examining uptake rates for previous energy technologies. These will be a function of the price differential, but the transition from industrial steam to industrial electricity is a reasonable example, and from my relatively limited knowledge of industrial history I reckon it was about 80yrs for the transition to fully complete, based on the timescale of first application (about 1890 to 1960). If we take the first low-carbon technologies to be wind turbines in about 1985, we can derive from that an end date of around 2060 for the global carbon economy - provided the renewable capacity is capable of delivering the energy needs of the globe. If we are to consider another milestone and assume that we're about 10yrs away from commercially available organic thin-film photovoltaics, we're probably looking at a date of 2100 for a decarbonised world. This is a very different approach, but one which I believe has some historical credibility. I'd suggest an S-curve during this time, to model a technology transition which peaks at around 40 years into the process. If you look at communications technologies, we're probably on a shorter timescale, but it's conceivable that we're about half way through the replacement of fixed phones with mobile phones at present. I appreciate that this is possibly a little 'off topic', but I believe it is worth considering as it addresses a key issue in geoengineering policy, and that is whether it's currently Plan A or B. My suggestion is that geoengineering is now likely to be essential. It is no longer a possible reaction to potential political failure, but rather an inevitable need in the face of insurmountable rates of political social and technological change. A On 26 July 2011 11:09, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote: Not considering everything under the sun is not a problem with our paper, it is what makes a scientifically defensible quantification possible. We note in the paper that in quantifying future co2 emissions from existing co2-emitting devices, we are quantifying only a piece of infrastructural commitment. We started that paper thinking we would show that existing co2-emittig devices were enough to send us over 450 ppm and 2 c. We never intended to present s realistic scenario. I believe that existing infrastructure that does not directly emit co2 (eg automobile factories), not to mention political inertia, are enough to push us beyond these levels (in the absence of dramatic political change and engineering effort). Sometimes, when writing scientific papers, it is better to answer a limited question well rather than answer a broader question poorly. Scientific papers are like statements in a discussion. We generally try
[geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so one cubic metre weighs about 3 tons. So 2000 billion tons will have a volume of about 700 billion cubic metres which is 700 cubic kilometres. If we opencast mine to a depth of 500 metres that requires a land area of 1400 square km, which is a circle of radius only about 20 kilometres. So a combined mining and processing facility only about 25 miles across could deal with the whole of the CO2 problem for good ! It would need a nuclear power station or two for the transport, crushing etc but the reaction is exothermic so it would be self sustaining once up to temperature. The calcium/ magnesium carbonate would be dumped int the same hole that the peridotite is taken out of, working in a circle round the central processor for 50 years. This back of an envelope calculation is produced for comment. I hope I haven't lost a few factors of 10 ! Could any chemical process engineer suggest how the actual processing plant might look. john gorman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms
I am not clear as to whether live diatoms are being suggested or just diatoms because they are nano silica particles as in diatomous earth. If the latter then Gregory Benford suggested the spreading of diatomous earth as diatoms in the stratosphere, about four years ago (1) as an SRM method. From a separate direction I suggested that the particles could be produced by adding tetra ethyl silicate to aviation fuel.(2) This might have various practical advantages such as exact control of particle size. Such particles in the troposphere would have very short lifetime -rather like the Icelandic ash clouds so limited SRM effect and all the disadvantages to air travel etc wouldn't they? john gorman (1) Search for saving the Arctic in this group- I cant make teh link work! (2) http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm - Original Message - From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms Hi Micheal Thanks. Your proposal is quite interesting. A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways, these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom. Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps be used along with our nano powder. The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted. This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution. There are mountains of these all over the world. http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour Scroll down for some very good photos. regards Bhaskar On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought. *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms * *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for* *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation* *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group* Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels. Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well known but that issue is outside of this proposal. Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that micro diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water to produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This conceptual sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial and Ocean Acidification Mitigation. :A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of biological aerosol medium can be anticipated. 1. *Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time?* The size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable periods of time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous aerosol concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging from altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The rate (if any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding. If it is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this could represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as, possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening. 2. *Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR?* Typically, this diatom preparation is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can be engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not substantially degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated environmental adverse effects will need investigating along with the associated high volume production needs. 3. *Will the diatom material remain viable through
Re: [geo] UNFCCC's Figueres interview to Guardian..targets too low, CO2 removal from atmosphere may be essential..
A touch of reality creeping into the COP round of talks? Dare one hope? A) 2 degrees is not safe B) We have no chance of getting anywhere near the emissions targets for 2 degrees anyway. More like 4 degrees. Lets just hope they dont come up with another fudge like the Copenhagen Accord. john gorman - Original Message - From: Emily em...@lewis-brown.net To: geo-engineering grp geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 8:44 PM Subject: [geo] UNFCCC's Figueres interview to Guardian..targets too low, CO2 removal from atmosphere may be essential.. hi hope this is of interest. best wishes, Emily. Global climate talks Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from air As Bonn talks begin, UN climate chief warns of temperature goals set too low and clock ticking on climate change action Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 June 2011 18.10 BST The world may have to resort to technology that sucks greenhouse gases from the air to stave off the worst effects of global warming, the UN climate change chief has said before talks on the issue beginning on Monday. We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the atmosphere, said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are getting into very risky territory, she added, stressing that time was running out. The UN climate talks starting on Monday in Bonn, which run for the next two weeks, will try to revive the negotiations before the next climate conference, taking place in Durban, South Africa, in December. But little progress is expected, as the negotiating time is likely to be taken up with details such as rules on monitoring emissions. Figueres tried to inject a greater sense of urgency into the proceedings by pointing to research from the International Energy Agency that found that emissions had soared last year by a record amount. The strong rise means it will take more effort by governments to curb emissions. Figueres told the Guardian in an interview that governments should act now to save money: We add $1 trillion to the cost [of tackling climate change] with every year of delay. However, as the latest talks begin, the world's leading climate change official has upset governments by insisting that the aim of the negotiations ought to be to hold warming to less than 1.5C. That would be a much tougher goal than that set by governments last year, which seeks to limit the temperature rise to no more than 2C – the safety threshold, scientists say, beyond which warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible. In my book, there is no way we can stick to the goal that we know is completely unacceptable to the most exposed [countries], Figueres said. The difference between the two goals may not seem great, but since it has taken more than 20 years of talks for countries to agree on the 2C limit, many are unwilling to reopen the debate. Delegates are conscious that wrangling over whether to stick to 1.5C or 2C was one of the main sources of conflict at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009; the hope has been that talks can move on to other issues such as how to pay for emissions curbs in poorer countries. The UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change said: Countries agreed in Copenhagen they would revisit the adequacy of the 2C goal in 2015. With the climate change negotiations seemingly stagnant, the focus now needs to be on doing what has already been agreed. Other parties agreed. This is an extraordinary intervention, said one official, who could not be named. Figueres said that she had the support of the world's least developed countries, most of Africa, and small island states. Another factor casting a pall over this year's talks, which are intended to forge a new global treaty on climate change, is criticism of the South African government, which will host the Durban talks. No interim meetings have yet been set up, and countries have complained of disorganisation and a lack of enthusiasm. But Figueres said: South Africa has been very carefully listening, trying to understand where there are commonalities and where the weaknesses are. She also predicted the US would play a strong role in the talks, despite the Obama administration facing Republican opposition in Congress to action on emissions. It's very evident that the legislative body in the US has disengaged, but … the administration continues to be engaged. she said. But Todd Stern, chief negotiator for the US, called for participants in the talks to roll up their sleeves and be constructive. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Re: Re: [geo] Senate hearing
I also read your letter and agree with and suport it strongly. john gorman hampshire uk - Original Message - From: voglerl...@gmail.com To: Rau, Greg Cc: rongretlar...@comcast.net ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 6:34 AM Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Senate hearing Hi Folks, Greg, I have read your statement to Sen. Bingaman concerning S. 699/757 (along with the bills) and found your statement to be the most concise and knowledgeable deceleration of the scientific/technical state of affairs concerning CO2 mitigation yet offered.in any forum. Your core concluding statement we must think beyond CCS if we are to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at safe levels. Nature provides plenty of inspiration as to how we might cheaply, safely, and effectively do this. is the road map that should be followed if we are to prevent massive amounts of resourcesand timebeing wasted. This forum is not singled minded on many issues. On this policy debate, it might be a good idea to agree upon the apparent state of affairs and support S. 699/757. Thank youGreg, Michael On May 17, 2011 12:36pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: With the sorry state of CCS and the non-discussion of air capture at the hearing, I was compelled to write a letter to the committee - attached. I would encourage others to also express their views to the committee. While this may not be the beach head we had hoped for, it is nevertheless an opening for dialogue and information exchange with the policy makers, which should not be squandered due to lack of appropriate expert witnesses being asked to speak. -Greg On 5/13/11 7:16 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Greg (cc list). Thanks for alerting us to this video, which I have watched. I learned a good bit more from the pre-filed testimony and then reading the (not very long) bill. The bill authorizes (but not appropriates) mainly for a still not quite fixed indemnification process. I would expect the bill to be amended a bit based on the testimony. Like you, I think the witness testimony is not very encouraging. I have one friend closely watching the small number of available of CCS test results - she says the program is a disaster. You don't pick that up clearly in this hearing - but explains why indemnification is so important to everyone. It seemed clear that the witnesses were unanimous that any Federal indemnification must be temporary - and not be complete. Some liability now appropriately remains with the developers. I was surprised that there was only oblique (very negative) reference to the recent APS report on air capture. I think the whole Geoengineering discipline (this list) would benefit a lot from a little more discussion along the lines of this hearing. Different forms of both SRM and CDR would seem to have quite different risk (and needed indemnification) profiles. If that discussion has reached the same level of sophistication as exemplified here (especially the last witness), I have missed it. The (maximum of ) 10 CCS projects will have a total of $10 billion in Federally assumed responsibility. There was agreement that this is appropriate only at this early stage. (Not clear if this is a maximum of $1 billion each - or cumulative $10). Getting something similar through the UN for similar SRM activities appears daunting. I think there is a much smaller risk and need for insurance indemnification for the CDR areas that don't involve underground sequestration. Based on this hearing, I would now argue strongly that Federal indemnification NOT be requested/allowed for the REDD+ or Biochar forms of CDR. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:35:40 PM Subject: [geo] Senate hearing For those interested, archived webcast of Thurs Senate hearing on CCS and air capture here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStreamHearing_id=bc9e9485-df04-5fb0-8621-ac3afa2b26a6 But perhaps I can save you the agony of watching. The continued economic unviability of CCS comes to the fore (despite billions of investment), and now more is being requested to indemnify projects. Air capture is finally mentioned for a few sentences at about 51:30 into the session. No air capture experts were present. Very depressing given what's at stake and what little progress on CO2 stabilization has been made (and will be made) on the present course. -Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?
The possibility of very serious problems (methane/ sea ice/ clathrates/ permafrost etc) in and around the Arctic in the next few years (5 or 10) may be low (5%, 10%, ? ) but I don't think anyone can suggest that the possibility is zero. I would therefore spend the ten million dollars on getting some SRM techniques ready for implementation. This means development and testing of a few promising techniques eg -SO2 various distribution methods. Atmospheric testing essential to evaluate practicality and details eg droplet agglometation . -My silica from tetra ethyl silicate in aircraft fuel idea. Burners must be developed. Could fighter after-burners be used? Concentration for ideal particle size must be evaluated. -The Salter/Latham cloud brightening system. Spray units must be developed, tested and manufactured in quantity (for mounting on warships ?) For each of these full atmospheric testing should be done. Not to the level of influencing climate but to ensure that the particles/droplets can be distributed in the quantity and location required. Stocks of equipment and materials would be needed for implementation within a couple of months. This testing would not influence climate even locally. The fact that climate and global warming would be controlled by this, relies on the evidence from the full global tests done by the thirteen large volcanic eruptions in the last 250 years. Implementation could only be decided by a Security Council Resolution and there would be known and unknown implications. It would be a decision in an emergency. Of course I would prefer it if climate scientists and politicians got real and accepted that emissions reductions will be too slow to avoid serious dangers but his doesn't seem likely in the near future. Regards John gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk? Folks, There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research. In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale. If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why? Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Fw: arctic fresh water
To jOhn Nissen Just a thought .Has someone picked up on your EGU paper? - Original Message - From: John Gorman To: geoengineering Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 8:19 AM Subject: arctic fresh water From the UK weekly The Week No references I'm afraid. john gorman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. attachment: the week 16th April 11.jpg
Re: [geo] Contrails bad?
My idea for stratosheric aerosol generated from aircraft fuel (1) came from reading papers showing the warming during the three day period after 9-11 when there were no contrails over the US. That was long before I had heard the word geoengineering or about volcanoes, SO2, Alan Robock or Paul Crutzen. -or this group! I later heard that there were other papers suggesting that contrails caused warming. I put some effort into trying to work out which was correct but eventually gave up , concluding that there were equal numbers of papers suggesting that contrails caused warming or cooling. I very much doubt that this has added more than one bit of paper to one side of the balance. There was even a paper suggeting that commercial flights should be limited to 20,000 feet. I cant remember why. john gorman (1) www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm - Original Message - From: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk To: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:04 PM Subject: [geo] Contrails bad? http://planetark.org/wen/61626 John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: Arctic melt down
Most of us are fully aware that we have to get CO2 down even if we can control temperature by SRM . Its all a matter of possible timescales. for instance my website http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm The urgency and severity of the problem is rapidly climbing up the popular and political agenda. To deal with this we have to do three things and we have to start all three of them now. These are: 1.) Change from our carbon and fossil fuel based worldwide energy systems to totally carbon free energy. This cannot be done instantaneously and in the light of the expansion and industrialisation of much of the developing world, some time this century is probably the only realistic timescale. 2.) Because of the inevitable delay in achieving 1, we must develop the technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in the very large quantities that we are emitting it, in order to keep the atmospheric concentration under some sort of control. (eg ocean acidity) This carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology does not presently exist. 3.) Because of the inevitable delays in 1 and 2 we must use geoengineering SRM techniques to keep worldwide temperature and sea level to approximately the present levels. This web site is only about number 3: SRM Geoengineering. This is not meant to be an alternative to number 1 and number 2. We have absolutely no choice if we are to solve the problem of global warming. We must put massive worldwide effort into all three and the first to produce results will be geoengineering. john gorman - Original Message - From: GRAHAM KNIGHT To: biochar-pol...@yahoogroups.com ; Geoengineering ; John Davies ; John Gorman ; Lloyd Helferty ; Albert Kallio ; climatechangepolit...@yahoogroups.com ; Emily ; g.monb...@zetnet.co.uk ; Mark Lynas ; fred.pea...@guardian.co.uk Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Arctic melt down Dear All, I'm glad to see that some commonsense is being shown even if limited to a tiny fraction of the human population. But none of you, it appears, has yet mentioned seawater acidity. Any geoengineering which reduces the heating from the sun must be matched by engineering to prevent the oceans soon having so much carbonic acid that all ocean life is eradicated! Like global warming, changes to sea life is already measurable. Graham Knight Hi Brian, When the hazard is as great as it appears to be - threatening the lives of the entire human race - you have to take the worst case scenario of weather conditions, and do your best to tackle that. This gives you a tight timescale. Two summers like 2007, when there was a sudden major retreat of the Arctic sea ice to a new record, and the sea ice might never recover. Thus I would argue that we should attempt to be ready for full-scale deployment of several mutually supportive techniques in two years, ready for spring 2013. The methane level is already high in the Arctic, and there appears to be enough methane clathrate in a critical state under the Siberian sea to trigger a positive feedback loop [1]. So any delay increases the chances of an uncontrollable release of methane. If we do nothing, then there is nothing to stop the Arctic warming up several degrees more and methane discharge is almost inevitable. The stark conclusion is that the future of the human race hangs on successful geoengineering. So I argue that the sooner we deploy geoengineering the better - and two years is the earliest conceivable time to be ready. Cheers, John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8
well done for getting this into the meeting presentations. (Actually You rare in CL1.16 not CL1.6) http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/oral_programme/6416 john gorman - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Geoengineering ; bioc...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:56 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering at EGU 2011, April 3-8 SRM Geoengineering Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 15:00 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/6429/geoengineering Geoengineering schemes have been proposed to temporarily counteract global warming, as nations work to implement mitigation strategies based on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include the injection of reflective aerosols into the lower stratosphere, seeding of marine clouds to modify their albedo, and placement of mirrors beyond the atmosphere to deflect incoming sunlight. While this session covers all so-called management techniques of the Earth's radiative budget via processes internal or external to the atmosphere, special emphasis is placed on stratospheric aerosols and the climate impact of volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions are indeed considered as a natural albeit imperfect anolog for stratospheric aerosol injection. The impact of volcanic eruptions, their influence on atmospheric and ocean chemistry and dynamics as well as on the hydrological and carbon cycle and on vegetation are of high relevance to the session. This session also invites papers describing the most recent scientific and engineering results on global radiation control strategies. Particularly sought are objective and scientifically sound papers describing the feasibility, effectiveness, unintended consequences, risks, costs, and the ethical and political dimensions of global radiation intervention. Authors are encouraged to consider all of the local, regional and global impacts, including predictions of changes in climatological, biological, and socio-economical parameters. Presentations of well-developed designs for laboratory or field experiments relevant as well as data analysis and in-situ and remotes sensing techniques to the topics outlined above are also welcome. CDR Geoengineering Monday 04 April, 13:30 to 17:00 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/session/7037/geoengineering The stabilization of organic matter in terrestrial and marine environments is one of the most ill-defined factors in global element cycles. The total stock of organic carbon in sediments, soils and marine dissolved organic matter (DOM) exceeds the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by orders of magnitude. Yet large uncertainties exist on the rates of and mechanisms behind the turnover of organic carbon on earth. The sequestration of organic carbon is a major research topic for a variety of scientific disciplines. Major technological advances in analytical chemistry, remote sensing or process-based modelling have led to significant advances over the past years. For this session we invite contributions from marine and terrestrial sciences, working with chemical and microbial tools on the stabilization of organic matter in the different environments. Observational and experimental studies are welcome. Scales can range from molecular to global levels and from minutes to hundreds of millions of years. We also invite contributions involving experimental studies on geoengineering in terrestrial and marine environments (for example biochar, microbial carbon pump,...). The main objective of this session is to advance the dialog among the different disciplines and to integrate knowledge of disciplines that traditionally have a low level of information exchange. These are of rather paltry length, as Andrew was fearing they would be [1]. Is anybody in the geoengineering or biochar lists contributing/presenting at EGU? I'm presenting a short paper in CL1.6. Cheers, John [1] http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/f6c5e11dee8f1b90?pli=1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts
