Re: [geo] Economic impacts from thawing permafrost
Dear Paul‹I would make one comment about a difference in the situation between the present and the Eemian that might make a difference. For the Eemian, the warming influence was an increase in summertime solar radiation, which would indeed warm the summer season and surface melting of glaciers and ice sheets. However, during the winter, with the lower CO2 concentration during the Eemain than at present (so near 300 ppm), winter cooling would be stronger than is present today, with the CO2 concentration today at 400 ppm and rising, greater wintertime cooling of the land surface and radiating away of the heat that penetrated into the permafrost could occur. Today, with the higher CO2 concentration, the back radiation to the surface is increased all year round. Just because the global average temperature increase is the same should not be taken to mean that both situations are the same. Just a thought‹I imagine that studies have looked at this, though I have none to cite. Mike MacCracken On 9/23/15, 10:55 PM, "Paul E. Belanger" <pebelangerro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although I'm been on the list a long time and mostly lurking and not even > having the time to read/follow all I thought I'd pipe in here. > > Warren Hamilton - of plate tectonic fame - who's anti-plume/hot spot and > anti-fixed subduction zone said today "...Nature 'almost publish anything'" - > OK cynicism warranted or not. > There's a lot hype about methane release from permafrost - and I think it IS > of concern - but maybe not as alarmist as often portrayed. > > I'm a foram paleontologist/stable isotope geochemist who's studied > Norwegian-Greenland and N. Atlantic Pleistocene cores - and know that the last > interglacial was warmer due to greater insolation and sea levels 8 to 10 > meters higher with forests going to the Arctic ocean, etc. (Muhs, Dan and > others). This likely would have caused a feared methane release that we > anticipate happening presently - except there's NO evidence it happened > 125,000 years ago. Why? Did the forests grow on top of it and take up the > methane to CO2 conversion released as well as help insulate the underlying > permafrost for enough time to prevent more release before the next glacial set > in? > I'm not sure - rate of these changes is likely important - but NAS and IPCC > also support the lack of immediacy/concern - not to say in the longer run it > is of concern (100s of years if nothing is done to mitigate?). > > I invite you to look at the following video that expresses what I've seen > elsewhere (a 2nd link to a GHG video might be interesting to y'all as well). > Below these links is another NAP publication that just came out that I've not > yet caught up - and ma even refute what I'm saying here -- just putting it > out there. > Paul > http://denverclimatestudygroup.com/ > AND THESE 2 VIDEOS FROM DENIAL 101X ARE WORTH IT > > This one about Arctic methane not being as immediate a threat as portrayed > supported by some of my own research observations of the last interglacial. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYHKlvRYMc > and a 2n one - not about methane but thought you'd enjoy regarding GHGs > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8VXwa83FQ > > > > Arctic Matters: The Global Connection to Changes in the Arctic just came out > in NAP - and I have not read it yet - just making you > aware: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21717/arctic-matters-the-global-connection-t > o-changes-in-the-arctic > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html >> >> "The Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the global average1 >> <http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html# >> ref1> . If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase at current rates, >> this warming will lead to the widespread thawing of permafrost and the >> release of hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2 and billions of tonnes of >> CH4 into the atmosphere2 >> <http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html# >> ref2> . So far there have been no estimates of the possible extra economic >> impacts from permafrost emissions of CO2 and CH4. Here we use the default >> PAGE09 integrated assessment model3 >> <http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2807.html# >> ref3> to show the range of possible global economic impacts if this CO2 and >> CH4 is released into the atmosphere on top of the anthropogenic emissions >> from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario A1B (ref. 4 >> <http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/ful
Re: [geo] Can geoengineering save coastal cities? | New Scientist
Regarding this paper¹s conclusion, our study of polar cooling [ MacCracken, M. C., H-J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. Ban-Weiss, 2013: Climate response to solar insolation reductions in high latitudes, Earth Systems Dynamics, 4, 301-315, 2013; www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/; doi:10.5194/esd-4-301-2013 and the earlier one by Caldeira and Wood suggest that what polar cooling does is enhance the likelihood of snow on land‹so the building up of land ice. By not directly cooling the low latitudes (there is some cooling by the pulling of heat from lower to high latitudes), the hydrological cycle remains quite strong and so with a cooler Arctic (or both poles), there will be greater snow buildup on land. It is not at all clear to me that ³Cooling the poles enough to halt ice loss would devastate the rest of the world, slashing rainfall, for instance.² At least, that was not the case in our model simulations. Mike MacCracken On 9/7/15, 8:05 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > Poster's note : title piece is a box extract, immediately below. Main article > posted beneath, which is well worth reading for those not up to speed with the > sea level rise issue. > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630253-300-latest-numbers-show-at-lea > st-5-metres-sea-level-rise-locked-in/#bx302533B1 > > Can geoengineering save coastal cities? > > It¹s already too late to prevent massive sea level rise (see main story). Or > is it? Can geoengineering stop low-lying cities sinking beneath the waves? > > It certainly won¹t be easy. ³Once you kick in the melting feedbacks, it¹s very > hard to shut them off,² says Alexander Robinson of the Complutense University > of Madrid. To have any chance, we have to get the planet¹s temperature back > down to pre-industrial levels in the not too distant future. ³I personally see > that as quite unlikely,² Robinson says. > > One key problem is that most geoengineering methods, such as pumping sulphates > into the atmosphere, rely on reflecting sunlight and would cool the tropics > more than the poles (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/453 > <http://doi.org/453> ). Cooling the poles enough to halt ice loss would > devastate the rest of the world, slashing rainfall, for instance. > > The best solution would be to suck all the excess carbon dioxide from the > atmosphere, but the immense scale of the task and the speed required make this > seem nigh on impossible. Other suggestions, such