Thanks, Emily, for finding this FoE report The report (1) looks at the emissions from each country now, and projections for 2020 and 2050. I did the same,from a different perspective, for my document Why Copenhagen Failed (2) so I have checked their calculations and they are correct. These are the reductions that would be required from the largest eight emitters by 2020 in order to keep within the 2 degree C rise;(in alphabetical order) Canada 80% reduction by 2020 China 20% reduction by 2020 Germany 63% reduction by 2020 India 63% increase by 2020 Japan 65% reduction by 2020 Russia80% reduction by 2020 UK 57%reduction by 2020 USA 80% reduction by 2020 Notes -These figures contain no fudges like emissions intensity or basing reductions on 1990. Reductions are from now -and real. -The 20% reduction for China is just as impossible as the 80% for the USA. China expects 300 million people to move from subsistence agriculture to the towns by 2030 and predicted 100% increase. -The increase allowed to India is due to the very low per capita emission now but is still far less than their post Copenhagen prediction of 100% increase.(3) The obvious impossibility of achieving these reductions is the central argument for geoengineering research -now. John Gorman (1)http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf (2)http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm (3)Last page of letter to Chris Huhne UK Minister for Energy at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm - Original Message - From: Emily em...@lewis-brown.net To: geo-engineering grp geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:37 PM Subject: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts Hi, please read the last sentence in particular: FoE now join WWF in accepting the possible need for geo-engineering. I agree with this analysis. I am trying to track down a link tot he report - if you have one, please circulate. manyt hanks and Best wishes, Emily. RECKLESS GAMBLERS key conclusions.. • Recent climate science and risk analysis show that there is now a very small remaining safe level of greenhouse gas emissions compatible with preventing dangerous climate change. • A 2 degrees temperature rise can no longer be considered “safe”; even 1.5 degrees carries with it major risks. • Even a Global Carbon Budget of 1100 Gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent from now to 2050, which would give a 75% chance of exceeding 1.5 degrees, and a 30% chance of exceeding 2 degrees, would require unprecedented emissions reductions which go far beyond those currently contemplated by politicians. Reducing risks further would require even tougher action. • If dangerous climate change is to be averted it will require immediate and significant changes to how we fuel our economies in virtually all countries, it will require systemic action across all sectors of the economies of all countries. • As leaders of countries with large historical and current emissions, politicians in developed countries must shoulder the blame for increasing the risk of dangerous climate change. They will need to make deep emissions reductions and provide hundreds of billions of dollars for developing countries to grow without carbon-intensive energy. • Living within the small remaining global carbon budget, if shared out on an equal per capita basis between 2010 and 2050, would require reductions in emissions in developed countries of around 8-15 per cent per annum, immediate emissions reductions in some developing countries, an early peak and decline in emissions in others, and some countries would be able to continue to increase emissions from their very low baseline. These are just illustrative figures, not prescriptions but if one group of countries emits more than these amounts, it would require corresponding reductions in what other countries emit and the scope for this is now very limited. Achieving cuts in developing countries will require substantial financial and technology transfers from developed countries. • Urgent research and debate needs to be carried out - alongside urgent action to reduce emissions - to identify exactly how to share out the remaining global carbon budget and whether these reductions are technically possible and, if not, whether approaches using negative emissions or even geo-engineering are possible or acceptable. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received
[geo] Cop10 -biodiversity etc
I wrote recently I dont think the anti geo attempts are having the intended effects. The ETC group's effort to get UN level bans on geo has only succeeded in bringing the whole subject into teh UN -exactly where implementation decisions must be made-eventually.There is no such thing as bad publicity Also comments in Josh Horton's recent post --This is not the same thing as a ban. Rather, this resolution has established a road map for developing international governance mechanisms to regulate (not outlaw) climate engineering techniques. Viewed in this light, the moratorium may turn out to be a hollow victory for opponents of geoengineering that, over the long run, does more to facilitate climate intervention than inhibit it. The Economist this week seems to see the situation even more positively Geoengineering Lift-off Research into the possibility of engineering a better climate is progressing at an impressive rate—and meeting strong opposition Nov 4th 2010 AS A way of saying you’ve arrived, being the subject of some carefully contrived paragraphs in the proceedings of a United Nations conference is not as dramatic as playing Wembley or holding a million-man march. But for geoengineering, those paragraphs from the recent conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan, marked a definite coming of age. The three page article is at http://www.economist.com/node/17414216 john gorman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM
Assume for a moment that the silica from tetraethyl silicate in fuel cant be done by burning the mixture a the jet engine and a special burner(possibly a ramjet) has to be used: This suggestion still seems to be the simplest way of getting a particle of defined size. Aircraft would almost certainly be used at least for initial testing so altitude restrictions apply to all proposals. |Looking at storage and pumping on the ground and on board, the use of all the standard aircraft tanks and pumps seems to have great advantages. Having said that ,all reasonably practical ideas should be taken to the stage of testing the mechanics of implementation. This includes Alvias balloon ideas, your H2SO4 and of course the sea water spraying.The costs of such research and development are trivial in comparison with the problem. john gorman - Original Message - From: David Keith To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com ; kcalde...@stanford.edu Cc: Ken Caldeira ; joshuahorton...@gmail.com ; geoengineering ; Wingenter ; Climate Intervention (climateintervent...@googlegroups.com) Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:04 PM Subject: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM A few comments on microphysics of stratospheric aerosols. We have examine the microphysics in a recent GRL paper. We confirmed earlier findings that the standard SO2 injection can be surprisingly ineffective because most of the sulfur is deposited on existing particles making them too large. We proposed a solution, injecting H2SO4 directly and showed that in the same modeling framework it worked far better than SO2. (Better=less sulfur mass to get same forcing, plus weak ozone surface-area benefits). This can be generalized to other condensable vapors. The paper is enclosed along with slides that may be helpful. N.B., we have reexamine assumptions and discovered an minor error in the original calculation, as it happens the new results make the direct H2SO4 scheme look a bit better, the figure on the slide is the new version. We also reexamined ozone loss, this effort was directed by Thomas Peter, one of the collaborators on the paper who runs a major stratospheric chemistry group. We have examine the engineering with an aircraft engineering group and found no first-order problems (that report will be released soon). I don't think H2S would help. It has the same disadvantage as SO2. Note that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial aircraft exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. Commercial aircraft don't flight at the right height or location to efficiently deliver materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical stratosphere get reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond about 18 km. Yours, David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Wingenter Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 7:39 PM To: kcalde...@stanford.edu Cc: Ken Caldeira; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering; Wingenter Subject: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM Dear Ken, The problem is after the initial injections, i.e. the second yea of GE, can we even create new particles with a background now 15 to 25 times higher with or with out nucleation sites? Under the present sulfate schemes it appears not. in order to tune in particle size and number ternary nucleation of sulfate, water and perhaps ammonia (NH3) will probably need top be invoked. Let us remember that water vapor is not finite in the stratosphere and as more particles are produced additional sulfate will be needed to reduce the vapor pressure of the aerosols. An additional species such as NH3 could help over come this limitation. Injection of H2S would lead to greater dispersion of sulfur, allowing more particle growth but is not considered in stratospheric SRM paper to date because the microphysics involved in most modeling studies has not yet been considered. The actual formation of particles in models of the stratosphere as a result of geoengineering has yet to be established. This is it greatest priority of SSRM at this time. Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter On 10/17/2010 3:41 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: Yes, you could produce even more new particles yourself which would inhibit new particle production from someone else's emissions, but presumably the total particle count would be higher at the end of all of this than if you did not intervene. Would it be possible to act on someone else's particle production in a way that would lower overall particles counts? On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Josh, If the concentration of background particle were large enough, a few hundred particle per cm3, then this would inhibit new particle
Re: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM
Thanks for the support, but I now think any thought of commercial fight use is just wildly premature at the moment. For now we need to concentrate on the practical, one off, development of the ways of distributing particles at the heights required. Trivial amounts of research money are required for this but so far I cant get any. Grant proposal attached again. johngorman - Original Message - From: Veli Albert Kallio To: David Keith ; oliver.wingen...@gmail.com ; kcalde...@stanford.edu Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com ; joshuahorton...@gmail.com ; Geoengineering FIPC ; oli...@nmt.edu ; Climateintervention FIPC Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM Note that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial aircraft exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. Commercial aircraft don’t flight at the right height or location to efficiently deliver materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical stratosphere get reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond about 18 km. I think it is a very important fact to bear in mind that the stratospheric flights are specialist flights, whereas the commerical flights to certain extent will have a free-ride. One could argue equipment added on same basis as catalysators on cars through regulatory directive. This would effectively ensure a free ride, even though the flotation half-life would be very much shorter. This recalls my experience at Farnborough Air Show where we were looking Locheed Martin F-130 Hercules aircraft and Sikorsky Helicopters. At the end of the meeting, some of the staff suggested a Sikorsky ride home to take down the stuff at the air show by chopper. But then the manager said no, we pack all stuff to packet vans and drive back and forth several hours to-and-fro (even though immensely multiplying the task of taking stuff home.) As per the above experience, I have doubts about the practicality any specialist stratospheric flight programme by specialist aircraft: (even if it delivers ten or twenty times longer flotation half-times in stratosphere to the commercial flights). If spraying carbon tetrasilicate, sulphur dioxide, or H2S, or H2SO2 the cost of speciality flights may count against the ideal delivery such a way in quantities. Have anyone look at cost / half-life ratios if the startospheric flights would still end up as more expensive? A commercial air craft flies at 11,000 metres: Wouldn't it make more sense to say that planes flying above, say, troposphere would be required by law to have an injector installed in them, which should be switched on when above say 8,000, 9,000, 10,000 or 11,000 metres? Any feedback from this pragmatist viewpoint? Kind regards, Albert -- From: ke...@ucalgary.ca To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; kcalde...@stanford.edu CC: kcalde...@gmail.com; joshuahorton...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; oli...@nmt.edu; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:04:06 -0600 Subject: [clim] RE: [geo] The problem with stratospheric SRM A few comments on microphysics of stratospheric aerosols. We have examine the microphysics in a recent GRL paper. We confirmed earlier findings that the standard SO2 injection can be surprisingly ineffective because most of the sulfur is deposited on existing particles making them too large. We proposed a solution, injecting H2SO4 directly and showed that in the same modeling framework it worked far better than SO2. (Better=less sulfur mass to get same forcing, plus weak ozone surface-area benefits). This can be generalized to other condensable vapors. The paper is enclosed along with slides that may be helpful. N.B., we have reexamine assumptions and discovered an minor error in the original calculation, as it happens the new results make the direct H2SO4 scheme look a bit better, the figure on the slide is the new version. We also reexamined ozone loss, this effort was directed by Thomas Peter, one of the collaborators on the paper who runs a major stratospheric chemistry group. We have examine the engineering with an aircraft engineering group and found no first-order problems (that report will be released soon). I don’t think H2S would help. It has the same disadvantage as SO2. Note that Gorman has proposed direct formation of silicates in commercial aircraft exhaust, following earlier suggestions of sulfur in jet fuel. Commercial aircraft don’t flight at the right height or location to efficiently deliver materials to the stratosphere. You need to be in the tropical stratosphere get reasonably long lifetimes, this requires altitudes beyond about 18 km. Yours, David From:
Re: [geo] Help Appreciated
The problem of particle size, coagulation and so on is the main argument for my proposal for Tetra ethyl silicate in aviation fuel to produce silica particles of a size defined by the concentration. Even assuming that a burner has to be designed rather then putting the fuel through the jet engine, this proposal seems to have far fewer practical barriers to be overcome before experimental implementation than most proposals for SO2 or sulphuric acid. Thanks to unpronounceable Iceland we now have far more information on the levels of atmospheric silica that are acceptable to a jet engine than we did a year ago. Recent proposal for grant attached. If anyone can find the money to proceed with this I am happy to cooperate. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Joshua Horton To: Ken Caldeira Cc: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Help Appreciated Hi Ken, If I frame this a bit better, I think we're on the same page (although my claim is probably too strong). My overall argument is that the threat of unilateral deployment is largely unfounded, and that there are in fact numerous structural incentives that favor cooperation and multilateralism when it comes to SRM. One constraint relates to potential interactions and reduced effectivess resulting from uncoordinated injections. The coagulation example is meant to illustrate this point, i.e., because SRM is relatively simple, affordable, and widely available, a country considering implementation faces strong incentives to work with other members of the international community that share its inclination if it wants to maximize the likelihood of successful deployment. I discuss several other constraints as well, including countermeasures as you mention. I think the specter of unilateral deployment crumbles under scrutiny, and amounts to little more than a boogeyman that inhibits constructive engagement. Josh On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: Multiple, independent injections would decrease the likelihood of coagulation relative to injecting it all in one place. Of course, there is potential for coordinated injections to decrease coagulation (aggregation) relative to uncoordinated injections. There is no evidence that I know of that one injection could cancel out the effects of another injection. It seems that the main case is that the climate effect of A+B would be less than the climate effects of A plus the climate effects of B. It is an interesting research question to understand whether there are countermeasures that would decrease the effectiveness of injection by injecting something upwind from an injection site that would promote aggregation of the injected material. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I am finalizing a chapter on geoengineering policy for publication and would greatly appreciate informed feedback on the following paragraph: The aerosol most commonly suggested for stratospheric injection is sulfuric acid. Plans call for delivering sulfate aerosols by dispersing gas-phase precursor materials. Precursor oxidation and aerosol formation involve complex processes with the potential to reduce the effectiveness of stratospheric insertion. For instance, coagulation could lead to excessively large sulfuric acid particles that sediment out of the stratosphere, neutralizing the effect of the initial dispersion. Multiple, independent injections would increase the likelihood of such unintended consequences. Unsynchronized staging, scheduling, and delivery of sulfate aerosol injections would magnify the potential for perverse particulate interactions, and might jeopardize the success of geoengineering deployment. Lack of policy coordination may result in separate injection schemes that effectively cancel each other out. For those with scientific/technical backgrounds, is this a sound argument? Is the basic science correct? I am outside my comfort zone with this and want to be sure I don't miss the mark. Thanks to anyone who can offer insight. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested?
I totally disagree. The ten or more major eruptions that have occurred in the last 250 years provide masses of information on the worldwide effects of stratospheric aerosols. They can tell us what happens when we put far too much up there -Tamboro 1815, or put it too low in the atmosphere Laki 1783 and when we put just about the right amount well up into the stratosphere Pinatubo 1991. The fact that we didn't set up these experiments doesn't stop them from providing useful, detailed scientific data. Alan Robock, Kevin Trenbreth and those studying the ozone layer have spent years analysing the effects. Among other things, this data can then be used to test and improve the computer models that we need to plan large scale experiments and ultimately, implementation. They also lead to David Keiths work on aerosols other than SO2 (and to my SiO2 suggestion) and to Kens work on latitudinal variation to reduce regional effects. Hopefully the models can be improved to incorporate the necessarily local input of cloud brightening. This seems likely to be a vital tuning input to control regional effects. All good solid science -even if we didn't trigger the volcano. john gorman - Original Message - From: David Schnare To: kcalde...@gmail.com Cc: bu...@rutgers.edu ; geoengineering Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? Although I generally agree with Ken in this discussion, I can't agree that Mt. Pinatubo provided even an imperfect empircal test. It wasn't a test at all. It was merely an imperfectly observed event. A test, imperfect or otherwise, presumes a panoply of scientific steps no one took, an perhaps could not take in that case. In contrast, the Icelandic eruptions are frequent enough that a competent scientist could develop a test protocol for the next big eruption that actually pushes sulfates high enough into the atmosphere, and that, while imperfect (failure to control test conditions) might rise to an imperfect empirical test. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@stanford.edu wrote: 1. Even if you want to say geoengineering cannot be [empirically] tested without full-scale implementation , it is false because there are many aspects that can be empirically tested short of full-scale implementation. Didn't Mt Pinatubo provide an imperfect empirical test? Wouldn't a test of a nozzle be an empirical test? 2. I chose the interstate highway system because it is not encapsulated. The interstate highway system had all kinds of difficult to predict consequences for the development of suburbia, location of businesses, types of automobiles sold, spread of McDonalds, etc. Nevertheless, there are many relevant tests which could be performed (both modeling and observational) prior to full scale implementation that might have given some insight into these issues. It seems to me your claim still comes down to: The only test of a thing is the thing itself, which just seems wrong. This concept of testing is not consistent with how science and technology develops. We could not fully predict the consequences of building a system of electricity generation and distribution, yet there were certainly many tests prior to and during deployment of our electricity system. Certainly, the deployment of this system had far-reaching and unpredicted consequences (who would have predicted that that system would one day enable me to send this email to you). But to say, An electricity generation and distribution system cannot be [empirically] tested without full-scale implementation is just nonsense. If you want to say X cannot be fully empirically tested without full-scale implementation, then I might agree to that regardless of whatever X might be, but then this is a statement about what it means to be fully empirically tested and not a statement about geoengineering. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Martin Bunzl bu...@rutgers.edu wrote: 1. A model is not an empirical test. The claim in Science is about the latter not the former. 2. The analogy is the interstate system is not apt – these are examples of modular or encapsulated phenomena that can be tested in relative isolation, just in the way a medication can be tested on a human subject in isolation from other humans. For more on this distinction and its implications see my article in the edition of ERL (which you co-edited): http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045104 . MB From: kcalde...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:11 AM To: bu...@rutgers.edu Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Can solar radiation management be tested? Robock et al (Science, 2010) made a categorical statement which is false: geoengineering cannot be tested
[geo] Re: [clim] Several papers
Unless I have misunderstood it, the website requires a password to view these papers and the email given to request a password has not responded in a week or so . Could you give me/us a password. I am of course very interested in alternatives to SO2 as a way of producing aerosols because of my proposal for tetra ethyl silicate in aircraft fuel to produce silica particles. Even if the fuel cant be burnt in the jet engine and needs a special burner, the storage and pumping would just use the existing equipment. Laboratory research project proposal at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm Having looked at the various proposals for producing stratospheric aerosols, I think mine might well be the quickest to get into experimental operation. (Obviously we should get all viable proposals ready for experimental atmospheric implementation) If anyone can get some money for lab experiments I will cooperat fully. john gorman - Original Message - From: David Keith To: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 10:06 PM Subject: [clim] Several papers This is a shameless advert for new papers on the science and policy of solar radiation management. The papers are available from the preprint section of my website (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html, earlier geoengineering papers and talks are at www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/geo.html) Two papers are publishing in the next couple of weeks (The PNAS paper publishes Tuesday, it is embargoed until then, and the GRL paper is already on their website in preprint form, but it will be a few weeks before formal publication.) Jeffrey R. Pierce, Debra K. Weisenstein, Patricia Heckendorn, Thomas Peter and David W. Keith. Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensable vapor from aircraft. Geophysical Research Letters. Copying volcanoes by injecting SO2 doesn't work very well because most of the added sulfur is deposited on the largest particles, producing the particle size distribution that is too large. Direct injection of sulfuric acid from an aircraft can allow much better control of particle size distribution. In our un-optimized models, it looks like this method can reduce the amount of sulfur needed to achieve 4 Wm-2 by more than a factor of two, and by a much larger factor when compared with injection of SO2 near the equator. Similar methods might be employed for other condensable vapors using technologies had been well explored in vapor phase fabrication of nano-scale particles. Note that: A preliminary look at the engineering suggest that these methods do not require any technological leap. Note also, that we have commissioned a study of delivery methods by aircraft engineering company and will release the entire report in the next month or so. David W. Keith. Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Oriented particles can be non-spherical allowing backscatter with essentially none of the forward scattering caused by small spherical aerosols. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates. Note: While cost and feasibility of producing and dispersing of such particles is unknown, analogies to existing particle fabrication technologies suggest that such methods cannot be dismissed out of hand. More generally, this suggest that there might be a range of technically sophisticated options beyond mimicking volcanoes that might offer advantages in the form of more controllable climate forcing, the downside is that it's far easier to think of new methods than it is to understand their effectiveness of environmental risks. The following two papers are under review at Climatic Change, but since their review process is long I want to make them available as preprints: Juan Moreno-Cruz, Katharine Ricke and David W. Keith, A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Submitted to Climatic Change. We calculate the amount of SRM that minimizes impacts using three different social
Re: [geo] Re: Cochabamba Conference a turning point?