as building huge barriers > between warming waters and glaciers, don¹t look feasible either. > > Another major problem is that until cities start drowning, it is hard to see > politicians spending trillions on megaprojects. And once they begin to drown, > it will already be too late to prevent major sea level rise. > > (main article follows) > > SPECIAL REPORT 10 June 2015 > Latest numbers show at least 5 metres sea-level rise locked in > > It¹s too late to stop the seas rising at least 5 metres and only fast, drastic > action will avert a 20-metre rise, New Scientist calculates based on recent > studies > > WHATEVER we do now, the seas will rise at least 5 metres. Most of Florida and > many other low-lying areas and cities around the world are doomed to go under. > If that weren¹t bad enough, without drastic cuts in global greenhouse gas > emissions more drastic than any being discussed ahead of the critical > climate meeting in Paris later this year a rise of over 20 metres will soon > be unavoidable. > > After speaking to the researchers behind a series of recent studies, New > Scientist has made the first calculations of what their findings mean for how > much sea level rise is already unavoidable, or soon will be. > > Much uncertainty still surrounds the pace of future rises, with estimates for > a 5-metre rise ranging from a couple of centuries possibly even less to a > couple of millennia. But there is hardly any doubt that this rise is > inevitable. > > We already know that we are heading for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100. > The sea will then continue to climb for many centuries as the planet warms. > The question is, just how high will it get? > > No return > According to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > Change (IPCC), over the next 2000 years we can expect a rise of about 2.3 > metres for each sustained 1 °C increase in the global temperature. This means > a 5-metre rise could happen only if the world remains at least 2 °C warmer > than in pre-industrial times up to the year 4100. That doesn¹t sound so bad: > it suggests that if we found some way of cooling the planet, we could avoid > that calamity. > > Unfortunately, the report, published in 2013, is not the whole story. Las
Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits
Actually, working input from an advisory committee organized by V. Ramanathan and on which I served, the Gold Standard Foundation (which certifies projects) has promulgated a new standard for BC, etc. from cookstoves (basically, what one would need to do to be a certified project) and it uses the GWP-20 for BC and other species. There is also an effort underway trying to figure out how best to create a market for credits from such projects (and possibly other short-lived species projects). That limiting short-lived species has so many co-benefits (indeed, health effects may be the main reason for cutting BC and climate change is a co-benefit of that), so it may be that if some countries use a permit system type approach to improve air quality, it might well be that a market could be developed. Also, the new lifecycle assessment approach being developed for ANSI consideration also is set up for using GWPs with shorter time durations other than 100 years, basically set for the time period from emission to some fixed date (so, say 2050‹one just integrates the same equations out over the period of interest)--so what one gets out are relative contributions out to the time. This choice does mean that effects of these species after that time don¹t count in the rankings, and so is best used for considering how to get a response in the near-term. For the long-term, CO2 overwhelms everything else, so to limit long-term change the focus has to be to cut CO2 emissions (something well-know and the roles of other species just aren¹t all that important). I¹d also note that to be complete, all forcings need to be accounted for, so, for example, tropospheric sulfate is included as a cooling influence in the ANSI draft, and so cutting its emissions as coal use is cut does count as a warming influence (if one accounts only for the Kyoto basket of long-lived GHGs, that is just not an adequate approximation to how models would respond to the change‹remember that GWPs are only approximations of what is done by models, models don¹t use GWPs). So, conceptually, it would be possible to include SRM in the set of forcings, but one also has to consider another change in this new type of analysis, and that is not to be looking at results for a unit emission in just one year, but to be looking at operations out over time, so one focuses on what is causing what change, etc. So, one would not look at some unit SRM for one year, but at the relative influence of a planned implementation of SRM over some time period. I¹d also note that what matters about SRM is more than the temperature response (e.g., changes in precipitation patterns), so just treating its temperature aspects would be pretty limited [again, remember, all this GWP formalism is merely a way to approximate what full model simulations would provide as a result‹and for an intervention scenario, I would think one would really want to get beyond just an approximation of the temperature response]. So, there is movement on all of this, but ... Mike MacCracken On 8/21/15, 10:43 AM, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote: I agree with David and Olivier. Let's also remember that black carbon etc are not part of carbon credit schemes exactly because they're not GHGs, even though they have effect on global warming, and there are scientifically valid reasons for calculating some kind of equivalence like GWP for some purposes, awarding SRM with carbon credit is completely wrong. As to the possible, if temporary, negative feedback on terrestrial carbon emission from SRM, since fossil fuel carbon emissions and required carbon credits are never computed with consideration of their subsequent positive feedback on the earth system in terms of warming and further emissions, any secondary effect of SRM, even if real and long lasting, could not come into carbon credit computation either. Maggie Zhou, PhD https://www.facebook.com/maggie.zhou.543 On Friday, August 21, 2015 9:39 AM, David Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, I take it that you're thinking about the recent research showing that SRM could actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the amount of carbon released from (or not absorbed by) terrestrial sinks. (At least, I think that's the mechanism people find in the simulations -- if not, someone please correct me!). I agree with Olivier that there's no straightforward answer to the question about how much carbon a unit of SRM removes/keeps out of the atmosphere, both for the reason Olivier cited and because I take it the magnitude of the carbon reduction depends on background conditions (e.g., atmospheric concentrations and temperatures), which would evolve over time -- especially at the time scales needed to say that SRM has actually prevented carbon release, rather than delaying it. I also agree with Maggie that this isn't just a physics/earth science question
Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits
Hi Greg--I think you have to account for the airborne fraction--it is about 4 GtC emission (or about 15 GtCO2) per ppm (assuming airborne fraction is roughly a half). Mike On 8/22/15, 3:19 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: It seems to me that the value of CO2 and SRM can be interrelated via warming potential i.e. W/m2. If a doubling of air CO2 leads to a 3.7 W/m2 increase in forcing (IPCC), then doubling the current air CO2 load (400ppm x 7.76 GtCO2/ppm)= 3104 Gt CO2) to 6208 Gt CO2 means that for every Gt CO2 of the total of 3104 Gt added we increase the forcing by 0.0012 W/m2. Assuming that for every Gt of CO2 emitted only 45% stays in the atmosphere (in the near term) then the net forcing is 0.00054 W m^-2 per Gt CO2 emitted or 0.54 picoW m^-2 (tonne CO2 emissions avoided)^-1. If the social value of avoiding CO2 emissions is $30/tonne (Uncle Sam) and that cost only takes into account climate effects (not ocean acidification) then the value of either CO2 avoidance or SRM is $56 per pW/m2 avoided - no? Then in the case of SRM the issue becomes required timeframe of the avoidance - 100 years? Greg On Fri, 8/21/15, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [geo] Tricky question - SRM / carbon credits To: David Grober-Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Maggie Zhou mzhou...@yahoo.com Date: Friday, August 21, 2015, 1:31 PM David (and others) You're right that my question was inspired by the recent research showing that SRM gives a free CDR kicker. But this isn't the only way you could get carbon credits, as the temperature equivalence is a valid effect. The question is simply one of whether there will be any buyers. That will only be discovered when people start trying to sell the first SRM carbon credits. Bearing in mind you can get carbon credits from forestry schemes, my guess is that current credits aren't bought or sold on the basis of longevity. Having an SRM credit that's calibrated against an avoided ton CO2 over 100 years seems reasonable, and one that's equivalent over 1000 years would seem essentially irreproachable (based on RF). If people think this is illogical, illegitimate, immoral or illegal, then campaign for a ban. Don't shoot the messenger. Thanks Andrew On 21 Aug 2015 14:39, David Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, I take it that you're thinking about the recent research showing that SRM could actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the amount of carbon released from (or not absorbed by) terrestrial sinks. (At least, I think that's the mechanism people find in the simulations -- if not, someone please correct me!). I agree with Olivier that there's no straightforward answer to the question about how much carbon a unit of SRM removes/keeps out of the atmosphere, both for the reason Olivier cited and because I take it the magnitude of the carbon reduction depends on background conditions (e.g., atmospheric concentrations and temperatures), which would evolve over time -- especially at the time scales needed to say that SRM has actually prevented carbon release, rather than delaying it. I also agree with Maggie that this isn't just a physics/earth science question. A carbon credit is a social creation. SRM isn't worth any carbon credits unless the relevant decision-making bodies say it is. And I think it would be a very bad idea for them to say so. So, in short, I'd say the answer to your question is: Currently, SRM is not worth any carbon credits; and it should stay that way, regardless of SRM's effects on atmospheric carbon concentrations. David On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 7:47:40 PM UTC-4, Maggie Zhou wrote:Hi Andrew, Firstly, there is no sound answer to the question posed in terms of physics /earth science, exactly because SRM is not a true substitute of removing carbon, it does not confer the same effect in terms of duration of effect, and effect on many other aspects of the earth system other than the reduction of heat while the aerosol is in the air. So it is scientifically flawed to ignore all of that, in order to render a carbon credit equivalent so as to be able to monitize SRM, just like everything else is driven to be monitized under the insane capitalist system. Secondly, in a non-voluntary system that requires carbon credits in order to emit GHGs, SRM generated credits will simply add to the annual emissions cap, which is what I pointed out in my last email. In a voluntary system where people/corporations simply purchase carbon credits to feel better or use as a PR tool, SRM generated credits allow them to justify their emissions which they otherwise would be under greater pressure to reduce, and for those emissions outside of their
Re: [geo] space elevator
If the idea is to launch from a higher altitude and use inflatables for a building as part of the process, why not just build a blimp or dirigible that would lift the vehicle to altitude and then let it fly from the elevated position of the blimp? Why build a permanent structure for this? With blimp or dirigible, one could launch from nearly anywhere on Earth so get a good range of orbits, etc. Yes, I guess one needs to have a way to get up to a bit of speed for stability, but I don¹t see the value of a structure given all the complications. Mike On 8/20/15, 3:40 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: He's partially right about the fuel savings. In fact, he fails to discuss that almost all of the drag losses are incurred in early stage flight, so there's a bonus for him. What he's ignoring is that you can't approximate a launch from a standing start at 20km with a vehicle that's been accelerating at 13g for 20km. Speed matters! The foundations are nothing really to do with resisting torque, as it doesn't only happen at the end. If it's a straight tower subjected to wind shear, the bending moment in the bottom km of the tower is going to be insane, and it doesn't have to buckle at the footings - anywhere will do. This is a feat not dissimilar to balancing a hair on its end. All the stiff footings you'd care to build won't get rid of that buckling risk, and I'd be very surprised if it the tower structure came anywhere near to resisting it. Far easier to use tethers (just like a TV mast), but you'd struggle to mount these at the top, due to the free breaking length of the cables. Even mounting them half way up likely won't solve the problem, as you'd still have a 10km tower wobbling away like Jell-O on top. Active damping is great at removing vibrational distortion. But all the active damping in the world won't solve the problem of a steady bending load. I think the wind will huff and puff and blow the tower down. A On 20 Aug 2015 20:18, Julia Calderone juliacalder...@nasw.org wrote: Hi all, Brendan Quine, the inventor of the space tower, has followed up with some responses to a few of your thoughts (his responses are bolded below). I have included his statements in an updated version of the story: http://www.techinsider.io/thoth-12-mile-space-tower-elevator-astronauts-trave l-major-flaws-2015-8 If anyone has any thoughts or responses to his comments, please feel free to shoot me a response here. Thanks again. Best, Julia *External forces* would be an issue: ³This is a big fat tower, and it's under *compression*. The graphics don't show any tethers or taper, and the sides are not obviously wind permeable. This means the torque [twisting force] at the base will be enormous. It's just not clear how it will actually stay up.² We agree that the tower will require very substantial foundation however this requirement is similar to that of existing massive steel and concrete construction structures. The patent describes a harmonic control strategy and actively guided structure concept where the attitude of the building is constantly monitored and its vibration modes controlled (see FIG. 4 a schematic diagram showing active stabilization control of the elevator core structure, US9085897). ³Thunderstorms and icing would be a big problem. Construct[ing] a tower to take wind gusts and turbulence arising from deep tropical convection looks very problematic to me.² Ice build-up hampers proper functioning of planes and drones at such high altitudes. Unlike aircraft that can fly, a giant tower wouldn¹t be able to navigate around those regions. The structure may require de-icing in the same way that aircraft wings are sprayed with antifreeze during operation in winter. This function can be facilitated within the elevator structure however it is likely that icing will be occasional as event will be isolated and the solar radiation environment will rapidly heat and melt ice buildup during the day. It is likely that the elevators would be equipped with a de-icing capability also cleaning the outer surface as the pass up and down the core. There is some significant research developments in materials finishes that prevent ice build-up that could also be deployed in lower structural sections. It is unlikely that the mass of any ice buildup would be significant by comparison to the overall mass of the structure. The structure is designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane with wind speed of 156 mph with significant safety margin and so the sheer and turbulent forces of a thunder storm are within this design envelope. Problem with *buckling* under it's own weight: The problem with this, assuming you could design one that you could actually build, is that it would be subject to the same problems of self-weight buckling. When one part of the internal cell starts to buckle, the volume of the gas inside does not
Re: [geo] space elevator
On this issue of icing, while the situation would vary depending on what it is constructed of, the structure will be able to radiate heat away far more effectively than the air can radiate. Thus the building surface will cool with respect to the air. The air temperature at upper troposphere/lower stratosphere levels is 40 C or below, being maintained at this level by heat from convection that maintains the lapse rate through the tropsophere. I would think the building surface would cool to lower than that and so the skin temperature would be well below the temperature at which one would expect water vapor to be freezing out. This doesn¹t happen on an airplane because its interior is kept warm and this must make the plane¹s exterior pretty warm compared to what could happen to a building that just sits there. So, given the different IR emmissivities of the building surface and the air mass, I¹d be quite careful of the analysis. True that there is not much water vapor in air near highest altitudes, but the analysis would need to be done at each level, etc. Mike On 8/20/15, 2:58 PM, Julia Calderone juliacalder...@nasw.org wrote: Hi all, Brendan Quine, the inventor of the space tower, has followed up with some responses to a few of your thoughts (his responses are bolded below). I have included his statements in an updated version of the story: http://www.techinsider.io/thoth-12-mile-space-tower-elevator-astronauts-travel -major-flaws-2015-8 If anyone has any thoughts or responses to his comments, please feel free to shoot me a response here. Thanks again. Best, Julia *External forces* would be an issue: ³This is a big fat tower, and it's under *compression*. The graphics don't show any tethers or taper, and the sides are not obviously wind permeable. This means the torque [twisting force] at the base will be enormous. It's just not clear how it will actually stay up.² We agree that the tower will require very substantial foundation however this requirement is similar to that of existing massive steel and concrete construction structures. The patent describes a harmonic control strategy and actively guided structure concept where the attitude of the building is constantly monitored and its vibration modes controlled (see FIG. 4 a schematic diagram showing active stabilization control of the elevator core structure, US9085897). ³Thunderstorms and icing would be a big problem. Construct[ing] a tower to take wind gusts and turbulence arising from deep tropical convection looks very problematic to me.² Ice build-up hampers proper functioning of planes and drones at such high altitudes. Unlike aircraft that can fly, a giant tower wouldn¹t be able to navigate around those regions. The structure may require de-icing in the same way that aircraft wings are sprayed with antifreeze during operation in winter. This function can be facilitated within the elevator structure however it is likely that icing will be occasional as event will be isolated and the solar radiation environment will rapidly heat and melt ice buildup during the day. It is likely that the elevators would be equipped with a de-icing capability also cleaning the outer surface as the pass up and down the core. There is some significant research developments in materials finishes that prevent ice build-up that could also be deployed in lower structural sections. It is unlikely that the mass of any ice buildup would be significant by comparison to the overall mass of the structure. The structure is designed to withstand a Category 5 hurricane with wind speed of 156 mph with significant safety margin and so the sheer and turbulent forces of a thunder storm are within this design envelope. Problem with *buckling* under it's own weight: The problem with this, assuming you could design one that you could actually build, is that it would be subject to the same problems of self-weight buckling. When one part of the internal cell starts to buckle, the volume of the gas inside does not change, which means that it would not resist the collapsing action The problem of structural wrinkling (the onset to buckling) has been addressed by previous research (see Experimental investigation of inflatable cylindrical cantilevered beams ZH Zhu, RK Seth, BM Quine, S Okubo, K Fukui, Q Yang, T Ochi, JP Journal of Solids and Structures 2 (2), 95-110, 2008). In fact there is a volume change during the buckling event. Also the commentator may be assuming that the core is comprised of a single gass cell the diameter of the structure however the structure is comprise of many cells arrange in a torus and there is a significant volume change between the sides of the structure during buckling. The research paper lays out experimentally derived guidelines for pneumatic structures to avoid the onset of wrinkling which we have adopted in our design. *Material and cost* limitations: The
Re: [geo] Climate change: Devine Intervention?