Yes Stephen Salter has in some detail which he sent me recently. I could forward it to you but I would rather let Steven send it to you himself. What his modelling suggests to me is that careful placing of the ocean spray sites can go a long way to tuning world precipitation in areas remote from the spray site. Ocean spraying in conjunction with stratospheric aerosols should give us what is needed. Big project but I think we will have to do it. The met office also did some modelling to show that ocean spraying in a particular site would reduce rainfall in the Amazon and this was quoted as a negative in the first parliamentary committee hearing on geo but the met office witness failed to notice the obvious corollary to this bit of research. Namely that spraying in a different site would probably increase rainfall in the Amazon. john gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Cochabamba Conference a turning point? I note the quite reasonable concern below that the Amazon may dry and burn in a warmer world. This is based on Vizy et al., I assume. I am keen to know if anyone as modelled rainfall in an SRM world to see if the Amazon is critically dessicated under a mix of SRM and warming? We need to be sure that we get the right balance between cooling and drying. This may place limits on the SRM we could do, as it's unlikely to be viable to use SRM if it will cause Amazon collapse. A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Desalinization Scheme
Although Burns is a Scottish name, I convinced that he must be Irish because only an Irishman could make this suggestion as solution to sea level rise. I'll tell you wot! We'll trink ut! An' if we put a drap of whiskey in each glass we'll hardly notice the sarlt john gorman ps -being Irish on both sides of the family, I'm allowed to make Irish jokes. - Original Message - From: Brennan Jorgensen sunhydrosyst...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:40 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Desalinization Scheme Dr. Burns, I also have been on a novice quest to design for a solar-powered desalination system coupled to a chloralkali industrial process. I typed up a 40-page rough draft and have not yet completed a final draft. I need to revise the chloro-alkali process per my conversation with Greg Rau. The brine wastewater leftover from desalination is used as a nutrient-rich medium for Arthrospira cyanobacteria (a means for photosynthetic carbon assimilation). After desert brine wastewater lakes evaporate, the goal is to generate convective cloud formations in the low latitude subtopics. The remaining salt fields further deflect incoming solar radiation from the sun much similar to the albedo effect of polar ice caps. Here is an abstract: The Reverse Entropy Utility System or REUS is a technologically reliable and economically feasible model for the capture of C02 because it is simply a novel reconfiguration of proven technologies and economic models that have performed successfully for over a quarter of a century. Namely, these technologies are parabolic solar concentrators, multi-effect desalination chambers and chloro-alkali industrial systems in addition to well known agriculture and silvaculture methodologies. The REUS model can arguably be classified as an integrated coastal desert terraforming operation that greatly expands photosynthetic capital with commercially valuable desert agriculture, forestry and algae aquaculture. The REUS model is also specifically designed to parallel the 50% projected global demand for energy, water and agricultural resources required by an estimated 8 billion people by the year 2030 while greatly lessening market level demands on existing carbon reserves such as tropical forests. On average, a 100-MW REUS model operating at 200,000 MWh/yr will sequester at least 50 million tonnes of C02 primarily through photosynthesis and carbonates after 10 years. This represents an economy of scale average operational efficiency of 40 KWh of solar electricity required to sequester 1 metric ton of C02. Besides C02 being assimilated by sodium hydroxide in order to produce carbonates, most of the photosynthetically assimilated C02 will be turned into commercially valuable products in order to make the system economically viable. The sum total of sequestering 50 million tonnes of C02 into commercially valuable products for a 100-MW REUS model after 10 years of operation would amount to the following biomass figures and 2009 market values; 196,875 tonnes of bamboo (U.s. value $4.9 million), 187,500 tonnes of sugarcane ($1.8 million), 66,823 tonnes of tropical hardwood and fruit tree biomass ($2.0 million) and 18,560,000 tonnes of Arthrospira dry weight algae ($1,856.0 million). Plus the system will generate 27,600,000 tonnes of brine salts after 10 years of operation with a total U.S. market value of $414 million dollars. The solar thermal albedo offset from the REUS models nearly 2-Km2 of parabolic mirrors and total of 50-km2 of intermittent white carbonate and salt flats will also offset the total atmospheric thermal heating effects of 8 million tonnes of C02 in the atmosphere during its ten years of operation. If after 10 years of operation, 27,600,000 tonnes of white brine salts are left in place covering a 50-km2 area at a 30-degree subtropical desert latitude, the yearly thermal albedo effect would be equivalent to removing at least 2.5 million tonnes of C02 from the atmosphere annually. With combined photosynthetic, carbonate and albedo effects, A 100-MW REUS system operating at 200,000 MWh/yr can offset the C02 emissions of twenty 500-MW fossil fuel power plants producing 300,000 tonnes of C02 a year. On Apr 21, 8:59 am, Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com wrote: FYI. wil TITLE: Climatic changes: what if the global increase of CO(2) emissions cannot be kept under control? AUTHORS: L A Barreto de Castro AFFILIATION: Ministério de Ciência e Technologia, Brasília, DF, Brasil. lbarr...@mct.gov.br lbarr...@mct.gov.br REFERENCE: Braz J Med Biol Res 2010 Mar 43(3):230-3 Climatic changes threaten the planet. Most articles related to the subject present estimates of the disasters expected to occur, but few have proposed ways to deal with the impending menaces. One such threat is the global warming caused by the continuous increase in CO2 emissions leading to rising ocean levels due to the increasing temperatures
Re: [clim] RE: [geo] RE: Asilomar: UN Security Council
or as Woody Allen said The lion shall lie down with the lamb --but the lamb wont get much sleep - Original Message - From: xbenf...@aol.com To: leol...@crai.com; agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:00 PM Subject: [clim] RE: [geo] RE: Asilomar: UN Security Council Of course, the lion shall lie down with the lamb -- but historically, in the exhibits showing this, the lamb must often be replaced. Gregory Benford -Original Message- From: Lane, Lee O. leol...@crai.com To: Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com; Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 30, 2010 5:41 am Subject: RE: [geo] RE: Asilomar: UN Security Council Alvia,You are, in my view, entirely correct in your skepticism about fears of unilateral climate engineering. If one looks at such options more closely, all sorts of possible barriers begin to appear. I am at work on two publications that will explore the reasoning behind this more sanguine view of the world politics of CE.As to the Security Council, if a state wanted to appeal to that body in order to halt a CE effort, it could do so. Assuming that the state initiating the CE was a Council member, or was a client state of one, when push came to shove, that member would have a veto option; so I am not sure why anybody thinks that the Security Council offers much of a restraint. The more basic point is that international regimes like the Council are not quasi-governments designed to thwart the plans of the great powers; rather, they are created by those powers as structures within which they can bargain with each other. An efficient structure would include all the states with power over the actions in question; the voting rules would reflect the extant distribution of power, and members would have incentives to practice straight dealing. That the lion shall lie down with the lamb or the meek inherit the Earth are neither likely results nor even agenda items – although there may be reasons to list them as such for appearances sake. Lee From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Mon 3/29/2010 6:42 PM To: Lane, Lee O.; Geoengineering; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Asilomar: Waiting for Pericles? Or, alternatively, having the Security Council approve of the actions of the committee/commission. The venal obstructionism (and you left out about 50 other meetings at the various COP-outs) would be less likely since the climate engineering would not require hard decisions about economics for the affected parties. One of my reasons for coming back to the UN is that so many of the geo-haters like to bring up the unilateral/war scenarios that are so unlikely for a variety of reasons. If another nation or NGO wanted to complain about the use of climate engineering, the Security Council would be the final authority. If there is time for sanctions for Serbia, there is time for something this important, if it should ever come up in the first place. - Original Message - From: Lane, Lee O. To: Alvia Gaskill ; Geoengineering ; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:11 PM Subject: RE: [geo] RE: Asilomar: Waiting for Pericles? Alvia,Thank you for your suggestion. In setting up an international regime, it is often a good idea to make the formal legal structure match as closely as possible the relevant de facto power structure. The UN Security Council has some of the states that are likely to be major actors with regard to CE, but it does not include others – Brazil, India, and Japan come instantly to mind. The rotating members broaden the base, but erratically. The Security Council vote weighting system is clearly very crude, and it may be poorly suited to many of the kinds of issues that might arise in managing CE; further, the Security Council is a busy place. Do they have the agenda space for an issue like CE? I think not. Finally, once something falls into the UN’s purview, can it be safely insulated from encroachment by the General Assembly? If it could not be, CE might become subject to the same venal obstructionism that was so evident at Bali and Copenhagen. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on UN procedures. Others, whose judgment I greatly respect, think that, despite the UN's patent defects, something useful might still be done under its aegis, or at least they believe that UN involvement is inevitable. These judgments may be right, but the above cited problems are major; therefore, if there is a way to avoid UN involvement, I suspect that doing so would offer a large up-side. That so astute and practiced a diplomat as Ambassador Benedick urges this course reinforces my belief in it. Best,Lee From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Mon 3/29/2010 12:43 PM To: Lane, Lee O.; Geoengineering; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo]
[geo] Fw: Science and Technology Committee Press Notice #26: Report published - The Regulation of Geoengineering
the results of the UK Parliamentary committee hearings recently which were in cooperation withthe US hearings - Original Message - From: Science Technology Committee scitech...@parliament.uk Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:00 AM Subject: Science and Technology Committee Press Notice #26: Report published - The Regulation of Geoengineering SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Select Committee Announcement Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA Tel. No. 020 7219 2794 Fax. No. 020 7219 0896 Email: scitech...@parliament.uk No. 26 (09-10): 18 March 2010 MPs CALL FOR EARLY ACTION ON GEOENGINEERING REGULATION Arrangements for the regulation of geoengineering must not be left until highly disruptive climate change is underway, warns the Science and Technology Committee in a report published today (Thursday 18 March). Serious consideration for regulation should start now and the Committee urges the UK and other governments to 'prime the UN pump' in order to ensure the best chance of eventual multilateral agreement to a UN-operated regulatory framework. The Committee outlines three reasons why regulation is needed: * Future geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate of the Earth * Small-scale geoengineering testing is already underway * Geoengineering as a 'Plan B' may be required if 'Plan A' - the reduction of greenhouse gases - fails Starting work now provides the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues. The Committee recommends the grading of geoengineering techniques and that regulatory regimes should then be tailored accordingly, with controls based on a set of widely-agreed principles. This inquiry was part of a unique collaboration with the US House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee. In its report the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee commends to its successor committee international collaboration as an innovative way to meet future global challenges. The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, commented: Geoengineering could affect the entire planet and it would be foolish to ignore its potential to minimise or reverse human caused climate change. There is no sound reason not to begin the groundwork for regulatory arrangements immediately. I particularly welcome the solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative that the Royal Society announced today. We hope that our work with the US House Committee will set in train greater collaboration between parliamentary committees in the future. We found it to be constructive, rewarding and, we hope, successful. NOTES TO EDITORS: 1. Further details about this inquiry can be found at: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_geoengineering_inquiry.cfm Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693 Committee Website: http://www.parliament.uk/science Publications / Reports / Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.ukhttp://www.parliament.uk/. UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: WWF also on geo-eng Re: [geo] Re: Friends of the Earth calls for geoengineering research states that mitigation is not enough to stay safe
I think all of us in favour of geoengineering look upon the space sunshades idea as something put into articles by journalists to discredit geoengineering. It is totally irrelevant because it couldn't be implemented till very late in this century and we will have sorted out the CO2 balance and energy systems by then. The time for SRM is the near future till we get CO2 extraction and non carbon energy sorted. john gorman - Original Message - From: Paul ppcr...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: WWF also on geo-eng Re: [geo] Re: Friends of the Earth calls for geoengineering research states that mitigation is not enough to stay safe Ken -- Excellent post. The British Friends of the Earth statement includes the sensible line: “For the solar radiation techniques solar shades remains the stuff of children’s sci-fi films.” Geoengineering is giving itself a bad name by appearing overly enthusiastic about Edward Teller type ideas [Remember Teller -- the 'father of the H-bomb', and proposer of many schemes to use nuclear devices for such purposes as extracting natural gas from tight formations, building a new 'Panama Canal' and building a deep water port in the far northwestern part of Alaska. The last of these lead to Inuit (Native Alaskan) self-protective reactions with consequences that last to this day. The long-term side-effects ended up being larger than the proposed main effect]. The Sierra Club surely counts itself among organizations supporting well-understood activities that sequester carbon (e.g. forests) or change the albedo constructively (e.g. white roofs), and supporting sensible research (e.g. on CCS). This focus is implicit in the name or our main program: Climate Recovery Partnership (http:// www.sierraclub.org/crp/) Research on concepts that will lead to increased ocean acidification might be acceptable if married to technologies to offset those effects. While Everything is connected to everything else is almost tautologically true, connections are often small enough that they can be ignored. With many geoengineering proposals -- not so. If the geoengineering community hopes to bring on board environmental groups, it will need good answers to the kinds of questions implied by the above. There's some good thinking in the as yet small geoengineering literature on raising this kind of question. There's as yet a dearth of compelling responses. Paul Craig Sierra Club -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Friends of the Earth calls for geoengineering research states that mitigation is not enough to stay safe
This briefing is absolutely brilliant -particularly the first page.The most realistic assesment lthat I have read in a long time. Please read it. (A full briefing is at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf) Incidentally I have now found the final commitments (post copenhagen ) from most countries and they are exactly the same as those distributed to this group during Copenhagen so; I can confirm that we are on line for at least a 20% increase in emissions by 2020 on the official Copenhagen figures.ie we are nowhere near the 2degree target. I was very pleased to see the Greenpeace briefing warning that It should also be stated that the 2 degree threshold identified by governments was a political judgement that has been interpreted as an acceptance, as least by rich countries, of temperature increases below this threshold. with warnings about the consequences at that level. Well done Andrew for your part in this. john gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:45 AM Subject: [geo] Friends of the Earth calls for geoengineering research states that mitigation is not enough to stay safe Following my group's motion to conference last year, Friends of the Earth has now called for geoengineering research, and recognised that mitigation is not enough to stay within 'safe' thresholds. I am heartened by this, as this makes FoE the first (to my knowledge) mainstream environmental group to publicly call for research into geoeng. I hope that this will now further isolate the irrational and vociferous campaigning stance against geoeng which has been run by some NGOs. The tide has now turned, as the UKs most 'moderate' mainstream general environmental NGO has taken this new stance. Motion text below, as passed at conference. The board's response is below the motion text. A full briefing is at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf A --- Motion 7– Geo-engineering (my bolding) This Conference calls upon the Board of Friends of the Earth Ltd. to consider: 1. Whether or not geo-engineering could be a necessary or desirable part of the solution to climate change 2. The merits and shortcomings of various notable geo-engineering techniques (e.g. bio-energy with carbon storage, stratospheric sulphur aerosols, carbon air capture, etc) 3. Establish a publicly-stated and scientifically robust position on both geo-engineering field experiments and on the full scale-implementation of geo-engineering [The National Academy of Sciences defined geo-engineering as large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.] Board response: Following the passing of this motion staff have prepared a detailed position statement on Geoengineering which can be obtained at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf Its conclusion is that: “Mitigation has to be the priority for action; action far in excess of currently being considered by politicians is needed. It is now clear that mitigation alone cannot keep global temperatures below a safer threshold of 1- 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. However many of the geo-engineering options suggested are totally unacceptable due to the adverse environmental or social impacts they bring or risk bringing.” The Royal Society report on the same subject in September 2009 is available at: http://royalsociety.org/geoengineeringclimate/ . The recommendations of this report are also relevant, as are its ‘headline messages’: “The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geo-engineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change. Geo-engineering methods could however potentially be useful in future to augment continuing efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions, and so should be subject to more detailed research and analysis. However, the technology to do so is barely formed, and there are major uncertainties regarding its effectiveness, costs, and environmental impacts.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering
Re: [geo] NERC geoengineering public dialogue - progress update (fwd)
Thanks for this Ken. Once again someone in California tells me about something in my own back yard that I hadn't heard of. Can any UK academic or university person explain whats going on here. Have we got a race between the National Environmental Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to take control of geoengineering research? Sounds like fun! The more the merrier! john gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:23 PM Subject: [geo] NERC geoengineering public dialogue - progress update (fwd) see: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asp -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:46:41 + From: Geoengineering Geoengineering geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk To: Geoengineering Geoengineering geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk Subject: NERC geoengineering public dialogue - progress update Dear all, A progress update on the NERC public dialogue on geoengineering is below. 1) Contractors We are pleased to announce that Ipsos MORI, working with Dialogue by Design and the British Science Association, have been chosen to design and run the workshop sessions and open access events for the dialogue. Collingwood Environmental Planning will run an independent evaluation of the dialogue process. 2) Steering group Details of steering group membership have been posted on the geoengineering public dialogue page of the NERC website (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering.asp) The steering group is chaired by Professor Charles Godfray of the University of Oxford , and includes representatives from academia, government, industry and charities. 3) Hopes and concerns about geoengineering Finally, we'd like to thank all who sent in views on their hopes and concerns about potential geoengineering technologies, and on what questions we should ask as part of the dialogue. Your comments will be collated and passed on to the steering group and Ipsos MORI as they develop plans for the dialogue workshops. Please feel free to forward this e-mail to colleagues. You can contact geoengineer...@nerc.ac.ukmailto:geoengineer...@nerc.ac.uk if you have any queries or would like to be removed from our mailing list. Regards, Peter Hurrell Stakeholder Liaison Officer | Knowledge Exchange Team Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Putting NERC science to use: find out more through NERC’s Science Impacts Databasehttp://sid.nerc.ac.uk/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS BY UK AIR FORCE CREATE CLOUDS ABOVE BRITAIN
The cooling effect of aircraft contrails was what initially got me involved in geo. This all started about 2005 when I saw a BBC Horizon programme about the effect of aircraft condensation trails. The clear skies in the immediate few days after 911 allowed a good estimate of the global cooling effect to be made and it was significant. There have also been similar programmes about the effect of pollutants particularly smoke in South East Asia due to forest fires. I describe the evolution of an idea in detail at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/experiments.htm Over time I found that there were more papers suggesting that contrails had an overall warming effect than there were suggesting cooling. (as Mike McCracken's post says) I haven't followed the contrail / high cloud idea since and have concentrated on stratospheric aerosols where there is the great advantage that 13 global experiments have been done in the last 250 years proving without doubt that the effect is cooling and in some cases by exactly the right ammount. eg Pinatubo. We also know what happens if we overdo it eg Tamboro1815 John Gorman - Original Message - From: m2redmond m2des...@cablespeed.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:11 PM Subject: [geo] Re: GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS BY UK AIR FORCE CREATE CLOUDS ABOVE BRITAIN JUST THINK IF THIS EFFECT WAS 100's to 1000's OF TIMES LARGER (much thicker and larger in area) for each aircraft mission. My concept of dispensing large amounts of liquefied air (along with water vapor and/or CCN's if necessary) might accomplish just that in a single (100-ton) payload release. NOW THINK OF MULTIPLE AIRCRAFT (if needed) CREATING ENOUGH CLOUD COVER TO OFFSET GLOBAL WARMING. I believe this is possible because of the huge net gain in cloud creation per flight, and that this simple test by the British Army supports my theory. Some have too easily dismissed the concept, when this image sequence shows that a relatively small input to the atmosphere can grow to create something very significant. I have to believe that someone in this newsgroup recognizes the potential in my approach and at least believes it should be seriously considered along with other promising geoengineering concepts (incl remote ships and sulfate aerosols). Please comment on this either way- I would very much like to hear from anyone in this group! Mark Massmann m2des...@cablespeed.com 425-208-9798 Redmond WA On Jan 9, 1:59 pm, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote: The British Army created a circular holding pattern to create an immense artificial coil in the sky made of the military aeroplane's contrail. This was then easy to distinguish and track by satellites to see undisputed, how aeroplane emissions can be made to turn clear skies to artificial cirrus covered clouds. Link to the slide show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8309629.stm _ Got a cool Hotmail story? Tell us nowhttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] House of Commons committee receives evidence re: geoengineering, 15th Jan
At this address http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/geoengineer/contents.htm you can look at all the submissions including Alan's, mine and that of the ETC group. This committee will be working in conjunction with a committee of the US Congress on the Regulation of Geoengineering. The first session is on wednesday as Alan says -I hadnt been informed-despite submitting evidence. see http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm for timings John Gorman - Original Message - From: Alan Gadian a...@env.leeds.ac.uk To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:23 PM Subject: [geo] House of Commons committee receives evidence re: geoengineering, 15th Jan On 13th January evidence will be heard regarding geoengineering regulation required (visitors allowed) in the Thatcher committee room, by Science and Technology Select Committee. A little depressing! http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/geoengineer/ucm0302.htm Alan Gadian --- Address: Alan Gadian, NCAS, Environment, Leeds University, Leeds LS2 9JT Email: a...@env.leeds.ac.uk or alan...@gmail.com Tel: (+44)/(0) 113 343 7246 Mobile: (+44)/(0) 775 451 9009 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering: two schemes better than one?
Strongly agree with every word of this. SRM is the easy way to give overall cooling and whether Mythrvold is right, in saying that the right place to inject is the arctic, turns out to be correct only time and good models will tell. His argument for injecting in the arctic is slightly different from those of us who have suggested this previously. I, Greg Benford etc suggested saving the arctic without affecting the rest of the world too much. He seems to suggest that it is the right place to inject for general cooling. Either way it seems likely that general cooling will probably leave some undesirable regional effects where the regional nature of cloud whitening would give us real control of the local effects. A whole new science -and not easy -but almost certainly necessary. John Gorman - Original Message - From: John Latham To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: Geoengineering ; Oliver Tickell Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 2:33 AM Subject: [geo] Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering: two schemes better than one? Hello John et al, Thank you, John, for drawing attention to the fascinating Nathan Myhrvold interview. In my view the stratospheric seeding SRM scheme developed by Nathan, Lowell Wood (both colossally brilliant and creative scientists) and others is very likely to work effectively if it were to be deployed: and funding for an examination of the idea and its ramifications should be made available as a matter of urgency. I?d argue also that two eggs in the basket are better than one, and that the cloud whitening (cloud albedo enhancement) scheme also holds significant promise of being able to stabilize the Earth?s temperature and polar sea-ice cover at about current values for some decades into the future ? at least until the 2xCO2 point. To examine this statement please read the just-published paper on this idea, by Rasch, Latham Chen, in the special geo-engineering issue of Env. Res. Lett., edited by Ken Caldeira David Keith, link http://stacks.iop.org/1748-9326/4/045112 Figure 2 of this paper, emanating from fully-coupled atmosphere/ocean GCM computations, illustrates how the proposed maritime cloud seeding, conducted in a 2xCO2 situation, can restore sea-ice cover to values existing at 1xCO2. I?d also point out that the cloud seeding produces its maximum cooling in the polar regions. Pursuing a little further the eggs-in-basket metaphor, it seems possible that although both the stratospheric sulphur and maritime cloud seeding schemes ? if technological and other problems were satisfactorily resolved ? could both prove to be independently able to ?buy significant time?, they might, acting in concert prove to be more powerful and flexible than either acting alone. One possible scenario is that the bulk of the cooling would result from stratospheric scheme while cloud whitening ? which is in principle capable of making localized (as well as global) changes ? could provide fine tuning in important selected areas. All Best, John (lat...@ucar.edu)12/27/09 *** Quoting John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk: Hi all, Have you seen this? Best case for SRM in Arctic I've seen! Inventor Nathan Myhrvold describes space hose for getting aerosols into stratosphere - and he's done the modelling to show it could be used at the Arctic, to cool whole hemisphere, without disrupting weather (see about 9 minutes in). Cooling the Arctic shuts of a whole lot of tipping points. It shows incredible promise, but governments aren't running to him - so far. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn Suppressing the only technology that could get us out of this pickle... would be plain silly. He argues (as nobody I've seen to argue before), that even emissions reduction to zero overnight, would not solve the problem of global warming, because about 20% CO2 stays in atmosphere for thousands of years. Geoengineering has to be part of the debate. We have to examine the options. You can't rule these things out. Cheers, John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- John Latham lat...@ucar.edu john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk Tel. 303-444-2429 (H) 303-497-8182 (W) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group
Re: [geo] Antarctic - need for sun block
In the first document I wrote (for the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007?), promoting my idea for silica particles generated by tetra ethyl silicate as an aircraft fuel additive, I had the following: Incidental Advantages. 1 ) Ultraviolet Screening. To be effective, screening of solar radiation must reflect part of the incoming radiation back into space. Much life on this planet is already dependent on the ultraviolet screening provided by the ozone layer. Ultraviolet is largely harmful to life and, as we know, to human skin being the main cause of skin cancers. It is probable that a reduction in ultraviolet radiation at the surface could be seen as a significant advantage for a sun loving population. Since the wavelength, which is preferentially reflected, depends on the size of the particle it may be possible to choose the particle size specifically to reduce the proportion of the most harmful ultraviolet radiation. The document is at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/EarthPaper.htm but please dont bother to point out all the errors in it- i have learnt a lot since then. However I still think this fuel additive should have proper funded research together with lots of other good ideas. John Gorman - Original Message - From: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 9:54 PM Subject: [geo] Antarctic - need for sun block First thought - could they be talking about geoengineering? http://planetark.org/wen/56059 Second thought, perhaps SRM with stratospheric aerosols would act as a good UV sun block! Final thought: Happy Christmas everyone, John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering?
Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering?The Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling in his lecture to the World Bank What Development Economists Need to Know About Climate Change. said that this was not a case where we should apply conventional cost benefit analysis. The bad was just so bad that we had to solve it. I agree. The lecture is still available at http://info.worldbank.org/etools/bspan/PresentationView.asp?PID=2201EID=994 It is quite long- about an hour but he is a super lecturer covering the whole subject really clearly. He is not a scientist. He is an economist. He also suggests, that the bad being so bad means that it is not sensible to demand unequivocal proof of the bads. (or to point to possible goods like Greenland replacing the cornbelts of the USA -maybe) John Gorman - Original Message - From: William Fulkerson To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk ; Hawkins, Dave Cc: John Gorman ; Google Group ; Oliver Tickell Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? Dear John Nissen: How important is it to avoid loosing summer sea ice in the Arctic? The bads from it include: positive feedback on warming due to albedo lowering and increased input of GHG emissions from permafrost melting and hydrate decomposition causing some acceleration of the impact of warming on the Greenland ice sheet, damage to ecosystems (including iconic species) and social systems, possible harmful impact on northern latitude weather patterns, and perhaps others that I don't know about. There are some goods to like the Northwest passage I suppose. To your knowledge has anyone or any group tried to quantify these bads or do a rough cost/benefit analysis. One important part of your arguments, with which I am in agreement, is that the bads are pretty bad, and, therefore, there is an urgency to do something. If that can be shown unequivocally, then it argues for finding out if some form of SRM can reduce the bads; i.e. Initiating an urgent, focused and comprehensive RDD program. Perhaps the first step in the program is to do the cost/benefit as best it can be done. With best regards, Bill Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment University of Tennessee 311 Conference Center Bldg. Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 wf...@utk.edu 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX Home 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771- On 12/11/09 11:18 AM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote: Hi Dave, I'll deal first with John's case from the back of the envelope calculation, and then with the scientific reticence. The case is even stronger than John Gorman has put it. Even if emissions were stopped overnight, the mean annual temperature in the Arctic would continue to rise, and with an acceleration, due to the positive feedback of the sea ice - as ice (with high albedo) melts it gives way to open water (with low albedo) which absorbs most of the sunlight. This albedo effect is thought to be part of the basic mechanism of polar amplification. Now for the scientific reticence. It's not quite the entire scientific community who are reticent. There are some good folks on this list who have stood out for geoengineering, David Keith for one. He gave an excellent presentation on geoengineering, at the Royal Geographical Society, here in London. He pointed out the ginormous quantity of CO2 mankind had dumped in the atmosphere, and he pointed out that some of this CO2 would last thousands of years - worse than nuclear waste! It was quite clear that the associated global warming would last a time longer than the Arctic sea ice. The fear that academics have of their own peers is quite understandable. Paul Crutzen had enormous difficulty in publishing his seminal paper on geoengineering with stratospheric sulphate - and then received a lot of flack from colleagues after it was published - so much flack that he seems to have retired from the scene. The other fear, which is more forgiveable, is that academics, and scientific advisers generally, didn't want to disrupt the Copenhagen process. They have strained every ounce of intellect to persuade the politicians to get the best possible deal at Copenhagen. This has meant that government advisers (like ex-IPCC Bob Watson in the UK) who perfectly understand the dangers of Arctic sea ice, have been telling the government that cutting emissions is the top priority. What the advisers have not acknowledged is the speed of retreat of the sea ice - that is until their Copenhagen Diagnosis report [1]. The sea ice summer extent has been 40% below the IPCC models predictions for three years in a row! So the summer sea ice is now expected disappear by 2040 - and there is the possibility of it disappearing end summer within a few years
Re: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere
A month or two back someone suggested that H2 would have as bad an effect on the ozone layer as CFCs and that this was a reason for rejecting the H2 based transport energy idea. Is this true? If so we want as little free H2 released as possible even if it would have other positive effects. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com To: geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:28 AM Subject: [geo] Re: H2 in the atmosphere Good point, Oliver, Radiative forcing due to stratospheric water vapor from CH4 was estimated at 0.07 W/m² by the IPCC in AR4 (2007). Adding further hydrogen and oxygen may cause additional water vapor, in turn causing additional radiative forcing. However, water vapor persists for relatively short periods, much shorter than methane. Most vapor will quickly turn into precipitation, which may also be beneficial for the soil at many places. Furthermore, additional cloud coverage may make that more sunlight is reflected back into space, mainly due to the albedo difference between clouds and seawater. Overall, the impact may therefore be beneficial, especially if this results in increased oxidation of methane. Of course, the aim of such a project would not be to create vapor, the aim would be to increase hydroxyl levels, so we should look at adding hydrogen and oxygen in ways that maximize hydroxyl formation, rather than water vapor. Much research and testing has already been done and further research can build on this. There should be more research in all this, with testing of the overall impact of such a project, rather than to rely only on observations of reactions that take place in isolated conditions during lab testing. As discussed, we should have plans ready in case methane becomes catastrophic, e.g. due to large increases of methane from permafrost and clathrates, while hydroxyl levels are dropping. Such a plan should aim to take into account all the impacts, as well as work out costs, feasibility and other points I raised before. In short, it should be researched as a geoengineering project. If this takes years of research and testing, then the more reason to start with it now, as we may find that we have little time left to do this, if it suddenly becomes immanent that our worst fears have eventuated. Cheers Sam Carana On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote: Dear Sam and Andrew, Some problems may come up with further increasing H2. H2 is an indirect GHG. H2 is a significant OH sink globally. Most of the H2 is consumed in soil. In soil the following reaction takes place, CO2+4H2 ? CH4+2H2O. Furthermore, the oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere of produces about half of the H2 in the atmosphere. A good summary can be found in http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf Sincerely, Oliver Wingenter Sam Carana wrote: Andrew, Since hydroxyls essentially combine O and H, it may be possible to increase the amount of hydroxyls in the atmosphere by adding both O and H, although I'm unsure whether this will automatically result in more hydroxyls. I remember that I wrote you, back in March, that hydrogen could be produced and released into the atmosphere to - under the influence of UV light - in an effort to produce extra hydroxyl radicals, in order to speed up methane oxidation. If this is feasible, we should prepare for this as a separate geoengineering project, in order to be ready to dramatically increase the production of hydrogen, preferably by means of electrolysis powered by wind turbines, or by means of pyrolysis of biomass. You replied that such additional hydrogen could cause ozone depletion. The above process of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water could at the same time produce oxygen that could be used to in turn produce ozone. You said you were working on a methane paper, Andrew, is this avialable online, or are you still working on it? Cheers! Sam Carana On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: In order to address the problems of ozone loss and methane excursions, we need IMO to directly alter atmospheric chemistry. Making ozone isn't terribly difficult. You can buy off-the-shelf machines which do is quite happily. If you sling them under a balloon, then they should work quite merrily to boost ozone levels. Power would be a issue, but some options include microwave beams, lasers, solar panels and satellite-style micro-nuclear plants. I know less about hydroxyl radicals. I'm assuming that some similar flying Heath-Robinson contraptions could be used to fix them up too. Does anyone know what technologies exist, what the power, servicing, lifetime and other issues are? Our approach to pollution is strange. On the ground, we're quite happy to catch it, treat it and scrub it up. We seem, however, to make little effort
[geo] wind of change
From the Guardian(UK) reporting an interview with Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs(UK) Watson backed controversial calls for research into geoengineering techniques, such as blocking the sun, as a way to head off dangerous temperature rise - one of the most senior figures so far to do so. We should at least be looking at it. I would see what the theoretical models say, and ask ourselves the question: how can we do medium-sized experiments in the field? Exactly a year ago, at the UK parlimentary committee hearings where Ken gave evidence, Professor Watson, and the Ministers that he advises, were so negative about geoengineering that the committe chairman MP Phil Willis, said he was disappointed with the government's position of adopting only a watching brief over the emerging field. That seems to me a very very negative way of actually facing up to the challenge of the future, he said. It's a very pessimistic view of emerging science and Britain's place within that emerging science community. This is the same committee that will be working with a committee of the US congress on the regulation of geoengineering. Written evidence by 9th dec http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_geoengineering_inquiry.cfm John gorman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Britain's renewable energy targets are 'physically impossible', says study
The full report of the Institution of Mechanical Engineersis at http://www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/448C8083-F00D-426B-B086-565AA17CB703/0/IMechEGeoengineeringReport.pdf it is called Geoengineering.Giving Us Time to Act john gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 9:01 AM Subject: [geo] Britain's renewable energy targets are 'physically impossible', says study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/12/britain-renewable-energy-targets-impossible It will be physically impossible for the UK to meet its renewable energytargets in both the short and long term, according to a group ofengineering experts. In a new study, they called for the government to adopt a war-time mentality in their approach to dealing with climate change and consider experimental approaches such as artificial trees that soak up carbon dioxide to buy the time needed to build the required level of low-carbon infrastructure in the UK. The engineers, from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), said the government should invest in geo-engineering technologies that would either bounce sunlight back into space or soak up CO2 in the atmosphere. Some of the more exotic ideas include launching orbiting mirrors in space or seeding artificial clouds over the oceans, but the report advocates more research on artificial trees; growing algae on the side of buildings to make renewable fuel; and painting the roofs of buildings white to reflect sunlight. The government has committed to cutting the country's carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, both relative to 1990 levels. To achieve this, ministers have outlined plans to build thousands of wind turbines by 2020 and, this week, gave the go-ahead for 10 new nuclear power stations, with the first coming on line in 2018. But, according to the engineers, building the massive amounts of low-carbon infrastructure in time to meet the government's targets will be impossible. Current predictions are that we will be unable to service the current plans for offshore windfarms by 2013 because we won't have the construction vessels to do it and, by 2018, we'll run out of manufacturing capacity, said Tim Fox, lead author of the report and head of environment and climate change at the IMechE. In a report published tomorrow, the engineers instead outlined a battle plan for tackling global warming, which includes adapting to rising temperatures and investing in geo-engineering technologies, as well as current plans to invest in green energy technologies. The institution believes it's time to go to war on climate change – the climate is about to attack us and it's time for us to fight back, said Fox. He said that, even if the UK could cut its energy demand in half by 2050 through efficiency improvements, the country still needs 16 new nuclear power plants between now and 2030, and an additional 4 by 2050. Around 27,000 wind turbines would need to be built by 2030 and an additional 13,000 by 2050. That would be in addition to ramping up solar power, waste and biomass plants and developing a smart electricity grid and advanced energy-storage technologies. To work out how this would be built, the IMechE assembled a team of engineers, economists and civil servants. For the UK, if we want to decarbonise at the rate necessary for the climate change act between now and 2050, assuming a 2.5% annual increase in GDP, it will take a decarbonisation rate of 5% per annum to achieve that, said Fox. The best the UK has ever achieved was during the 1990s in the dash for gas, when the UK was commercially-driven to change from coal-fired power stations to gas-fired power stations. Back then, the UK decarbonised at a rate 2.3% a year. Since then, the best has been around 1.3% a year. The ability to undertake the size of the task needed to meet the 80% target is not possible within a modern industrialised democracy, said Fox. Kevin Anderson, head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch, welcomed the IMechE's proposals. We are now in a situation of mitigation emergency and we do not have the luxury of the timeframes we had at Kyoto to bring about the changes necessary. In the wealthier parts of the world, we have a handful of years to turn our rising emissions around and bring them down at incredibly rapid rate. The UK has demonstrated a lead with the climate change act but this has not been accompanied by policies with teeth or a coherent strategy or roadmap. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said the report was too negative. The Institute of Mechanical Engineer's can't do, won't do attitude is sending out a defeatist message ahead of the crucial climate change talks in Copenhagen. The truth is that if we act now we can not only beat climate change but gain from the green benefits that will flow
[geo] Re: carbon trading
just on a point of fact, indulgences werent meant to stop you from sinning. They allowed you to carry on sinning and still get to heaven without having to spend the penance time in purgatory. -which makes it an even better parallel!! john gorman cradle and practising catholic -incidently - Original Message - From: Andree or Richard Wilson wils...@fas.harvard.edu To: s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:34 PM Subject: [geo] Re: carbon trading We must continuously emphasize the problem is that we are NOT properly carbon trading. We are trading some (but not all) emissions. There are many exceptions. The carbon offset market is a dangerous market. The fallacy of a market in offsets was exposed by Martin Luther seral centuries ago when he objected to the Pope selling indulgencies to keep people out of sin. Whatever we agree to as a compromise to try to get something happening, we must always base it on fundamentals. It is not carbon emissions that cause global warming. It is carbon concentrations. When there is not a clear, simple, and definite procedure, it will be the biggest polluters who use their power to get exceptions In the US we have before the House a pork barrel bill with a slight veneer of climate change.Some experts such as Jim Hansen think that it is dangerious and that it should be abandoned and start again But I urge all academics who are involved in this business Always start with the fundmentals in any discussion that will be seen by the uneducated public (that means everyone but you) NEVER let an opportunity pass to chide someone on letting the big guys get way with it. Let us start with Scotland. particularly Edinburgh which is thwe caoital and go on to Glagow which has the capital and also the memory of William Thompson , Lord kelvin, who would be horrified at what is happening. Dick WILSON Department of Physics Harvard University (who remembers the cold nights of coal rationing in 1947...) On 11/5/2009 1:07 PM, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/05/friends-of-the-earth-attacks-carbon-trading has a story about the dismal failure but high profitability of the $126 billion carbon trading market. Stephen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Enough on the Arctic Ice Alarmism
As to how much carbon is in the permafrost: see New Scientist 24 June 2009 Ice on fire: The next fossil fuel by Fred Pearce Article not available on line there is lots. Stephen Salter did some work on this I think some years ago. john gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: dwschn...@gmail.com Cc: Geoengineering FIPC Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:07 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Enough on the Arctic Ice Alarmism The UK's Met Office is not alone in their predictions, as at least one metastudy I've seen suggests similar dates. However, we should bear in mind that the track record on AGW is usually that things are worse than expected. I think that 2060 is pretty soon. I'll still be alive. Furthermore, we'll have had many years of dark oceans and melted permafrost by then - all helping to push us further down the downward spiral of feedback. I've yet to see convincing modelling of these feedback effects - largely because no-one seems to be sure how much carbon's in the permafrost. I'm still keen to see modelling that shows convincingly that we can use geoengineering to restore the ice once it's gone. A 2009/10/28 David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com For those of you who think the Arctic ice will be gone soon, perhaps you'd like to see what the UK Met Office thinks. 2060! This is from Anthony Watt's website. UK Met Office backpedals on Arctic Ice – “…unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020.” 28 10 2009 But they do say that “first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080″. By then there will be nobody that remembers this forecast. Yet on the same day, bumbling Arctic explorer Pen Hadow says in a UK Telegraph interview: “To all intents and purposes the Arctic will be ice free in a decade. I do find the implications of this happening in my lifetime quite shocking.“. Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies? From a Met Office press release on October 15th The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low. At the time it was widely reported that this was caused by man-made climate change and that the rate of decline of summer sea ice was increasing. Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080. It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020. Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns. Arctic weather systems are highly variable year-on-year and the prevailing winds can enhance, or oppose, the southward flow of ice into the Atlantic. Consequently, the sea ice has not declined every year, but has shown considerable variability — both in extent and thickness. The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office. About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists. We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline. -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: The Geoengineering Quandary
I am surprised that your post didnt get lots of replies -so belatedly -welcome to the group. Another engineer with aditionally a climate qualification!! I think most members of the group are fully aware of the distinction between direct temperature control by blocking some sunlight (SRM or Solar Radiation Management) and CO2 removal from the atmosphere (CRS or Carbon Removal and Storage) These two were the B and C of a recent letter to the IPCC chairman signed by lots of us. The A of the letter was of course emissions reduction but this will take all of this century as you said (one to two centurys you actually said.) It is this question of timescal that makes geoengineering necessary. And even the greatest efforts on CRS wont get us back to preindustrial by 2050. This is why many of us think SRM is necessary. If CRS is really successful then we may only need SRM for 20 or 30 years but without it where will we be by 2040 or 50? what will the Arctic be? On the meaning of geoengineering. there was lots of discussion a year or two back. Now that the reports of the Royal Society, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the Parliamentary Select Committees are all in print it is too late to change it -at least in the UK. Geoengineering includes SRM or Solar Radiation Management and CO2 removal from the atmosphere (CRS or Carbon Removal and Storage) but not CCS, carbon capture and storage, from for instance power station flues which comes under emissions reduction or mitigation. regards John Gorman Chartered Engineer MIMechE,MIET -- Original Message - From: Michael Tobis mto...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:38 AM Subject: [geo] Re: The Geoengineering Quandary Hello all. I've just signed up. To answer Ron's question, I think biochar should be called a sequestration strategy and not a geoengineering strategy. It is my opinion that there are two very different categories of proposal covered by the Royal Society report, and often confused under the rubric of geoengineering. One is intervention in the carbon cycle at a global scale, and the other is intervention in the radiative balance at a global scale. I have very strongly different views about the two classes of intervention, and recommend that they not be conflated into a single category. Intervention in the carbon cycle is already happening; accordingly further intervention is necessary, whether by reducing emissions or by constructing new sequestration paths. Presumably both are necessary. Intervention in the radiative balance by any other means will be imperfect. It perhaps merits study as a desperation maneuver, but it does not seem prudent, to say the least, to deploy it in any foreseeable circumstances. My own preferred usage is to refer to only this class of intervention as geoengineering. As such I am opposed to geoengineering. On the other hand, I think every plausible sequestration strategy should be pursued with utmost vigor until something successfully emerges at scale. I'm here to advocate for the proposition that these are ethically and practically very distinct strategies. This was the main point of my blog article. I'm glad to see it getting some attention. best regards Michael Tobis --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] funding
Mainly to UK people Dont forget that the deadline for applications to attend the EPSRC's workshop on geoengineering is midday Tuesday. info at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CallsForProposals/geoworkshop.htm Climate Geoengineering: Scoping Workshop We invite Expressions of Interest before 12 Noon on Tuesday 6 October 2009, to attend a Geoengineering Scoping Workshop at The Guoman Cumberland Hotel, London on the 19 October 2009. Background The recent Royal Society[1] report has concluded that The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The report also acknowledged that potentially Geoengineering methods could be useful to support other efforts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Geoengineering is in its infancy, and research is required, to reduce uncertainties about the various methods and their impacts should they be required in the future. Research Councils Energy programme intends to provide support to research within the Climate Geoengineering remit. We aim to fund research which will allow informed and intelligent assessments about the development of Climate Geoengineering technologies. Research Councils Energy programme will be holding a one day workshop which aims to identify the priority themes for future funding activities within Geoengineering. Aim of the Workshop Aims of the workshop are as follows: a.. Facilitate networking between researchers operating within the remit of Geoengineering. b.. Identify the major challenges and opportunities for Geoengineering research. c.. Identify potential themes for future funding activities. Please note no funding is available at this workshop. Who should attend? We aim to get involvement from a diverse range of stakeholders who are directly involved in Geoengineering research, or research in related fields. For example we welcome applications from engineers, climate scientists and climate modellers, as well as from natural and social scientists. Those engaged in the study of ethics and governance in relation to climate change and the environment are also welcome to apply. We also encourage applications from local and national government and industrial organisations with an interest in developing Climate Geoengineering technologies. Applying to attend and selection procedure Applicants should complete the short Expression of Interest (EoI) form (maximum two A4 sides). A panel of EPSRC representatives will use the EoI to select participants. The deadline for all submissions is Noon on 6 October 2009. We are unable to accept applications after this deadline. All submissions should be by email to geo...@epsrc.ac.uk . Places are limited and the number of attendees from a given institution may have to be restricted in the event of multiple applications. Applicants will be notified of the decision by 14 October 2009. EPSRC's decision on attendance is final. Location and Date The workshop will take place in London at the Guoman Cumberland Hotel on 19thOctober 2009. An application will be taken to mean availability for this date, and a commitment to attend if selected. Full details of the venue and how to get there will be sent to the selected participants. For Further Information Please contact: Nick Cook Portfolio Manager - Energy Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Email: geo...@epsrc.ac.uk [1] The Royal Society (2009), Geoengineering the climate: science, governance, and uncertainty. (p.ix). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: clip_image002.jpg
[geo] oxford conference this week beyond 4deg
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/10/02/news0565.htm Climate conference at Oxford: Two meter sea level rise unstoppable Reuter, Oxford A rise of at least two meters in the world's sea levels is now almost unstoppable, experts told a climate conference at Oxford University. The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable, said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at Germany's Potsdam Institute and a widely recognized sea level expert. There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions. Rahmstorf said the best outcome was that after temperatures stabilized, sea levels would only rise at a steady rate for centuries to come, and not accelerate. Most scientists expect at least 2 degrees Celsius warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and probably more. The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees last century. Rahmstorf estimated that if the world limited warming to 1.5 degrees then it would still see two meters sea level rise over centuries, which would see some island nations disappear. His best guess was a one meter rise this century, assuming three degrees warming, and up to five meters over the next 300 years. There is nothing we can do to stop this unless we manage to cool the planet. That would require extracting the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There is no way of doing this on the sufficient scale known today, he said. Scientists say that ice melt acquires a momentum of its own - for example warming the air as less ice reflects less heat, warming the local area. Once the ice is on the move, it's like a tipping point which reinforces itself, said Wageningen University's Pier Vellinga, citing various research. Even if you reduce all the emissions in the world once this has started it may be unstoppable. I conclude that beyond 2 degrees global average temperature rise the probability of the Greenland ice sheet disintegrating is 50 percent or more. (That) will result in about 7 meters sea level rise, and the time frame is about 300-1,000 years. Delegates from about 190 nations are meeting in Bangkok to try to speed up U.N.-led negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a tougher climate pact. Speakers in Oxford used history to back up their arguments on rising seas. Three million years ago the planet was 2-3 degrees warmer and the sea 25-35 meters higher, and 122,000 years ago 2 degrees warmer and 10 meters higher, they said. What we now see in Greenland, Antarctica could be a temporary phenomena but it could also be the start of what we saw 122,000 years ago, said Vellinga. Sea levels have risen about 20 centimeters in the past century and that effect was accelerating, speakers said. That rise was adding to storms such as that in the Philippines, although that single event couldn't be attributed to climate change, said Rahmstorf. Of course the flooding from a given storm event would be less severe if we hadn't added those extra centimeters. About 40 million people worldwide live in flood plains, said Southampton University's Robert Nicholls. That is 0.6 percent of the global population and 5 percent of global wealth, because of valuable assets such as airports and power plants. He was confident that coastal protection could hugely reduce lost land and assets. The cost of that speakers put at anywhere from 50 billion euros ($72.85 billion) a year by 2020 to up to $215 billion a year by 2100. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: For info Fw: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering
has anyone managed to understand what their actual method is to restore the ice? john gorman - Original Message - From: Peter Read To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Leslie Field Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 10:00 PM Subject: For info Fw: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering - Original Message - From: Leslie Field To: Peter Read Cc: Leslie Field Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Manifesto for Geoengineering Hi Peter, My email reply to you didn't post to the google group, as I'm not a member. Not sure that's an action item, just wanted to let you know I got a bounce notice from that address. Best regards, Leslie Leslie Field wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for the cc. One quick clarification is that Ice911 doesn't use floating plastic islands. (Two problems with plastics in general: plastics can have some unwanted eco impacts, and plastics can suppress evaporation.) Our small-scale tests have been very encouraging so far, and we're working on getting some larger-scale tests in place this season. Best regards, Leslie Leslie Field, Ph.D. Ice911 Research Corporation www.ice911.org les...@ice911.org (650) 823-2020 [[Snipped - PR]] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: SRM vs. CDR research (was: monsoons)
sorry there was a big typo in this which changed the meaning -adequately should have been act quickly enough Thanks Peter, fall answering Manu's post so eloquently while I was thinking about how to. Manu. It's all a matter of time scales. David Keith in his lecture To the Royal Geographical Society recently was quite clear that CDRA (A for the atmosphere -- my addition) which has been his main field of research recently could not act quickly enough. We have to do both as well of course as reaching very low emissions by 2100 or so. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Peter Read To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: John Gorman ; Manu Sharma Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [geo] SRM vs. CDR research (was: monsoons) List I had commented to Manu off list, but my response to his question Given the clear and inherent advantages of CDR in terms of drastically lower risk, why should we invest the limited time, resources and budget in half-solutions like SRM particularly in view of the huge uncertainties involved? was as follows below * A propos Lackner's costs, they are markedly different from David Keith's (as reported by Bickel and Lane). Maybe David (and Lackner if he is on this list) may care to comment. A propos my earlier message being moderated, that was incorrect -- I had merely failed to post it ! (as noted in my message posted Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:22 AM (NZ time)) Re item 2) below, pale into insignificance -- my previous message attempting to distinguish between catastrophe and disaster may clarify. I guess we can reserve cataclysm for the arrival of a very large meteor (we would not stop to ask if it was anthropogenic while applauding NASA efforts to nuke it before arrival). Peter ** Manu I do NOT favour SRM over CDR; CDR is only half the CSM story. My work of the last 20 years has focused on bioenergy and land use improvement as a low cost and sustainable development basis delivering improved living standards to some of the most impoverished people worldwide. I have come to see the need for SRM in a supporting role quite recently. Clearly CSM has to be the main story, if only because of ocean acidification 1)As to why CSM cannot work fast enough please visit my more recent papers referenced previously 2)Failure to address SRM risks exposes humanity to at least a doubling of the threat of climatic catastrophe even with the extremely ambitious CSM program proposed in my papers (esp the paper with Parshotam). Risks from SRM side effects pale to insignificance compared with, e.g. a 2 meter ocean level rise by 2050 3)The need for a combination of CSM with SRM follows from 1 and 2 above Lackner's work is not referenced in the Royal Society Report. Keith has estimated the cost of his own technology at $500/tCO2 removed (Bickel and Lane 2009 quoting Keith et al 2006, (not to hand) Climatic Change 74 (1-3) 17-45. Trees planted in low latitudes cost about 4$/tCO2, ~one tenth of Lackner's figure that you quote. Both Lackner and Keith require extensive RD and are energy intensive. We can plant natural trees tomorrow and nature supplies the energy. Nobody has suggested any significant risks from troposhere ocean cloud whitening (Salter's technology) which is my preference amongst SRM technologies (but nobody knows if it will work until someone funds a trial) My previous message also appears to have been moderated - if it and yours appear I am happy for these latest messages also to be posted Best Peter - Original Message - From: Manu Sharma To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: John Gorman Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:12 PM Subject: [geo] SRM vs. CDR research (was: monsoons) John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote: we have a really big problem with global warming (particularly in India because of its reliance on Himalayan glaciers and artesian wells) and its effect on monsoons and rainfall and we need to solve this somehow. Using measures, I might add, that we're confident would not exacerbate the problem. Can we say that about SRM today? Present literature suggests, no. We're not at that stage at present and I'm not sure how long would it take (if it's ever possible) when the level of uncertainty reaches zero and scientists can claim with confidence that they can control the global climate using SRM. If someone argues that the associated risks do not matter because we're anyway going to be screwed by global warming, I believe that's a highly unethical and highly irresponsible position. For one, no one has or should have the authority to decide on that for all of humanity. Secondly, by indulging in a geoengineering measure whose consequences are uncertain, which in all likelihood can go wrong
[geo] monsoons
In the presentations at the Royal Society on Tuesday 1st September there were several suggestions that geoenginering would reduce or stop the Indian monsoon. This was also mentioned in some questions, answers or subsequent discussion that I was involved in. My suggestion that this would be a result of global warming anyway was dismissed by one climate scientist so it was interesting to find the following in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday; Indian Monsoon Could Dry up the torrential rains of India's monsoon could soon be a thing of the past after scientist said climate change is replacing the wet season with drought. In a study of monsoon patterns in India over the past 150 years BN Goswami, the director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, said global warming has made India's weather increasingly unpredictable. He said there were longer dry spells and shorter sudden heavy showers. This fits with my general understanding that global warming will produce more violent storms but that in India, Africa and Sout America the overall result will be rainfall reduction and drought. I have felt that geoengineering should be able to reduce storm severity because of less extreme temperatures and eventually with experience and planning not impair the rainy season in all these places. This is in line with a comment of Greg Benfold's some time ago that a slight reduction in total rainfall might not matter if we lost the storms rather than the background rain. In India now we seem to be getting the opposite. Who is right? John Gorman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Research Councils UK Energy Programme announces funding support for Geoengineering research
thanks for that. I will certainly go to it if I can. I lhave already met Nick Cook, who was taken on by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to be responsible for geoengineering- in fact I got him to come to your talk at The Royal Geographical Society. Why is it that I always hear about things on my doorstep from someone 3000 miles away- but that is one of the advantages of this group! Thanks John Gorman - Original Message - From: David Keith To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:45 PM Subject: [geo] Research Councils UK Energy Programme announces funding support for Geoengineering research http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/090901.htm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Meeting with Clinton
Welcome back! Just picking up on one of your points in a recent email; Global warming is amplified at poles - at least doubling the temperature rise both in the Arctic and around the Antarctic (affecting WAIS). The figure quoted by Al Gore is a factor of 9 in temperature rise between the equator and the poles. The quoted global rise is now about 0.7 degC which is an average of everywhere summer and winter.(I dont know the details) The rise in the Antarctic now is 2.8 deg C (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/antarctic_peninsula.php British Antarctic Survey but their position statement lastyear said 3.7 deg) so the rise in greenland and the antarctic peninsula is four of five times the global average rise. When we see all the well publicised effects of this three degree rise it amazes me that many government and acedemic authorities are suggesting that 2 deg C global average is acceptable. This implies 8 to 10 degrees in Greenland! Note that even if those who think global warming has stopped turned out to be right, Greenland would go on melting due to the 3deg rise. John Gorman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Fw: A policy to prevent uncontrollable warming and sea level rise
I think we are in agreement that geoengineering will be necessary in the long term. It is not likeley that global temperatures would remain stable as they have been during the development of civilisation and large global populations(.ie the last 6000 years) even without anthropogenic CO2. At the moment however it is the very rapid change that we must control and surely this is largely triggered by CO2 emissions and geoengineering plus CO2 emission reduction and extraction all have to be a part of the solution. john gorman - Original Message - From: Eugene I. Gordon To: gorm...@waitrose.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:15 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Fw: A policy to prevent uncontrollable warming and sea level rise I guess you dismiss the argument, which I have made many times before, that the current episode of global warming started during the Pleistocene period after 30 million years of cooling from the middle of the previous period (again go back and look at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm to see). Mankind evolved when the global temperature was 12 C and it has been getting warmer throughout the history of man's existence. Based on proxy history it will again reach 25 C and anthropogenic CO2 is simply accelerating the warming a bit. Hence if man is to continue to exist at the cooler end of the global surface temp. spectrum and not at 25 C geoengineering will be needed and probably essential for man to survive in other than the polar regions. Geo is not an expedient or a contingency, it is essentially needed to save mankind. -- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Gorman Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:39 AM To: thilowie...@googlemail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Fw: A policy to prevent uncontrollable warming and sea level rise If you want to understand the media and government attitude to geoengineering, you should read this thread and the UK Met office statements on geoengineering. If the scietists, that are paid by the public to study the subject, take such a strongly anti-geoengineering position, we can hardly blame the government ministers and science correspondents for believing them. This contrasts with the recent statement by the American Meteorologiical Society (Ken's email July 20th) which was generally accepting that geoengineering would be necessary. When will the UK met offfice get real? John Gorman - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Pope, Vicky Cc: David Keith ; Mark Serreze ; Stephen Salter ; johnnissen2...@googlemail.com ; John Gorman ; Andrew Lockley ; Peter Read ; john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk ; Ken Caldeira Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 3:18 PM Subject: Re: A policy to prevent uncontrollable warming and sea level rise Dear Vicky, Thanks for your response, which gives some insight into Met Office thinking about geoengineering. Let me first address Dr Boucher's policy paper about the risks of geoengineering [1]: 1. Moral hazard argument The whole argument from Dr Boucher seems to be based on a mistaken idea that we are proposing geoengineering as an alternative to emissions reduction or even a Plan B. On the contrary, we urge geoengineering as part of a combined approach [2]. In her evidence to the DIUS committee last November, Joan Ruddock said scientists should probably not be looking at [geoengineering] ... because we need all our energies directed at the plan A [mitigation and adaptation] [3]. This argument was summarily dismissed by the committee. [4] 2. Implications of CO2 lifetime As he points out, the anthropogenic CO2 has a long life-time - and some experts, such as David Keith, consider it is effectively thousands of years [5]. The implication is that emissions reductions, however severe, may not be sufficient to halt global warming before tipping points are reached. A particular fear is that the Arctic would continue to warm (due to existing positive feedback), the sea ice would disappear, massive quantities of methane would be released, and the Greenland ice sheet would disintegrate. 3. Minimising the risks The Arctic warming shows signs of strong positive feedback from the albedo flip. Such positive feedback effects were largely ignored by IPCC in their models, and the 2007 sea ice retreat was completely outside the range of any of their models. Experts on sea ice, such as Mark Serreze, now accept that there is a small but significant possibility of sea ice seasonal disappearance within a few years. In order to seriously reduce the risk of catastrophe in the Arctic, we have no alternative to SRM geoengineering, and to minimise the risk we need to deploy that as soon as possible. If we fail to halt the Arctic warming, we certainly pass on a poison
[geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely
In my rather unprepared question/statement at the House of Commons seminar, I hope I said how strongly some of us agree with your alarmism. The possible or probable future without geoengineering is alarming!! It reminds me of the quote from the old Englishman Rudyard Kippling -If you can keep your head when all about you are loosing theirs, could it be that you havn't understood the situation? I also agree that a combination of cloud whitening and aerosols, both being carefully placed should be able to control temperature while we sort out some methods of getting CO2 levels back to preindustrial. Difficult but we have got to do it. A whole new science. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Alan Gadian a...@env.leeds.ac.uk To: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Michael Box m@unsw.edu.au; Jeff Ridley jeff.rid...@metoffice.gov.uk; Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:12 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Pros and Cons of SRM geoengineering more widely Re: House of Commons Session in Geoengineering (15/7/09) John, A quick note. I hope I was saying that, if you believe the models which seem OK for temperatures, the sulphur scheme would cool the poles, and the rest of the planet more. Both Rasch's results and those of Lund (bristol) showed this. However, the cooling associated with the cloud whitening scheme, is especially pronounced at the pole (as shown by Rasch and our HaDGAM results) and therefore could help preserve the permafrost. I am afraid I have little faith in the precipitation from climate models, especially in the tropics. Parts of India have predictive errors of over 2m per year for current simulations. With doubling CO2 there will be precipitation shifts, definitely. Cloud whitening is likely to have them too, but hopefully will counterbalance the increasing CO2 shifts. I think it is important not to jump in too soon, but examine with models and small experiments the viability of schemes. I appreciate that some (well Steven Rayner) at the meeting called me a climate porn merchant ... and many other jibes , and I was also called a scaremongerer, but I feel it would be of advantage to take as many people forward as possible, and explore all the facets of each approach. NERC and EPSRC are preparing initiatives, and I do agree it is urgent. There may ( or may not) be ozone depletion problems with significant use of sulphates, so we must take care. Cheers Alan On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, John Nissen wrote: Hi all, Recently the geoengineering group discussed the pros and cons of solar radiation management (aka SRM geoengineering) using stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic [1]. A possible downside of more widespread deployment of stratospheric aerosols has come to light; it is from decreased rainfall on Amazon [2]. Some of us were already concerned by possible slight weakening of monsoons. This decreased rainfall is liable to be aggravated by the growing El Nino. (The last strong one was in 1998.) Yet some experts (e.g. Jeff Ridley) are saying that deployment in the Arctic will not be sufficient to save the sea ice. (And if the sea ice goes, the methane could come out of permafrost, Greenland ice sheet disintegrate, etc.) And Alan Gadain, from the University of Leeds was warning me, last week [3], that Arctic deployment wouldn't work, yet on the other hand an effect of more general deployment would be to cool the Arctic. Who is right, and what should we do? Could there be a way to protect Amazon and elsewhere from reduced rainfall, while deploying stratospheric aerosols at a range of latitudes to produce both widespread cooling effect and specific cooling in the Arctic? We could use marine cloud brightening rather than stratospheric aerosols, because the risk of undesirable side effects is smaller and because the technique can be applied locally, but do we have the luxury of time to develop the technique? The Arctic sea ice is liable to disappear more rapidly than anyone expected - we just cannot predict with any certainty. Likewise the Amazon rainforest could perish if there were consecutive years of drought - which we cannot predict. Isn't there an overwhelming case for some kind of experimental trial of stratospheric aerosols in the Arctic, preferably starting next spring, before El Nino effects set in? There is so much at stake, wouldn't it be stupid to delay? And shouldn't some significant funding be put into marine cloud brightening? Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering thread: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b045b6428fc89a93/95b940c3c3352e35?#95b940c3c3352e35 [2] Aerosol effects investigated by Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090604.html [3] Geoengineering seminar at the House
[geo] david attenborough
from the widely read UK weekly The Week a quote from Sir David Attenborough we're going to have to use geoengineering techniques JOhn G --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Terrestrial Ice In West Greenland Under Attack from Weather
And me too! (see last paragraph) john gorman - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; Geoengineering ; John Shepherd Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:09 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Terrestrial Ice In West Greenland Under Attack from Weather Hi Andrew, I'm not saying now or never, but I am saying the sooner the better, because (1) it is a question of risk reduction and (2) countering positive feedback is best before the feedback has grown too much. Scientists have spent a tremendous effort in persuading the politicians and media that emissions reductions, of the kind 80% by 2050, can keep the global warming below 2 degrees. But even if we could achieve such a target in every country in the world, it wouldn't save the Arctic sea ice - and hence it would not prevent outgassing of methane and disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet. So how much cooling can geoengineering provide? Albert writes: I am increasingly concerned that temperatures at around +24C, can't be tamed by sulphur dioxide or other means, it just could be a magnitude or several times more than the negative feedback induced by the geoengineering methods. I fear the not enough scenario. (see reproduced email below) The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, in a process known as polar amplification. This process appears to be driven by albedo flip. As sea ice is replaced by water, the reflectivity, or albedo, changes by up to 70%, giving greater absorption of solar energy, April through September. Suppose the use of enough stratospheric sulphur-based aerosols can cause a reflection of 20% solar energy. It would have to be deployed over 3 times the area that the Arctic sea ice is melting in summer to counter the albedo flip. That's my very rough calculation. Once the sea ice is all melted, it may be impossible to rescue the situation through any amount of geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols. And then we are left helplessly with methane outgassing and Greenland ice sheet disintegration - beyond the point of no return. This is what is worrying me, and I think Albert too. Cheers, John --- Andrew Lockley wrote: I think it would be great if someone could bring forward a paper on the 'limits of geoengineering'. John Nissen has made much play of the 'now or never' argument. I have no opinion as to whether he's right or not, and I would love to see scientists with appropriate expertise bring forward a relevant paper. A 2009/7/6 Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com Dear Alan, It is not only melting of sea ice and permafrost that needs to be highlighted. Today's Temperature Legend Map from Foreca shows that Ilulissat Ice Fjord that drains 7% of Greenland ice sheet bathin on top temperatures today between +20-25C. This is substantial heat on the glacier, the morning temperatures shown are littel more moderate. Last time I saw these kind of temperatures +24C in Ellesmere Island, the Aylers Ice Shelf collapsed on that particular week. The heat and warm water does damage ice considerably and I expect that Greenland's temperatures are much like the Baffin Island's once Arctic Ocean's sea ice is gone. I think today's weather is a good indicator what shall become. I am increasingly concerned that tempeartures at around +24C, can't be tamed by sulphur dioxide or other means, it just could be a magnitude or several times more than the negative feedback induced by the geoengineering methods. I fear the not enough scenario. I don't want to be devil's advocate, but weather's could rise too high and out of control. Let's hope this peak heat stays short, but I would not be surprised if glaciers speed up once again. Kind regards, Albert --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
As you say, pinatubo etc. prove that stratospheric aeroslols would cool the world and it is therefore the disadvantages that we have to evaluate. Many of us see the greatest and most urgent dangers in the Arctic and Antarctic and think that localised stratospheric aerosols would probably avoid serious ice sheet loss, sea level rise and release of methane- to name but three problems. This is where these new questions become important and need real funded research as Greg said. So far I cant see anything to suggest it wouldnt work. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr Cc: John Gorman ; xbenf...@aol.com ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering You'd have to calculate this across the whole globe, surely? If the whole atmos was affected, then this would mean the Earth turned from being a sharp round disc to a bigger, hazy one? But, the evidence from Pinatubo surely demonstrates that this doesn't cause a problem, it still cools down. However, can I ask if the backscattering from reflected light has been considered? Over the tropics, where it's not snowy, this is not very important, but over the ice, where about 90pc of the light comes back, then it's massively important and (seems to) cancel out 90% of the aerosol's effects (you'd have to iterate that a few times, of course). That tangental ray effect could then end up being very significant, and if it's more than 10% of the net effect then aersols will heat, not cool the arctic. Or perhaps I'm just being thick. A 2009/5/12 Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr I agree that my point wasn't considering seasonal changes in the earth's orientation relatively to the sun rays (I was in fact dealing with equinox times), and that mid-summer conditions are much more favorable for the most polar locations. However, at each time of the summer, there exist locations where the lowest point of the sun's daily trajectory is very low above the horizon, and in such locations the effect of aerosol creation would be a notable increase in the received luminous power during several hours around midnight. It is far from sure that this would be offset by the reduction in the received heat around midday (remember my point that a tangential ray would propagate through many hundreds km of the stratosphere, when an oblique one would only get through some tens km or air). At mid summer (and during at least several weeks before and after the 21st of June), these dangerous locations are the ones just north of the arctic polar circle (a central slice of Greenland, and lands near the Northern coasts of Canada and Siberia - mind the permafrost). If these regions are to be avoided, would it be possible to control very precisely the location (are there significant shifts of air masses from one latitude of the stratosphere to another?) and the time (the particle size control issue) of the aerosols to be created? Denis Bonnelle. -Message d'origine- De : John Gorman [mailto:gorm...@waitrose.com] Envoyé : mardi 12 mai 2009 11:25 À : xbenf...@aol.com; Bonnelle Denis; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Although I was initially worried by Denis's point that arctic aerosols will capture some rays that would otherwise just pass tangentially through the stratosphere, I have now done some geometry and believe that this will only apply to about 0.2% of the incident sunlight on the Arctic at midsummer. This is because the atmosphere is thin in comparison with the radius of the earth. This applies of course to all aerosols SO2 or SiO2. My main argument for suggesting silica (Greg's diatoms) is that we might be able to control particle size much more exactly. John Gorman - Original Message - From: xbenf...@aol.com To: gorm...@waitrose.com; dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:33 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering All: Bonnelle Denis is right that a detailed study of aerosol reflections needs doing. Someone may wish to use research time on it, but without any funding it's difficult to mount a determined attack on the many parameters that need varying. The issue of particle size demands some actual experiments, to see what happens to candidate aerosols at the actual altitudes considered. How much particle growth occurs, under what conditions of humidity, pressure, etc? What's the true fallout time vs altitude and particle size? There's a whole agenda here. I do wonder how much Lowell Wood and collaborators are doing on this, but Lowell is mum. Gregory