Hi Greg--A bit of a delayed response due to my travel to IUGG in Prague. Just a note that when I was scientific adviser (as a scientist, not a Catholic) to the panel of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for their climate change statement back 15 years that question came up as they wondered if they would get criticized or have their view dismissed because of that. The response a couple of us gave them was to note that, actually, it was the billion people in the developed world that had, by their choices, gotten the world into this mess and then even if the developing nation emissions went to zero tomorrow, the emissions path of the developed nations would take the world past 2 C warming later this century, so the notion of passing this issue off as primarily an issue of population growth would be a bit misleading--it has been choices of the relatively steady population in the developed world that has created the issue. Now, it is, of course, also true that if the developed world emissions went to zero, the path the developing world is on would also take us beyond the 2 C warming level a bit later this century, so, yes, their contributions are also part of the problem and growing unsustainably and must be dealt with--indeed, the choices they are making will be very important and it would be easier to deal with were there not so many and with the number increasing. But, while I agree their policy is a problem, just having fewer people would not come close to dealing with the problem--it is the choices we are all making with respect to energy that are the overwhelming problem. Best, Mike On 6/19/15, 5:44 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Further analysis here: http://www.eenews.net/tv/2015/06/19 Where the Pope and I part company is on birth control. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet, especially if you are trying to preserve the sanctity and habitability of the latter. Yet the church doesn't forbid all forms of birth control (rhythm method), so some higher power is going to have to explain the logic here. Greg On Fri, 6/19/15, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: Subject: Re: [geo] Climate change: Devine Intervention? To: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, June 19, 2015, 9:39 AM Hi Greg, I also have been reading the encyclical. Here are my reactions. 1. It is remarkable that a public figure has been able to write an intelligent and largely accurate summary of the climate change situation without ever once using a single number or statistic. It certainly helps the readability for the broad audience. It is also admirable that he emphasizes he is writing to every human being. 2. I agree that there is nothing that I have read so far that would expressly forbid either SRM or CDR. 3. However, I think that you are not giving sufficient weight to the full contents of the document. The nontechnical parts (which are the majority) contain a moving exposition of the value of seeing nature as an integrated whole with the economic, political, and ecologic system of the world; human experience of the divine; St. Francis's joy in nature; and the unpopular values of sobriety and humility. With that vocabulary in mind it is, I think, harder, although not impossible, for those who resonate with this vision to accept a world that requires solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Expressing it another way, perhaps this is a hint that the vocabulary around GE research needs to shift somewhat. Cordially, Fred Zimmerman On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Pope¹s climate, etc weigh-in here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2105201/laudato-si-ing lese.pdf Surprisingly wide ranging and deep perspectives. Some nuggets follow. ³Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this [global] warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.² However: ³A politics concerned with immediate results, supported by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments.² ³It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily
Re: [geo] World Bank report highlights necessity of (BE)CCS
Hi John‹I¹m guessing (hopefully in an educated way), but I would think that the variation in the apparent net atmosphere to surface ocean flux is mainly a result of state of the tropical ocean, so whether the upward moving deep water that is supersaturated in CO2 is getting mixed into the ocean surface layer and outgassing or is covered by warm water (as in El Nino years) and so the CO2 remains trapped below, and that all of this creates a bit of a lag (a year or so, etc.). Yes, there is also some variation in bottom water formation rates and so how much CO2 is being taken down but I would guess the larger variation is from the outgassing effect at low latitudes. It would be nice if a real carbon cycle modeler stepped in and provided authoritative answers. Best, Mike On 6/16/15, 8:54 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Mike, you are posing the following knotty question: How much of the ocean sink is driven by the mismatch between annual emissions and the mixed layer concentration (this is the portion of the sink that should scale with annual emissions) vs. how much of the sink is driven by the disequilibrium between the mixed layer and the deep ocean (this is the portion of the sink that is driven by the difference between the current level in the air and the level in the deep ocean, which in turn should scale roughly with cumulative emissions(. Here are some things I think I know about the ocean sink. 1. 1. Revelle factor: assuming only carbonate chemistry and pH, ~ 80-85% of whatever we emit to the atmosphere will eventually be removed. 2. 2. Temperature dependence of chemical equilibrium constants: a warmer ocean will outgas CO2, so the Revelle limit has to be corrected if the ocean is warmer. 3. 3. The flow from air to sea is roughly proportional to the gradient between air and mixed layer. 4.4. The flow from mixed layer to deep ocean is very complex. It has already brought significant carbon down to at least 500-700 m, or in other words well below the mixed layer. It is this mixed layer depletion through the thermocline that allows the mixed layer to continue drawing more CO2 from the atmosphere. I believe that simple models that combine the chemistry and the temperature effects tend to show a persistent sink Š i.e., 2. reduces 1. only a little. At least that is what the modeling I have done reveals. But this is where I would like to see the output of the most recent and advanced modeling. The strength of the outgassing will of course depend on the time evolution of the temperature profile into the deep ocean, and unfortunately our data on that are sparse (to my knowledge). Related to all this, I would like to see answers to the following questions that are suggested by the fact that a plot of the total sink strength (GT(C)/y) does not appear to bear a strong relationship to annual emissions the previous year. a. 1. Would a time lagged model reveal a stronger pattern? b. 2. If we could separate out the land sink, would the ocean sink show a stronger relationship between sink and emissions? c. 3. Does the ocean sink each year have little to do with annual emissions and more to do with the disequilibrium between deep and mixed layer referred to above. In other words, is the annual ocean sink proportional to annual emissions (maybe with a lag adjustment) or is it proportional to the flow from mixed layer to deep ocean (in which case it would persist even if emissions went to zero). To my knowledge, no definitive answer has been given to this quesition. Given the rather large amount of C (and heat) that has penetrated below the mixed layer I suspect the answer is the latter, but this question really begs for more analysis. Regarding the land sink, I don't think today's GCM's have the capability of generating believable predictionsŠbecause ecologists don't have the necessary information/insight. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] World Bank report highlights necessity of (BE)CCS John H and Greg‹Sorry, I¹m running a bit behind. I want to go back to this issue of how long the carbon sink in the ocean will continue at the magnitude it is. Someone will have a good model to actually run and see, but I¹m concerned that the rate will not continue so large for so long. So, the atmosphere works to be in equilibrium with the upper ocean concentration, and that time constant is pretty fast (years to a decade or so). Right now, water at low latitudes comes up supersaturated and emits CO2 to the atmosphere as it warms, so a lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to increased emissions. And then as the ocean moves poleward and cools CO2
Re: [geo] World Bank report highlights necessity of (BE)CCS
John H and Greg‹Sorry, I¹m running a bit behind. I want to go back to this issue of how long the carbon sink in the ocean will continue at the magnitude it is. Someone will have a good model to actually run and see, but I¹m concerned that the rate will not continue so large for so long. So, the atmosphere works to be in equilibrium with the upper ocean concentration, and that time constant is pretty fast (years to a decade or so). Right now, water at low latitudes comes up supersaturated and emits CO2 to the atmosphere as it warms, so a lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to increased emissions. And then as the ocean moves poleward and cools CO2 is taken up and a lower CO2 concentration in atmosphere will mean less is taken up. Now, the upper ocean is also seeking to reach equilibrium with the deep ocean, and this will indeed take a long time given deep ocean circulation time is of order 1000 years. So, the upward flux from deep ocean will continue as is (assuming that the overturning does not change), but would not the downward flux to the deep ocean be decreasing per discussion above? So, it seems to me, the downward circulation aspect of the carbon cycle becomes goes down as the atmospheric concentration stops going up. Thus, I just don¹t think it is right that one can assume the net removal rate from the atmosphere to the ocean will persist at its current rate for well into the future as global emissions go down (or go to zero). In the past, the net transfer rate to the deep ocean has gone up as the atmospheric concentration has gone up‹why would it not go down as the rate of increase in the CO2 goes to zero? Mike On 6/10/15, 4:54 PM, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John, Even IPCC admits that there will be dangerous climate change without negative emissions, by which they mean geoengineering of the CO2 removal type (CDR). RCP2.6, the only scenario which has a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees C, relies on negative emissions. So I argue that it is indefensible not to consider what CDR techniques can be implemented. Such consideration will lend force to the efforts to reduce emissions, because people will realise how serious the situation has become. Thus the consideration of geoengineering will be strategically productive, rather than counterproductive as you suggest. We have to find a way to remove CO2 faster than it is being put into the atmosphere. That is the bottom line. BTW, we also have to find a way to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice: that is even more urgent. (CO2 reductions will not help here; nor will CDR.) This will almost certainly require SRM-type geoengineering together will local interventions such as snow generation and ice thickening to restore albedo. Cheers, John On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:50 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: I am no more confident than you, Greg, that we will reduce emissions by ~2%/y. That we could do so does not mean we will. My point was simply to address the argument of some who suggest that that no matter how fast we reduce emissions, the CO2 level in the atmosphere will continue to rise and we are doomed to see large and very risky future climate warming. I believe it is both scientifically indefensible and strategically counterproductive to base the case for further research on geoengineering on the grounds that nothing else we can possible do will stave off catastrophe. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Jun 9, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I'd say that we are nowhere near reducing global emissions by 2-3% per year let alone getting to zero emissions. This would seem to up the chances that we are going to blow through a critical CO2 level which could last more than 85 years, depending. E.g., if the 2 degree threshold is real and only requires 1000 Gt more of CO2 emissions to achieve, miraculously stabilizing anthro emissions at current levels, 37 Gt CO2/yr, gets us to the next 1Tt of CO2 emitted in under 30 years. Those trying to conserve glacial and sea ice and permafrost might say we've already passed a point of no return. So I side with caution and John N. At our current pace of year-to-year global CO2 emissions reductions (nonexistent) and with clear AGW and OA, it is time to seriously ask what are all of our options for managing CO2 and its consequences. As pointed out in this thread, natural CO2 sinks are already saving our bacon to the tune by some 18 Gt CO2/yr removed from air. Is it unthinkable that we cannot increase this uptake by enhancing existing sinks or inventing new ones that can compete on a cost and efficiency basis with other methods of CO2 management? In this regard, making supercritical CO2 from dilute sources and storing it underground (BECCS)
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
with Jon. And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most likely option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 is injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, [A] solar radiation management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at that anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining Œbusiness as usual¹ conditions, would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 Tg(S)/yr which amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption each year. Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric sulfur climate engineering? Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 10,93910,969. And how will you deal with everyone of these risks? From Robock (2014), updated: Benefits Risks 1. Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise 1. Drought in Africa and Asia 2. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation 3. Ozone depletion 4. Continued ocean acidification 5. Will not stop ice sheets from melting 6. Impacts on tropospheric chemistry 2. Increase plant productivity 7. Whiter skies 3. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink 8. Less solar electricity generation 4. Beautiful red and yellow sunsets 9. Degrade passive solar heating 5. Unexpected benefits10. Rapid warming if stopped 11. Cannot stop effects quickly 12. Human error 13. Unexpected consequences 14. Commercial control 15. Military use of technology 16. Societal disruption, conflict between countries 17. Conflicts with current treaties 18. Whose hand on the thermostat? 19. Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere 20. Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere 21. Environmental impact of implementation 22. Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy 23. Affect stargazing 24. Affect satellite remote sensing 25. More sunburn 26. Moral hazard the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation 27. Moral authority do we have the right to do this? Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Issues Env. Sci. Tech. (Special issue ³Geoengineering of the Climate System²), 38, 162-185. Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is clear that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation is? I agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, could be doing much more. This just means he needs more pushing, and the Chinese and Indians need to agree to take strong steps. We're certainly not there yet, but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them an out. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 tel:%2B1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 tel:%2B1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me that these (and some related) assumptions are valid, at least based on actions that seemingly rational leaders are taking, much less ones that are focused more on ideology than rational thinking. It seems to me this situation could perhaps be achieved with an approach that is relatively robust to the particular foibles of those making the decisions (e.g., a really aggressive energy technology development effort that makes the cost of transitioning energy systems less than the cost of staying as we are‹a situation that might well be achieved with a reasonable carbon tax with substantial resources devoted to the transition), but getting to this type of solution is also problematic. And so, given all that is at risk and the behavior of the leaders that we are seeing (so, for example in the US, leasing public lands for coal mining and the Arctic seabed for drilling), it becomes hard to see how at least some climate engineering is not inevitable as a means to reduce overall suffering and loss. Mike MacCracken On 6/2/15, 7:46 PM, Jon Lawhead lawh...@usc.edu wrote: As a philosopher working on this issue, it seems to me that this provides a really strong argument in favor of focused attention on mitigation. There's at least some degree of popular perception that geoengineering provides a fail safe for fixing the climate if/when we fail to successfully implement sufficient mitigation policies. In some cases, this leads to more lukewarm (or downright cold) support for mitigation than it otherwise would have. Philosophers and social scientists call this a moral hazard. But it seems to me that this position isn't just wrong--it's exactly backward. If a failure to adequately mitigate climate change means that our only recourse will be geoengineering, that's a very strong reason to mitigate early and mitigate often. The costs associated with geoengineering--both in terms of financial commitments and in terms of potentially dangerous side-effects--are just too numerous for it to be reasonable to think of a large-scale geoengineering program as a fail safe. I think we would do well to work harder to promulgate that message more widely and more forcefully than we do now. Naturally, Jon Lawhead, PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of Southern California Philosophy and Earth Sciences 3651 Trousdale Parkway Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 http://www.realityapologist.com http://www.realityapologist.com/ On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Amen, Mike. Given this dangerous trajectory, I'd say it's time for another reading from our experts on the ethics of alternative climate management methods. And I don't mean adaptation. Greg On Sun, 5/31/15, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Subject: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015, 10:28 AM For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as described in: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no, leases would be at very low prices. So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel to try
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
So far I've been unable to download the files at the BLM site and look at their very lengthy materials, but it was possible to do a search on the draft, and (no guarantees I did it right) I did not find a single mention of climate or carbon dioxide. That, I think, gives a hint at how much they care about the President's Plan and the global situation. Mike On 6/2/15, 8:44 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Thanks for sending this chapter. One indicator of its sloppiness is that it stops its description of proposed legislation IN THE U.S. Congress in 2009, ignoring what happened in the six years since then. Sent from my iPad On May 31, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netmailto:mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: See attachment On 5/31/15, 6:05 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Mike cc List I have a few friends deeply involved in this issue - and agree that a travesty is going on here, and worth making a noise about as this dwarfs EPA¹s Clean Power Plan activities. I have found some very lengthy documents just released late last week on this - but can¹t find anything resembling the reference you make to ³page 4-130². Can you give a more specific citation? The one I found (almost 3000 pages) is at: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/36597/58409/63200/BFO_PRMP-F EIS.pdf Ron On May 31, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: For those who argue that it is best to keep relying on mitigation as the only acceptable approach, it is because of disgraceful decisions such as described in: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-10-billion-tons-of-coal-that-could-eras e-obamas-progress-on-climate-change that this will be the case. I've done declarations for a couple of lawsuits trying to fight the leasing of such coal lands. The