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
Although I was initially worried by Denis's point that arctic aerosols will capture some rays that would otherwise just pass tangentially through the stratosphere, I have now done some geometry and believe that this will only apply to about 0.2% of the incident sunlight on the Arctic at midsummer. This is because the atmosphere is thin in comparison with the radius of the earth. This applies of course to all aerosols SO2 or SiO2. My main argument for suggesting silica (Greg's diatoms) is that we might be able to control particle size much more exactly. John Gorman - Original Message - From: xbenf...@aol.com To: gorm...@waitrose.com; dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:33 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering All: Bonnelle Denis is right that a detailed study of aerosol reflections needs doing. Someone may wish to use research time on it, but without any funding it's difficult to mount a determined attack on the many parameters that need varying. The issue of particle size demands some actual experiments, to see what happens to candidate aerosols at the actual altitudes considered. How much particle growth occurs, under what conditions of humidity, pressure, etc? What's the true fallout time vs altitude and particle size? There's a whole agenda here. I do wonder how much Lowell Wood and collaborators are doing on this, but Lowell is mum. Gregory Benford -Original Message- From: John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com To: Bonnelle Denis dbonne...@ra.ccomptes.fr; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 1:59 am Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering I have to admit I hadnt thought of that aspect of aerosols in the arctic. To Gregory Benfold -What do you think ? John Gorman - Original Message - From: Bonnelle Denis To: gorm...@waitrose.com ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; John Nissen ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Dear all, (please forgive me if the following geometrical arguments have already been discussed). The positive feedback (albedo, methane, etc.) rationale for focusing about the Arctic is doubtlessly great. But the geometry is not very favorable, especially if very tangential sun rays are concerned, which is more often the case near the poles than near the equator. The most dramatic case is the one of the most tangential rays which: 1 - without geoengineering - would have traveled horizontally through the stratosphere, unharmed, and which: 2 - would be diffracted by the silica, half upwards but also half downwards, giving their heat to the earth. Seen from the sun, the relevant cross-section is around 10 or 20 km (the considered stratospheric layer's thickness) multiplied by 2000 or 3000 km (the considered bow length). Such a result (several 10,000 km²) is not negligible when compared to the whole target cross-section (the same 2000 or 3000 km, multiplied by 300 or 400 km which is the width, seen from the sun, of the true useful target region). In addition, the effect in our x0,000 km² region will be more intense, as the rays which travel quite horizontally through the stratosphere will meet much more silica than those which make a larger angle with the horizontal. And even in the latter case (i.e., in all the target region, but mainly for sun rays which will reach the atmosphere with a quite small angle with the horizontal), an effect of the silica will be to increase the proportion of such rays which will be redirected towards the ground in a rather vertical direction, instead of coming quite tangentially (the blue sky will be brighter). Thus, various effects will have to be considered: lesser absorption in various layers of the atmosphere, lesser reflexion on the ocean surface, deeper penetration into the ocean, etc. It doesn't seem clear to me, whether such undesired effects will be lower than the desired fact that half of such diffracted rays will be redirected upwards, i.e. outwards of the earth climatic machine. Best regards, Denis Bonnelle. denis.bonne...@normalesup.org De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de John Gorman Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2009 09:45 À : andrew.lock...@gmail.com; John Nissen; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Objet : [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering I am thinking of how to get funding for in-lab Evaluation of Tetra Ethyl Silicate Dissolved in Aviation Kerosene As a Means of 0D Distributing Stratospheric Aerosols for Geoenginering. The two points below are relevant to this discussion but a bit muddled as this is a rehash of my submission to the Royal Society 1)Possible
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
I have to admit I hadnt thought of that aspect of aerosols in the arctic. To Gregory Benfold -What do you think ? John Gorman - Original Message - From: Bonnelle Denis To: gorm...@waitrose.com ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; John Nissen ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Dear all, (please forgive me if the following geometrical arguments have already been discussed). The positive feedback (albedo, methane, etc.) rationale for focusing about the Arctic is doubtlessly great. But the geometry is not very favorable, especially if very tangential sun rays are concerned, which is more often the case near the poles than near the equator. The most dramatic case is the one of the most tangential rays which: 1 - without geoengineering - would have traveled horizontally through the stratosphere, unharmed, and which: 2 - would be diffracted by the silica, half upwards but also half downwards, giving their heat to the earth. Seen from the sun, the relevant cross-section is around 10 or 20 km (the considered stratospheric layer's thickness) multiplied by 2000 or 3000 km (the considered bow length). Such a result (several 10,000 km²) is not negligible when compared to the whole target cross-section (the same 2000 or 3000 km, multiplied by 300 or 400 km which is the width, seen from the sun, of the true useful target region). In addition, the effect in our x0,000 km² region will be more intense, as the rays which travel quite horizontally through the stratosphere will meet much more silica than those which make a larger angle with the horizontal. And even in the latter case (i.e., in all the target region, but mainly for sun rays which will reach the atmosphere with a quite small angle with the horizontal), an effect of the silica will be to increase the proportion of such rays which will be redirected towards the ground in a rather vertical direction, instead of coming quite tangentially (the blue sky will be brighter). Thus, various effects will have to be considered: lesser absorption in various layers of the atmosphere, lesser reflexion on the ocean surface, deeper penetration into the ocean, etc. It doesn't seem clear to me, whether such undesired effects will be lower than the desired fact that half of such diffracted rays will be redirected upwards, i.e. outwards of the earth climatic machine. Best regards, Denis Bonnelle. denis.bonne...@normalesup.org De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de John Gorman Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2009 09:45 À : andrew.lock...@gmail.com; John Nissen; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Objet : [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering I am thinking of how to get funding for in-lab Evaluation of Tetra Ethyl Silicate Dissolved in Aviation Kerosene As a Means of Distributing Stratospheric Aerosols for Geoenginering. The two points below are relevant to this discussion but a bit muddled as this is a rehash of my submission to the Royal Society 1)Possible Advantages of Silica. Particle size. At these submicron sizes it is the size of the particle which defines the wavelength of light which is reflected/diffracted. There have been several papers, which have pointed out the difficulty of controlling sulphuric acid droplet size and the problem of agglomeration of the droplets. (Papers include that by Tilmes/Robock in the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions) It seems logical that the concentration of Tetra ethyl silicate in aviation fuel would define the size of silica particles produced on burning. If so, the particle size could be selected for maximum reduction in net radiation. There would then be less material and fewer particles/droplets for the same level of global cooling. 2)The most likely first application of a stratospheric aerosol sunscreen is that proposed by Gregory Benfold Saving the Arctic. Combined with the aircraft distribution system, the proposal would be to spread the aerosol by aircraft flying between 40 and 60,000 ft. from the time of first Arctic daylight (April approximately) until late July approximately. Ideally for very long stratospheric life, aerosols need to be injected at about 80,000 ft. If they are only injected at 50,000 ft. they will fall out of the atmosphere in about three months. (Ken Caldera's lecture available on U tube). In this case that is exactly what we want so that they would fall out by the end of the Arctic summer and would not be present during the winter --. Most of the arguments that aerosols will damage the ozone layer assume that the aerosols are injected high in the stratosphere for long life. In this case most of the injection would not reach the ozone layer
[geo] more sunspots and el nino by 2012?
I just sent the following to the editor of the uk magazine The Week Your first item in what the scientists are saying this week is interesting. There was a discussion on this in the google geoengineering group recently. We have certainly been at a low in sunspots and solar radiation with a predicted rise to a new peak maybe around 2012 on a vague 11 year cycle. we have also been in a la nina state of the ENSO cycle for some years. Also a cooling state. It is now fairly neutral so an el nino event (warming) could appear and peak also around 2012. El nino events have a very unreliable 3-7 year cycle. We could be going into a phase where the background warming due to CO2 is not masked and is accelerated by the loss of arctic sea ice. better get geoengineering ready!! John Gorman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
This scare ,that stratospheric areosols would result in an even more global warming if stopped, has appeared in many articles. I therefore read the relevent papers fairly carefully and my reading is that temeratures would simply rise quickly to where they would have been without geoengineering. i.e. exactly what one would expect. There is no overshoot and no lasting effect. These are of course the model simulations -I think one of them might have been Ken's- but I suspect that Mount Pinatubo would give the same conclusion . In articles this is often coupled with the suggestion that geoengineering has been done instead of emissions reduction but noone here is sugesting that. John Gorman - Original Message - From: jim thomas jimthomas...@gmail.com To: wf...@utk.edu Cc: j...@cloudworld.co.uk; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; brian.laun...@manchester.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:10 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering Bill I don't see how you can consider SRM reversible. The modelling I've seen (eg paper by Matthews and Caldeira) suggests that halting aerosol injections will lead not just to a rapid jump in temperature but indeed a jump to a higher global temperature than if geo-engineering had not been attempted because of the weakening of carbon sinks. If stopping is that dangerous than politically speaking this is not a reversible technology. Once you've started it would be too dangerous to stop I'm talking here about aerosols specifically - I would be interested to hear from Ken, Alan and others whether they would expect the same dangerous jump in temperatures if a cloud whitening scheme were to 'switched off'. Jim Thomas ETC Group. On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM, William Fulkerson wf...@utk.edu wrote: Dear John: I did not see a principal advantage of SRM listed. That is that it is reversible, at least for sulfates in the stratosphere and for cloud whitening. Cheers, Bill On Apr 29, 2009, at 10:34 AM, John Nissen wrote: Hi all, Alan Robock has said: Whether we should use geoengineering as a temporary measure to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming requires a detailed evaluation of the benefits, costs, and dangers of different options. As you may already know, I am keen for rapid development and deployment of SRM (solar radiation management) in the Arctic, with some benefits (if successful): B1. Save the Arctic sea ice and associated ecosystem. B2. Slow (and preferably halt) Arctic warming. B3. Reduce discharge of CO2 and methane, contributing to global warming and ocean acidification. B4. Reduce risk of massive methane discharge, sufficient to add several degrees of global warming. B5. Slow the rise in sea level from Greenland glaciers. B6. Reduce risk of Greenland ice sheet destabilisation, and associated 6 metres of sea level rise. B7. Develop the SRM techniques to use at other latitudes. B4 amounts to a reduction in the risk of such catastrophic global warming that human civilisation could not survive. Against this we have the concerns of those who currently benefit from a warmer Arctic: C1. Oil and mining industries, prospecting in the Arctic region. C2. Traders who use the North-West passage. C3. Greenlanders and others who may prefer a warmer climate (cf. Inuit, who are having their way of life destroyed). I think we should try to counter people's natural fears about SRM geoengineering, especially stratospheric sulfur aerosols. What are the most frequent objections? One often reads that the remedy (geoengineering) may be worse than the disease (global warming). We need to present a balanced picture. General fears: G1. Geoengineering is interfering with nature. (I heard that fear only this morning.) G2. We've made such a hash of interventions in the past, we're bound to make a hash of geoengineering. G3. Moral hazard - geoengineering is a licence to continue CO2 pollution. G4. Geoengineering is being offered as a silver bullet, which it cannot be. G5. You'll need international agreement - and that will be even more difficult to get than agreement on emissions reduction. G6. Too expensive - we always underestimate. G7. Too cheap, so anybody could do it. G8. It will not work. (We heard at the DIUS hearing if emissions reduction doesn't work, why should geoengineering work) G9. It will work - but you might overdo it by mistake, leading to an ice age. G10. High risk of unknown unknowns turning out to be disastrous side-effects. G11. Our understanding is too limited. To quote the Climate Safety report: .. even with the extraordinary advances in climate science to date, our understanding of it has not developed to such a point as to allow confidence that deploying direct cooling techniques would not cause more harm than good. [1] Specific fears of stratospheric aerosols (from Robock [2]): S1. Could have adverse
[geo] Re: More ink
To Ken Quote from this article Ken Caldeira explains: One of the problems... is that it would destroy the ozone layer, so you might solve the problem of global warming, but then we'd all die of that. Did you actually say that? Although the ozone depletion is mybiggest concern about stratospheric aerosols, my reading of the research is that it would not be a large reduction. What are the latest thoughts. John gorman - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:12 PM Subject: [geo] More ink Johann Hari Columnist, London Independent Posted April 23, 2009 | 03:48 PM (EST) The Last Green Taboo: Should We Try To Engineer Our Climate? 'Geo-engineering' sounds like a bland and technical term -- but it is actually a Messianic movement to save the world from global warming, through dust and iron and thousands of tiny mirrors in space. It is also the last green taboo. Environmentalists instinctively do not want to discuss it. The wider public instinctively think it is mad. But in the past few years, the taboo has been breached. James Lovelock -- one of the founding fathers of modern environmentalism -- proposed a way to slash global warming without cutting back on a single fossil fuel. 'Geo-engineers' believe that man should consciously change the planet's environment, using technology, to counter the effects of global warming. They are like a chef who realizes she has accidentally put in too much cayenne, so reaches for lashings of oregano to balance it out, only this time, the recipe is the atmosphere of the planet earth. Ken Caldeira, a geo-engineering expert at the Carnegie Institute, says: In effect, we're already engineering the climate by emitting so many greenhouse gases. We just don't want to admit it. You can argue that the only reason difference between what we're doing today and what geoengineering advocates are proposing is a matter of intention. And frankly, the atmosphere doesn't care about what's going on in our heads. Grand geoengineering schemes come in two main flavors. The first tries to increase the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. At the moment, the oceans are, along with the rainforests, the most effective natural mechanism for taking carbon out of the atmosphere. So geo-engineers ask: is there anything we can we do to supercharge them? The simplest proposal is to sprinkle vast amounts of iron along the surface of the world's seas. This would create the ideal conditions for a surge in the quantity of plankton, the friendly micro-organisms who 'eat' carbon while they are alive. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean -- taking the carbon with them to a watery grave for centuries. It has been tried in a number of small-scale experiments off the coast of the Gallapagos Islands -- and it did indeed cause dead seas to spring to life with carbon-sucking plankton. Enter James Lovelock, with a similar proposal. He suggests another way to spur the oceans to sink massive amounts more of carbon dioxide. His plan is to build vast vertical pipes across the world's seas. They would pump water from the bottom of the oceans -- which is rich in nutrients, but mostly dead -- to the top. This rich water would be ideal for micro-organisms like salps to breed in. They too 'eat' carbon -- and then excrete it, where it sinks to the floor of the ocean. The second school of geoengineering projects try to reflect much more of the sun's energy back into space, so it doesn't stay here and cook us. For example, we know that when volcanoes erupt, they release huge amount of tiny sulphuric dust into the atmosphere that serve as a blanket and measurably cool the planet down. When Mount Tambora blew in 1815, for example, it was known as the year without summer. So scientists like the Nobel Prize-winner Paul Crutzen have suggested we may have to artificially simulate this effect, by spraying sulphur into the atmosphere: in effect, fighting pollution with pollution. The US National Academy of Sciences has gone even further, suggesting that 55,000 small mirrors placed in the upper atmosphere would be enough to counter about half the impact of global warming. So why have greens been reluctant to discuss these solutions? They have a very good reason. All the evidence suggests that, in reality, it cannot work -- but it sounds just plausible enough to join denialism as another hallucinatory excuse to do nothing while the planet boils. To understand why, you need to look to the conservative philosopher Edmund Burke. In the eighteenth century, Burke argued that the functioning of human societies was so complex it could not be fully understood by the rational mind. If you pulled out one thread for impeccably rational reasons -- by, say, abolishing the monarchy -- you would find that dozens of other threads would come loose too
[geo] Re: ETC Group to White House: Yes, you can -- but don't
well said-but I very much doubt that they are listening john gorman - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: dianabron...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Parker, Andrew andrew.par...@royalsociety.org Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:56 PM Subject: [geo] Re: ETC Group to White House: Yes, you can -- but don't Dear Diana I wrote to you and the rest of the ETC group on 5 February 2009 asking for your help in identifying environmental problems with the idea of increasing the reflectivity of marine stratocumulus clouds by spraying sub-micron drops of sea water into the marine boundary layer. Several climate models show that the idea could offset the thermal effects of a doubling of CO2 with less of the side effects that would result in not doing anything at all. I was rather hurt that none of you have replied. The problem is that even if the world stopped all CO2 emissions today (fat chance) the effects of what we have already done will continue to increase temperatures because of the phase lags of at least two integrators in the loop. Even worse is that we may be close to several positive feedback effects such as the loss of the Arctic ice and the release of methane from permafrost which could easily take over from CO2 as the main driver of global warming an accelerate it. The geological record shows that this has happened before with dreadful results to many species. I put it to you that you are enjoying the protest so much that you are not even trying to understand even the most basic things of what you are protesting about. Just imagine that it is something that you wrote to a politician or to the Royal Society that tipped the balance and delayed funding for a research project that could have stopped a repeat of the Permian extinction. Please help us to identify every possible negative effect of what we are trying to do and understand that you do not have a monopoly on caring about the environment. We may even find that we are on the same side. Stephen Salter Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Diana Bronson wrote: ETC Group News Release 8 April 2009 http://www.etcgroup.org Obama and Geo-engineering? Yes, you can – but don't! Reported musing by Obama Advisor is dangerous OTTAWA, April 8, 2009 – Today's reports[1] from an Associated Press interview with U.S. Chief Science Advisor John Holdren claiming that the White House could now be taking a serious look at geo-engineering – including the radical proposal to shoot nanoparticles of sulphate into the earth’s atmosphere – are causing alarm around the world. “If this is somebody's trial balloon to test Obama's acceptance of geo- engineering, the White House should shoot it down immediately,” says Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an Ottawa-based civil society organization that has been monitoring geo-engineering technologies since 2006. Geo-engineering refers to large-scale, intentional manipulations of the planet's climate and other systems. Holdren is quoted as saying that an experimental measure such as shooting sulphate into the atmosphere has “got to be looked at,” adding, “we don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” As reported, these comments seem to signal a change from earlier writings in which Holdren warned of “serious side effects” of geo-engineering.[2] “The most disturbing aspect of geo-engineering is that unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which requires a broad consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering is a luxury afforded only to superpowers, who can unilaterally decide to adjust the earth's climate to their liking. That John Holdren is reported as countenancing shooting sulphate nanoparticles into the atmosphere is especially alarming.” “The potential side effects of polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphates could be devastating – ranging from ozone depletion and increased drought to threats to health,” explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “Worst of all, once governments start shooting up these particles into the atmosphere, we may find ourselves addicted. Stopping would prompt a massive and sudden jump in temperature. Of all the wacky geo-engineering schemes out there, this one is probably the most dangerous and the most unjust. It would be irresponsible to contemplate real-world testing of this technology.” Holdren’s statement is being received with glee by geo-engineers who have been campaigning for more research dollars and a higher public profile. This week a group of geo-engineers are reportedly sending a letter to the Obama administration asking that geo-engineering be placed on the agenda for the preparatory meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy
[geo] Re: Letter to MP re geoengineering
Thsi isn't the joint letter. It's just a letter from John to his MP. I think his level of urgency and his attack on the head in the sand posture of our dept of the Environment is fully justified. We are developping quite a few MPs in our parliament who at least understand what geoengineering is and may become convinced. John G - Original Message - From: wig...@ucar.edu To: j...@cloudworld.co.uk Cc: John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Ken Caldeira kcalde...@dge.stanford.edu; Stephen Hugh Salter s.h.sal...@ed.ac.uk; John Latham john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk; John Beddington beddington...@dius.gsi.gov.uk; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Letter to MP re geoengineering John, Thanks for this. However, I am no longer willing to have my name on the author list. There are simply too many open-ended science issues here that are presented as facts rather than areas of continued uncertainty. Tom. + I plan to send this tomorrow morning, so would appreciate corrections. Cheers, John To: Right Hon Ann Keen, MP - member for Brentford and Isleworth Your ref: 01082669 NISS01005 Dear Ms Keen, Thank you for your letter of 11th February, in which you enclosed a reply from Joan Ruddock together with correspondence I had had with Christopher Conder of Defra, in May 2008. Ms Ruddock may be aware of my accusation that the government is being misinformed of the situation on climate change, which is far more serious than hitherto accepted by mainstream scientific opinion. On the other hand, she certainly seems unaware that the action required to reduce risk of extreme calamity is relatively simple and easily affordable. The problem I believe the actual situation is very simple. Mankind has injected an immense pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, sufficient to tip the Earth's climate system into a new much hotter state. Scientists now calculate that the current emissions trajectory could produce a temperature rise of over four degrees by the end of the century, which would almost certainly be catastrophic for humanity. And some scientists calculate that, even if we could halt emissions overnight, global warming would continue for over a century and we would still have catastrophic heating. There is the additional danger that continued high CO2 levels will produce catastrophic ocean acidification over a shorter timescale. Furthermore there is the report from Prof John Beddington, chief government scientist, that food and water shortages could provoke widespread starvation, migration and strife, by 2030 [1]. But the actual situation is far worse. These calculations ignore polar amplification: the fact that the poles are heating much faster than average (probably due to local positive feedback effects, particularly with loss of sea ice leading to greater absorption of sunshine). This heating, if allowed to continue unabated, will inevitably trigger ice sheet disintegration and massive methane discharge, causing respectively many metres of sea level rise and many degrees of global warming, possibly even within a few decades. This has got to be prevented. The solution The solution, besides emissions reduction, has to include both reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere and halting the polar warming. This will inevitably involve geoengineering, hitherto considered a last resort measure. Therefore I have been working with other scientists and engineers to present a case for geoengineering action to the Climate Congress, which met in Copenhagen in March. We presented an open letter to Dr Pachauri, chairman of IPCC, which was delivered to him personally at the Congress [2]. In this letter, it is argued that the solution to global warming should have at least three parts: Part A: Emissions reduction About: Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Target: Achieve near-zero carbon economies throughout the world by end century. Difficulties: International agreement, life-style changes, high cost. Rationale: Long-term sustainability. Part B: Carbon stock management About: Removing CO2 from the atmosphere by various means. Target: Reduce levels below 350 ppm over next three decades. Difficulties: May involve change in agricultural practice, worldwide. Side-effects may be difficult to anticipate. Rationale: Reduce CO2 climate forcing below its current level, halt ocean acidification and protect carbon sinks. Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management About: Mainly about albedo engineering and solar radiation management. Priority target: Cool the Arctic sufficient to halt retreat of Arctic sea ice within three years. Difficulties: Seen as tampering with the environment, and therefore intrinsically dangerous; but cost
[geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?
I will be happy to sign in this form. just noting that timescale is the critical difference between A,B and C A will take a century to get to zero emissions B will take half a century to get back to 280 C could control temperature wihin a couple of years -probably D is very difficult to plan if we dont know how much A,B and C we are prepared to do-worldwide. I know that my county of Hampshire UK, which includes Southampton docks, made planning policy decisions on the basis of the IPCC 2007 figure of 40 cms sea level rise by 2100. This was more or less raised to 1metre 20 in Copenhagen. noone can plan for such a moving target. I personally believe that we should do enough C to achieve almost zero sea level rise,which of course means saving the Arctic-now. John Gorman Chartered Engineer. Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.UK Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology UK (just in case you want to include qualifications!!) - Original Message - From: Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:42 AM Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering? Good points, Bill, adaptation should be part of the comprehensive approach we need to deal with global warming. For starters, there needs to be more funding of RD into agriculture, town planning, vegetation, saving of species that are at risk of extinction, forest management, etc, etc. The Open Letter shouldn't go too much into detail about all that, as said, everyone can add individual articles and notes to describe what they propose to see happen. I suggest the following revised draft: = OPEN LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE == Participants, We, a group of scientists, researchers and other people sharing a strong background and interest in climate change, are concerned that the Forum's sole focus will be on the politics of energy, as seems confirmed by the name of the Forum. Whilst we acknowledge that the politics of energy are vitally important, we believe that a more comprehensive approach to global warming is appropriate, which would include the following four parts: Part A: Emissions reduction Part B: Carbon stock management Part C: Heat transfer and radiation management Part D: Adaptation We are especially worried that there appears to be little or no funding for research and testing of geoengineering to reflect more sunlight back into space (part C.). Signatories: John Nissen, ... Sam Carana Tom Wigley Bill Fulkerson Dan Wylie-Sears Eugene I. Gordon etc. = END PROPOSED OPEN LETTER = Please say if you want your name added, and if so also add details behind your name as you see fit. Feel encouraged to suggest changes to the text, if that's what it takes to get your name added. Cheers! Sam Carana PS: Yes, I did see the Cato ad, it's at: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html If anyone needed to see reasons why our Open Letter is needed, see my article called Global Warming - Red Alert! at: http://is.gd/qE1Y earlier messages below - On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, William Fulkerson wf...@utk.edu wrote: Dear all: I would gladly sign the letter. I agree with Tom Wigley that the word geoengineering should be included in the description of Part C. The letter must be crystal clear and unambiguous. As for the comment that this conference is the wrong place to use a letter, I don't agree. But I do agree that we should be talking to everyone we can. This week I attended the National Academy of Sciences meeting on America's Climate Choices. I was glad to see that geoengineering will be an important part of the Committee's deliberation. That part of the study will be headed by Ken Caldeira, the perfect person at the right spot at the right time. In the meeting the point was made and heard that the time frame for saving the Arctic is incompatible with mitigation and adaptation time constants. I am a little disappointed that adaptation is not included in Parts A, B, or C. That means that the letter is not really talking about the whole problem of managing climate change to promote human and environmental well-being (paraphrasing John Holdren). Remember that the recent Climate Change plans of both India and China emphasize combating poverty as the most important strategy for adapting to climate change. The richer you are the easier it will be to manage the impacts of climate change. Surely, we shouldn't leave adaptation out of our letter. Finally, I assume everyone saw the full page Cato Institute ad in the Washington Post and New York Times addressed to President Obama and charging that the President was ill informed about the science of climate change. It had about 120 signers. The best, Bill Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow Institute for a Secure
[geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?
A very well put argument for starting SRM very soon and for trying to keep the global climate as close as possible to the situation over recorded history- preindustrial. Even trying to stop at todays situation isnt good enough. The Arctic is melting and will continue to at todays temperatures.We must go back at least a bit to stop this. john gorman - Original Message - From: jimwoolri...@hotmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: [geo] the limits of geoengineering? Perhaps it is the case that the window of opportunity for geoeng doesn't so much close as get rapidly smaller. In general the sooner the relevant earth systems adjustments are implemented the better--the longer we wait the more likely will be a cascading of non-benign effects of global warming so that we find ourselves very much in the position of running to catch up as what we are chasing rapidly picks up speedso yes, by all means do the relevant sums, while acknowledging that we really don't have enough information to know whether or not the sums we are doing are the relevant ones, given the complexity of the systems we are interacting with. Above all let's keep on telling people why we need solar radiation management/greenhouse gas remediation/climate intervention--if that message gets across then funding, political will and actually getting on with it will become a real possibility. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: what level of tests before starting geo-engineering?
Noone in the geoengineering community is suggesting embark(ing) on a course of geo-engineering at the expense of reducing CO2 emissions (your last paragraph) We obviously have to do both( -and also removeCCO2 from the atmosphere ) The problem is timescale. It will take about a century to get emissions down to a very low level and in the meantime global warming will be too serious to contemplate or predict. JOhn Gorman - Original Message - From: p.j.irvine p.j.irv...@googlemail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 11:04 AM Subject: [geo] what level of tests before starting geo-engineering? With the cost of stratospheric aerosols being easily within reach of some countries, what level of testing and international agreement would be needed to begin? If an international agreement is set down to govern the use of geo- engineering and it's testing, what limitations should it put in place? the chemical effects of stratospheric SO2 injections in the long run is not known. climate models are far from perfect now, so predicting the impacts of the changed climate would not be perfect. arguments over whether a country has lost out will arise if weather systems change or are perceived to have changed. deciding to embark on a course of geo-engineering at the expense of reducing CO2 emissions sets the earth up for potential disaster if they stop getting emitted. How should the international community address this? Peter Irvine PhD student Bristol University --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Reversibility
Same answe as p j irvines email at 13.56 on 21st Noone in the geoengineering community is suggesting embark(ing) on a course of geo-engineering at the expense of reducing CO2 emissions (your last paragraph) We obviously have to do both( -and also remove CO2 from the atmosphere ) AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE HAVE TO DO CO2 EXTRACTION AS WELL AS SOLAR RARIATION MANAGEMENT The problem is timescale. It will take about a century to get emissions down to a very low level and in the meantime global warming will be too serious to contemplate or predict. john gorman - Original Message - From: jimwoolri...@hotmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:09 PM Subject: [geo] Reversibility With regard to aerosols the discussion at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/geoengineering/langswitch_lang/fr IMHO render the enterprise moot, to say the least. OK, it may well be doable but the downside in terms of ocean acidification is surely a sufficient reason to give a thumbs down? And that is an easily foreseeable consequence, whatever about any nasty unforeseeable surprises atmospheric chemistry, unfortunate volcanoes etc. may throw up. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Mineral sequestration of CO2
My main interest will remain stratospheric aerosols -particularly the SiO2 diatom version but I also recognise the absolute need for CO2 extraction from the atmosphere by mid century. this idea seemed good because of the basic chemistry and the exothermicity(!) but if it cant be made to work at low concentrations, pity. JOhn G - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: gorm...@waitrose.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:17 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Mineral sequestration of CO2 Not clear how silicates relate to air capture - CO2 must be significantly concentrated for the reaction to happen, e.g. via costly amine capture from power plants. Even then the kinetics are slow unless additional T, P, or chemistry is applied. House et al (2007)does offer an indirect electrochemical weathering of silicates for air capture, but at a severe energy penalty. Carbonation of carbonates: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 --- Ca++ + 2HCO3- also requires elevated CO2, but straight flue gas will work and the kinetics here are much more favorable. There is an electrochemical version of this for air capture, but again at a significant energy price tag. Are you suggesting that these are our first tier abiotic air capture technologies? -Greg not quite sure what you meant by comment If there is anyone left on this - but this peridotite idea is of great interest. It was also mentioned in a thread a few months ago.There's lots in Iran removing CO2 from the atmosphere is the B of the Pachauri letter and of the possible ways of doing this I would bet on this one. The chemistry is iron/magnesium/calcium silicate(solid) + CO2 (gas) --- iron/mag/cal Carbonate(solid -chalk) + SiO2 (solid-sand) and its exothermic! If we can get it going it doesnt need energy. The silicates -peridotite- are magma when it comes to the surface volcanicly. We letter signatories believe that A,B and C are not alternatives. All are necessary to solve the problem so we are very interested. regards John G - Original Message - From: David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:08 PM Subject: [geo] Mineral sequestration of CO2 If there is anyone left on this group that is actually looking for politcally acceptable solutions to excessive atmospheric CO2, you may be interested in this report, out recently on locations where mineral sequestration resources are available in the U.S. http:// pubs.usgs.gov/ds/414/downloads/DS414_text_508.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Mineral sequestration of CO2
not quite sure what you meant by comment If there is anyone left on this - but this peridotite idea is of great interest. It was also mentioned in a thread a few months ago.There's lots in Iran removing CO2 from the atmosphere is the B of the Pachauri letter and of the possible ways of doing this I would bet on this one. The chemistry is iron/magnesium/calcium silicate(solid) + CO2 (gas) --- iron/mag/cal Carbonate(solid -chalk) + SiO2 (solid-sand) and its exothermic! If we can get it going it doesnt need energy. The silicates -peridotite- are magma when it comes to the surface volcanicly. We letter signatories believe that A,B and C are not alternatives. All are necessary to solve the problem so we are very interested. regards John G - Original Message - From: David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:08 PM Subject: [geo] Mineral sequestration of CO2 If there is anyone left on this group that is actually looking for politcally acceptable solutions to excessive atmospheric CO2, you may be interested in this report, out recently on locations where mineral sequestration resources are available in the U.S. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/414/downloads/DS414_text_508.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] next weeks conference
I f you want to go to next weeks conference in Copenhagen, I will pay 10% of your total costs. (registration alone is 650 euro) Any more takers? John is very good at buttonholing people and putting our ideas across.He hes managd to get into email discussion with lots of influential people worldwide. he is the best ambasador that we could have there for those of us who believe that the matter is urgent and that stratoshpreric aerosol geoengineering should be researched and implemented as soon as possible. John Gorman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [clim] Re: [geo] Volunteers step forward for 'oversight board' or 'institution of geoengineering'
I'thinking about it. I'm another engineer. I do think we need to have someone of Ken's reputation or Paul Crutzen if people are to take any notice of what we say. Stephen has a strong pedigree in energy and this field but we need more names who are already known in this field. John Gorman MA(Cantab.) Mechanical Sciences. Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. UK Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology.UK - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Climate Intervention climateintervent...@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:25 AM Subject: [clim] Re: [geo] Volunteers step forward for 'oversight board' or 'institution of geoengineering' Andrew If the others do not mind having an engineer among all the important scientists I can have ago. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 s.sal...@ed.ac.uk http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Andrew Lockley wrote: The following individuals have expressed an interest in having some involvement with an 'oversight board' or 'institution of geoengineering'. I hope others will shortly volunteer. Eugene I. Gordon euggor...@comcast.net (Ph.D. physics MIT) - 'I would be glad to participate in an advisory position. I am not a geoengineer but I have the physics background and credentials to be helpful.' Gregory Benford xbenf...@aol.com (Ph.D. University of California, San Diego) - 'I could serve on such a body. I'm a physicist at UCI, with publications mostly in carbon sequestration and energy long term policy' Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com (Chair, Department of Chemistry, New Mexico Tech, Ph.D., Chemistry, University of California, Irvine) - 'I am willing to serve on a geoengineering board.' Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com (MEng Mechanical, Birmingham UK) - 'I am an environmental activist with board experience. I don't see myself as a field expert, just a helper.' My suggestion is that we need to have 6-12 active members, including at least 1 or 2 professionals from each of the following fields: Climatology/Oceanography Atmospheric chemistry Meteorology Mechanical, marine or aeronautical engineering Ecology/biology Plus those with appropriate commercial, funding and political experience It would therefore be VERY USEFUL if people with relevant qualifications and/or experience could step up to the plate. At this stage, it seems to me that anyone in these fields would be welcome, as there is always the opportunity for people to step down in future should they feel that more eminent volunteers have stepped forward. There are obviously a number of very notable individuals on the geoeng list who are missing from this board. I really hope that they can volunteer. I really hope to receive your comments, either directly or to the list. A -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: REGARDING DETERIORATION OF GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP
Please keep the group more or less as it is-somehow or other. It is invaluable even if it strays into too much politics occasionally. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:00 PM Subject: [geo] REGARDING DETERIORATION OF GEOENGINEERING GOOGLEGROUP Folks, The original goal of this googlegroup was to transmit information that would be useful to professionals and informed citizens concerned with issues relating to intentional intervention in the climate system. The quality of posts on this group has, in my opinion, deteriorated to the point that it is no longer able to fulfill this primary purpose adequately. I think there are two basic options: 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message that does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a question that has not already been discussed at length. ( In this case, I will make many enemies as I reject messages from well-intentioned people. ) I will not have time to give each submitter of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting the posting. 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands. So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting them go. Comments? Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: delivering aerosols
It is obviously possible to distribute SO2 (or indeed SiO2) by an additive in aircraft fuel although, as Alvia has said the aircraft industry do not want to know-at the moment. The disadvantage is the possible damage to the engine. Without listing those obvious possibilities may I list some possible advantages of this route. 1)No hardware development so much quicker atmospheric testing. 2)with aerosol droplet size being so important and diffficult to control, it might be possible to produce silica particles of defined size.(Greg Benfold's diatoms) 3)These might be more reflecive and lighter platelets-or not. 4)non acid -sand particles. etc.more in my submission to the parliamentiary committee at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/memo/1264/ucm1.pdf on page 86 or my website http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm since Alvia has already homed in on a fighter like the F15 as the best delivery mechanism the poossibility exists to use the additive only in the fuel injected into the afterburner which would avoid most of the probable problems.Those with suitable test beds will still not be interested until someone can come up with some money! John Gorman - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: [geo] Re: delivering aerosols Seems planes are the best method then? 2008/12/9 Oliver Wingenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear Andrew, Paul Crutzen suggested artillery. But this won't work. Never trust the Germans with artillery. (Before I get any hate mail, Prof. Crutzen is not German. He is Dutch. I am the only one in my family not born in Germany, so I guess that makes me German.) Oliver Wingenter On Dec 8, 8:13 am, Andrew Lockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't make personal digs just because I suggested an idea that may not work. Why is a nuclear bomb worse than a volcano anyway? And what about artillery as a method? 2008/12/8 Alvia Gaskill [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The only people seriously considering using nuclear weapons to put lots of particulate matter into the stratosphere live in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Alan Robock showed what happens if India and Pakistan play nuclear ping pong with their meager arsenals. The particulate matter carried into the stratosphere absorbs enough solar energy to heat the stratosphere to the point where reactions that destroy ozone are maximized. The net result is that everyone and everything on the surface of the Earth is killed by UV radiation. Now you wouldn't want that, would you Andrew? Your organization is called Friends of the Earth, isn't it, although the acronym FOE is a little disturbing. I've looked at the delivery system issue (see the group files for some of what I've written) and concluded that airplanes and balloons could be used. To get precursor gas to circulate globally, it must be released above 53,000 ft, the boundary between the tropical tropopause and the stratosphere. In fact, due to the fall rates of aerosol, it should be released at above 65,000 ft to guarantee at least a one-year residence time in order to make it practical. The B-52, the KC-135 and other large subsonic aircraft cannot fly this high, their ceilings right at around 50,000 ft. To fly as high as would be necessary and carry enough payload to make it worthwhile would require supersonic aircraft. I settled on the F-15c with a ceiling of around 65,000 and the ability to carry about 8 tons of payload of which half could be the gas. You are correct about the balloons in that using hydrogen as the lifting gas instead of helium doubles the lifting capacity. Using H2S instead of SO2 doubles the precursor quantity that can be carried again as well. So balloons containing hydrogen and H2S within the envelope of the balloon could deliver the gas to the stratosphere in the quantities required and to much higher altitudes as well, up to 120,000 ft. The technology to inflate and recover payloads from large football stadium sized stratospheric balloons exists today and has been used since the 1940's to deliver payloads of up to 8000 lbs to 120,000 ft and recover them. The real issue about the delivery systems is whether or not the gas will form the proper sized aerosol using the existing water vapor in the stratosphere. This will requre field tests to determine its feasibility as well as whether gas can be released from tanks quickly enough to vaporize in the time that the planes can spend in flight at these altitudes, probably about an hour. Balloon residue can be addressed through a collection program and I doubt the residue would come close to that already floating in the middle of the Pacific from land based plastic waste. Alan Robock's
[geo] Re: Geoengineering by common sense
As Ken said recently, It is not necessary or even desirable that we all agree in this group but there are quite a lot of us who agree with the urgency and timescales in this letter. It, or similar, could be sent to various people starting with The Royal Society by 11th Dec. I would certainly add my name and qualifications and academic institution and position if applicable. Who else? John Gorman Chartered Engineer, MIMechE, MIET just a couple of changes -in CAPS - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Ken Caldeira Cc: geoengineering ; Stephen Salter ; John Latham ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; John Gorman Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering by common sense This is a draft of the letter that we might send to Brown, and similarly to Obama, preferably with a number of signatories: To: The Prime Minister, the Right Hon Gordon Brown, MP Stabilising Climate and Sea Level We acknowledge that you may be preoccupied with a global financial crisis, but we believe that there is a looming environmental crisis that requires equally urgent action. This crisis arises from the threat of abrupt and irreversible global warming triggered by events in the Arctic region, where warming has been several times faster than the global average. This warming has several dangerous consequences: a.. the unexpectedly rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice summer extent, which could lead to its disappearance over summer months in 2013 and hence the loss of an entire ecosystem; b.. the possibility of sudden release of vast amounts of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, trapped in frozen structures such as permafrost; c.. the possibility of destabilisation of the Greenland ice sheet and rapid sea level rise. To make matters worse, the melting of Arctic sea ice leads to accelerated regional warming, a positive feedback, whereby more sunlight is absorbed as open water replaces ice. This feedback effect in turn adds to the likelihood of sudden methane release and destabilisation of the Greenland ice sheet. Thus saving the Arctic sea ice is key to preventing disastrous global warming and sea level rise. This is a grim picture. The retreat of Arctic sea ice is happening too fast for reductions in CO2 emissions to have any effect. But we believe there may be a way out of this predicament using what is called geoengineering to cool the whole Arctic region. There are two particular technologies which may have the capability to save the Arctic sea ice: a.. creation of stratospheric clouds using sulphate aerosols; NEEDS REWORDING. THE AEROSOL DOESNT MAKE A CLOU IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF A WHITE THING b.. brightening of marine clouds using a very fine salt spray. ITS A SEA WATER SPRAY TO START WITH. Furthermore, these technologies could complement one another in certain respects. But unfortunately both technologies are at the research stage. Considering what is at stake, we would like to recommend a programme with has the urgency, decisiveness and focus of the Manhattan project. Its supreme challenge would be the deployment of geoengineering technologies on a scale sufficient to halt the trend of Arctic sea ice retreat in 2010 and to start reversing the trend in 2011. If successful on this scale, these same technologies could then be tested on a larger scale to halt global warming and stabilise both climate and sea level. These technologies are not to be considered a substitute for other actions to mitigate climate change. Indeed it may be necessary to prevent the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rising much above its current level to avoid undue ocean acidification. Geoengineering can provide some weapons in the fight against global warming - but we need to use all the weapons at our disposal to be sure to win this battle, which may turn out to be a battle for survival. Yours sincerely, Signed: (John Nissen and others) - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: Ken Caldeira Cc: geoengineering ; Stephen Salter ; John Latham ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering by common sense We are in great danger of leaving it too late for ramping up gently from early small scale field testing. The Arctic sea ice could disappear by 2013 or sooner, and the methane could start belching forth in vast quantity at any time. When it was realised that the Germans could develop an atomic bomb, the US administration was prepared to put everything into the Manhattan project. They didn't wait. As far as they were concerned, the future of civilisation was at stake. We need a project with the same urgency, decisiveness and focus, to save the Arctic sea ice and prevent massive methane discharge. Geoengineering has to play a major role
[geo] Re: Parliament next monday
I think your letter is good. Personally I think the letter should be kept as personal and local as poss. You, John managed to collar the chairman after the meeting (and, as Ken will confirm, those collared by John don't get away!) so the letter should be mainly from you, maybe just with myself and Colin Forrest as other local submitters. We could follow up later with other letters, documents and signatories. The object today is to get the chairman to ask the same very simple question to all witnesses on Monday in the way that he did at the last meeting and I think your wording Do you honestly believe we can avoid serious consequences from global warming without geoengineering? is hard to beat without too much preamble with facts that they know perfectly well. Incidentally John's self introduction to the Met Office's head of Climate Change in the corridor afterwards was hard to beat Hallo. I'm John Nissen. I'm going to be very rude to you. He wasn't and it started a very constructive discussion with Ken, Stephen Salter, and others. Well done John You decide what to send. John G - Original Message - From: John Nissen To: David Schnare Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; geoengineering ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Davies, John Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Parliament next monday Thanks, David. Anybody else to add their names? I'd be grateful for all the support I can get. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: David Schnare To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; geoengineering ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Davies, John Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Parliament next monday I believe it would be helpful if anyone who agrees with these sentiments, and has a credible scientific (not law) background, add their names to the letter. You may surely add my name if you believe me qualified to join you. (PhD environmental engineering, UNC-CH 1978) David Schnare On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM, John Nissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this the kind of message you had in mind: Dear Right Hon Phil Willis, MP, I spoke to you after the hearing on geoengineering last Monday. You had been surprised to find so little enthusiasm for geoengineering, so I introduced myself as an enthusiast. You will have appreciated from Professor Brian Launder just how serious the situation is, in particular with the Arctic sea ice threatening to disappear within five years. Thus we may have to rely on geoengineering to cool the polar regions while we address emissions reductions, population reduction, energy saving, solar and other renewable energy sources, rainforest protection, etc. Geoengineering is not an excuse not to do the other things, and no scientist is suggesting it is. Professor Bob Watson, representing DEFRA in the submissions, is in a good position to appreciate the seriousness of the situation, being an ex-chair of IPCC WG II. Several of us at the meeting last Monday would like to suggest you ask him the following simple question? Considering: 1. the polar regions are warming many times faster than tropical regions; 2. the Arctic sea ice could disappear within five years, according to some experts; 3. there is a vast quantity of methane trapped in frozen structures that could be rapidly released, as the Arctic warms; 4. the Greenland ice sheet could provide significant sea level rise this century; Do you honestly believe we can avoid serious consequences from global warming without geoengineering? Cheers, John - Original Message - From: John Gorman To: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:12 AM Subject: [geo] Parliament next monday To John Nissen and Colin Forrest. As three amateurs who put a great deal of time into preparing submissions, I think we should jointly express our disappointment and phrase a question that we would like him to put to each of the witnesses in the way that he did last monday. Maybe Do you sincerely believe we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering? if so please explain. John N is good at phrasing ! john g clear=all -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Parliament next monday
To John Nissen and Colin Forrest. As three amateurs who put a great deal of time into preparing submissions, I think we should jointly express our disappointment and phrase a question that we would like him to put to each of the witnesses in the way that he did last monday. Maybe Do you sincerely believe we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering? if so please explain. John N is good at phrasing ! john g --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Parliament next monday
Sorry Ken. My suggested question was not meant to be a criticism of you. You have over a long time brought geoengineering to the stage of respectability that it now holds. I knew that out Met office would be strongly against and also those in Bristol University who published a paper about six months ago. I felt that they got too many red herrings into the discussion like the space discs and the rebound thing and I am concerned that next Monday will just allow our Dept of the Environment (DEFRA) to dismiss geoengineering as their submission did. Thanks very much for coming over and far more people will read that UPI press release than were sitting in the room. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Parliament next monday John, In attempting to move ahead politically, it is neither necessary nor desirable that we speak with a unified voice. I believe that I have had some limited impact in pushing forward a publicly-funded climate engineering research and development program. (That fact that no such program exists helps define what is meant by limited.) Insofar as I have been effective, I believe that calling for sober, impartial assessment in the open, peer-reviewed literature -- advocating research and development, while withholding advocacy for deployment until we understand more -- has contributed to this effectiveness. I think it would be counterproductive for me to advocate now for early deployment, in large part because I do not think we really know how well climate engineering will work. I am not just adopting a rhetorical posture when I say that I believe climate energy may have the potential to reduce overall risk, but we do not yet know if it would really deploy overall risk (taking into consideration complex social and political systems as well as the complexities of Earth's climate and chemical systems). It is somewhat amusing to me that I am now being criticized from both sides: criticized for advocating climate engineering research and development, and criticized for not advocating it strongly enough. To answer John Gorman's question: I do not seriously believe that we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering. It is just that I am not sure that we will avoid serious consequences with geoengineering, either. Nevertheless, I think the potential for risk reduction is great and that is why we need to do the underlying science and technology development. Best, Ken PS. I repeat a story (including embedded errors) that went out over the UPI wire. I leave the reader to decide if I am being too milquetoast: World needs CO2 emergency backup plan LONDON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution has told the British Parliament the world needs a carbon dioxide emergency backup plan. In submitted testimony, Caldeira said while steep cuts in carbon emissions are essential to stabilizing global climate, there also needs to be a backup plan should emissions cuts be insufficient to stave off catastrophic warming. Prudence demands we consider what we might do in the face of unacceptable climate damage, which could occur despite our best efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, Caldeira said. He said climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to controversial proposals to deliberately modify the Earth's environment to counteract greenhouse warming. One plan would cool the planet by injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to scatter incoming sunlight. Other possibilities include enhancing cloud cover over the oceans. Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems? Caldeira asked. Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what's technically feasible. His testimony was heard Tuesday in the House of Commons. [NOTE: It was Monday (10 Nov) before a Parliamentary Innovation, Universities, Science Skills Select Committee.] On 11/12/08, John Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To John Nissen and Colin Forrest. As three amateurs who put a great deal of time into preparing submissions, I think we should jointly express our disappointment and phrase a question that we would like him to put to each of the witnesses in the way that he did last monday. Maybe Do you sincerely believe we will avoid serious consequences without geoengineering? if so please explain. John N is good at phrasing ! john g -- === Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology Carnegie Institution 260
[geo] Re: News from the Future
you are right . All the top UK institutions seem to be getting in on the act. I dont know where the driving force is coming from. It certainly isnt DEFRA which is the government department officially responsible for environment, energy and the met office. They are all solidly against geoengineeering. I will try to get my MP to find out where this is coming from. It cant be the new minister for Energy and Climate Change. He was only appointed in August. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:45 AM Subject: [geo] Re: News from the Future I've started reading these and will comment on them in the order in which they appear. Is it just me or is there suddenly a spate of these assessment of geoengineering studies, mostly out of the UK? Since I failed to submit anything myself, I'll have to make up for it by critiquing what everyone else submitted. As the press release from the Carnegie Institution noted, there will also be oral presentations on Monday to the Committee: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/ius/meetings.cfm GEO-ENGINEERING 4.15pm Monday 10 November 2008, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee [IUSSC] will hold its first evidence session on the Geo-engineering case study on Monday 10 November when evidence will be heard from: At 4.15pm: Professor Brian Launder, University of Manchester; Dr Dan Lunt, University of Bristol; and Dr David Santillo, Greenpeace At 5.00pm: Professor Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh; Professor Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution; Professor Klaus Lackner*, University of Columbia; and A representative from the Met Office *the witness will be giving evidence via video link Responses to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Engineering Enquiry Geoengineering Case Study, Memoranda of Evidence There were 25 separate responses submitted to the request for information on the following topics related to climate modification, aka geoengineering: a.. the current and potential roles of engineering and engineers in geo-engineering solutions to climate change; b.. national and international research activity, and research funding, related to geo-engineering, and the relationship between, and interface with, this field and research conducted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; c.. the provision of university courses and other forms of training relevant to geo-engineering in the UK; d.. the status of geo-engineering technologies in government, industry and academia; e.. geo-engineering and engaging young people in the engineering profession; and f.. the role of engineers in informing policy-makers and the public regarding the potential costs, benefits and research status of different geo-engineering schemes. As the topic areas suggest, the emphasis was not on reviewing and identifying the most promising geoengineering technologies, but on the current and future roles of UK engineers with respect to climate engineering and how their numbers and skill sets might be strengthened in this area. Not surprisingly, 23 of the 25 Memoranda, as they are listed, came from the UK. Memorandum 1. Submitted by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). [pages 3-6] I'm assuming this is the government agency whose response in this area is being investigated by the committee. According to the submission, it funds Reseach Councils which in turn fund the universities. The DIUS, while repeating the IPCC's negative assessment of geoengineering (not much of one either, BTW), does note that geoengineering may possibly be used to limit global warming until GHG emissions can be stabilized. In a brief review of the major geoengineering technologies it is stated on p. 4 that the airborne particles used in blocking sunlight with stratospheric aerosols would have a lifetime of 5 years. I don't know where that came from, but 18 months is a better estimate. It is also stated that the cost of marine cloud albedo enhancement would be less than that for stratospheric aerosols. Fully applied, both should cost about the same per year. It is concluded that the UK engineering research community is not focused on geoengineering and the development of engineers of all kinds is not occuring in a coordinated manner or at a level necessary to keep the UK competitive. Memoranda 2 and 3. Submitted by the Edinburgh Collaborative of Subsurface Science and Engineering and the School of Engineering and Electronics and the School of Geosciences at the University of Edinburgh. [pages 7-17] These were not responsive to the request for information, instead electing to address issues related to geotechnical engineering and use of biomass
[geo] Fw: Geo-engineering - new evidence session
- Original Message - From: Innovation, Universities, Science Skills Committee Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: IUSS: Geo-engineering - new evidence session INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE SKILLS: Select Committee Announcement Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA Tel. No. 020 7219 2794 Fax. No. 020 7219 0896 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 November 2008 No. 84 (07-08) EVIDENCE SESSION Geo-engineering The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee will hold its first evidence session on the Geo-engineering case study on Monday 10 November when evidence will be heard from: At 4.15pm: Professor Brian Launder, University of Manchester; Dr Dan Lunt, University of Bristol; and Dr David Santillo, Greenpeace At 5.00pm Professor Stephen Salter, University of Edinburgh; Professor Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution; Professor Klaus Lackner*, University of Columbia; and A representative from the Met Office The session will take place in the Thatcher Room, Portcullis House *the witness will be giving evidence via video link The session is open to the public on a first come, first served basis. Portcullis House is the building directly above Westminster Station, entrance to which is via Victoria Embankment. There is no system for the prior reservation of seats in Committee Rooms. It is advisable to allow about 30 minutes to pass through security checks. Committee rooms and the timing of meetings are subject to change. Those interested in attending the session should check the venue by contacting the House of Commons Public Information Office on 020 7219 4272 on the day before the hearing. FURTHER INFORMATION: For media inquiries please call Laura Kibby on 020 7219 0718. For any other information please call Ana Ferreira, on 020 7219 2793. Previous press notices and publications are available on our website. www.parliament.uk/ius Committee Membership is as follows: Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chairman) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry) Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg Goole) Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Dr Ian Gibson (Labour, Norwich North) Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) Dr Bob Spink (UK Independence Party, Castle Point) Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) Mr Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/ius Watch committees and parliamentary debates online: www.parliamentlive.tv UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- inline: image002.gif
[geo] Re: Solve Climate Change with Geoengineering, Win $861.82!
This turned out to be only for young engineers so I couldnt enter. I will however keep at the Institution now that there is something happening there. -Original Message- From: John Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:29 am Subject: [geo] Re: Solve Climate Change with Geoengineering, Win $861.82! Thanks Alvia Once again you have picked up something on our doorstep which i didnt know about!! I am a Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers so I will enter. Not a lot of money but its all publicity. John Gorman - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:17 PM Subject: [geo] Solve Climate Change with Geoengineering, Win $861.82! http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Cooling+the+Planet+competition/ Hot Ideas for Cooling the Planet Help us keep the planet cool Governments have been meeting, talking and setting targets to prevent climate change since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1994. But with society still slow to act, and greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation ever increasing, global warming remains a very real threat. Engineers need to act now to keep our planet cool. That’s why we want your ideas on how to reduce current greenhouse gas levels and maintain the heat balance. The Cooling the Planet challenge is a chance to showcase your skills and demonstrate engineering’s role in solving these global issues. And if your idea is judged the most viable and sustainable option you’ll win £500. Register your interest now. What’s involved? Teams from around the world will be competing to present feasible engineering alternatives to reverse the effects of global warming. Each team will make initial technical assessments to prove the engineering feasibility and sustainability of their potential geo-engineering solution. The solution proposed must either: a.. Reduce the content of GHGs in the planet’s atmosphere, or b.. Alter the climate system beneficially More information about entry requirements is available in the competition details. Heats will be held regionally during December, with successful teams progressing to final judging at the Institution of Mechanical Engineer’s (IMechE) London offices in March 2009. The winning solution will then become part of the Institution’s environmental strategy, and promoted to the media, policy makers and the general public. How to enter Registration is open until 30 October. Make sure your team is in the running by registering your interest now. A technical brief will be available after registrations close on October 30. In the meantime you can learn more about entering the competition or key competition dates. Contact Us | Help | Disclaimer | Sitemap | Accessibility © 2008 Institution of Mechanical Engineers. IMechE is a registered charity in England and Wales number 206882 Competition details The Cooling the Planet competition asks teams of young engineers to find alternative solutions to reverse the effects of global warming and keep our planet cool. Entry requirements The only mandatory credential for entry is that each team must contain at least one member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), of any grade. Teams will typically be composed of 4-6 people. Although there are no limits on the size of your team, this will be taken into consideration when judging. Teams can be region, area, section, chapter or international forum based, and existing teams already in place (e.g.: in universities, graduate training schemes, panels, sections, chapters etc) are encouraged to enter. Heats and judging Regional heats – December 2008 For the regional level heat each team will prepare a short outline assessment of their chosen solution as specified in a technical brief. This will include a summary evaluation of its potential to achieve a global cooling outcome. One team per region will be chosen to go through to the final competition stage by a local judging committee of peers. The successful team will be chosen on the basis of the potential of their solution to produce the winning submission in the final competition. Final judging – March 2009 Final judging will take place at the IMechE's London offices in March 2009. Entries to the final stage will be judged against a number of criteria, including innovative appeal, quality of supporting research, technical feasibility, competency of calculations, practicality, cost/benefit, sustainability and clarity of presentation, both in a technical sense and public/political context. Each team will undertake a rigorous literature search, carrying out engineering feasibility calculations
[geo] Re: Geoengineering to survive [draft]
Fame at last! Incidentally, does anyone think that there is any possibility that someone is doing airborne experiments in secret? (as suggested in the blog.) John Gorman - Original Message - From: Alvia Gaskill To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:50 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering to survive [draft] http://blog-reporter.blogspot.com/2008/09/us-government-mad-scientists-geo.html Just a short note to congratulate John Gorman for being named an official member of the conspiracy. - Original Message - From: John Gorman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:48 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering to survive [draft] I am still very optimistic that tetra ethyl silicate silicate in kerosene in a jet engine would produce diatoms (or very small silica particles). I bought an old blowlamp on ebay to test this (successfull) but no old gas terbines have appeared yet on ebay. I will keep looking. John Gorman - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:01 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering to survive [draft] A technical point on: Although Wood, Benford and others have proposed using soil, clay and other inorganic materials for this purpose, I remain unconvinced that the right size particles can be produced in the quantities required. Industrial processes for making particles on the micron scale, down to 0.2 micron, exist. For d-earth they are known. The real problem is scattering them, preventing coagulation, etc -- which must be devised and checked in trials. This we could do now, but there is no funding. Gregory Benford ** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv000547) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