Administration could have acceded to their calls for a high quality environmental review of the consequences of such leasing (so including GHG effect), but instead they have fought those lawsuits and rely on a really outdated EIS (their analysis starts on page 4-130--and is only a few pages long). Or they could have imposed the social cost of carbon as an additional fee if one wants to use the free market system to level the field across technologies--but no, leases would be at very low prices. So, first, the criticism that those of us favor geoengineering first are just wrong--we've been fighting hard for mitigation. But decisions like this keep coming, and I would suggest have nothing to do with whether geoengineering might or might not help. So, we keep having to go deeper and deeper in to the barrel to try to find some way to slow the devastating consequences of warming lying ahead. Second, given decisions like this by the US, no wonder the rest of the world is not yet really making commitments that are strong enough to make a difference for the future. Truly embarrassing decision--it makes all the clamor over stopping the Keystone pipeline to limit tar sands development ring very hollow. Mike MacCracken -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Powder River Basin-08chap4-1.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] On why we'll very likely need climate engineering
and frequently repeat the fact that this is a situation that we should be willing to bend over backward to avoid finding ourselves in. Naturally, Jon Lawhead, PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow University of Southern California Philosophy and Earth Sciences 3651 Trousdale Parkway Zumberge Hall of Science, 223D Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 http://www.realityapologist.comhttp://www.realityapologist.com/ On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edumailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear Mike and Jon, I agree with Jon. And Mike, I think you are ignoring all the unsolvable problems with geoengineering (considering only stratospheric aerosols - the most likely option). First, it looks like the aerosols will grow as more SO2 is injected. As Niemeier and Timmreck (2015) found, [A] solar radiation management strategy required to keep temperatures constant at that anticipated for 2020, whilst maintaining Œbusiness as usual¹ conditions, would require atmospheric injections of the order of 45 Tg(S)/yr which amounts to 6 times that emitted from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption each year. Niemeier U., and C. Timmreck, 2015: What is the limit of stratospheric sulfur climate engineering? Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 10,93910,969. And how will you deal with everyone of these risks? From Robock (2014), updated: Benefits Risks 1. Reduce surface air temperatures, which could reduce or reverse negative impacts of global warming, including floods, droughts, stronger storms, sea ice melting, land-based ice sheet melting, and sea level rise 1. Drought in Africa and Asia 2. Perturb ecology with more diffuse radiation 3. Ozone depletion 4. Continued ocean acidification 5. Will not stop ice sheets from melting 6. Impacts on tropospheric chemistry 2. Increase plant productivity 7. Whiter skies 3. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink 8. Less solar electricity generation 4. Beautiful red and yellow sunsets 9. Degrade passive solar heating 5. Unexpected benefits 10. Rapid warming if stopped 11. Cannot stop effects quickly 12. Human error 13. Unexpected consequences 14. Commercial control 15. Military use of technology 16. Societal disruption, conflict between countries 17. Conflicts with current treaties 18. Whose hand on the thermostat? 19. Effects on airplanes flying in stratosphere 20. Effects on electrical properties of atmosphere 21. Environmental impact of implementation 22. Degrade terrestrial optical astronomy 23. Affect stargazing 24. Affect satellite remote sensing 25. More sunburn 26. Moral hazard the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation 27. Moral authority do we have the right to do this? Robock, Alan, 2014: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Issues Env. Sci. Tech. (Special issue ³Geoengineering of the Climate System²), 38, 162-185. Don't you think that the more we look at geoengineering, the more it is clear that it will not be a solution, and the more imperative mitigation is? I agree that Obama, who is the best President ever on this subject, could be doing much more. This just means he needs more pushing, and the Chinese and Indians need to agree to take strong steps. We're certainly not there yet, but let's not tell them that geoengineering will give them an out. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751tel:%2B1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644tel:%2B1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edumailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 6/2/2015 8:29 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Dear Jon‹While I think you overstate the situation with climate engineering in terms of both uncertainties and costs (i.e., keeping the climate roughly as it is likely has fewer uncertainties that heading to a 2 to 4 C climate with its uncertainties; and the costs of climate engineering may well be a good bit less than mitigation‹though mitigation costs do seem to be dropping), I would generally agree with your logic when one assumes rational leaders and policymakers thinking in terms of long-term interests and rights and idealized situations (e.g., no vested interests effectively pushing their views). Unfortunately, it is not at all clear to me
Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog
subsequent papers found through Google Scholar, I conclude that it is not now a continuing controversy - but I have found no evidence that the paper has changed any existing models (as I¹m sure the authors intended and hoped). Anyone know? 3. Others may find it interesting to see how the controversy was handled. Although it took a long time, I think the Journal basically did a good job and made a correct (but controversial) decision to publish. I was surprised how all (?) the editorial review correspondence is still available (nothing anonymous) - at a site given by the main editor in the paper¹s last paragraph. The main author, Dr. Makarieva, was indefatigable - many dozens of pages defending everything in the paper. Here is the summary (with forest-oriented emphases added) from her invited post-publication comment at: http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-vers ion/#comment-291429 Summary and outlook The Editor¹s comment on our paper ends with a call to further evaluate our proposals. We second this call. The reason we wrote this paper was to ensure it entered the main-stream and gained recognition. For us the key implication of our theory is the major importance of vegetation cover in sustaining regional climates. If condensation drives atmospheric circulation as we claim, then forests determine much of the Earth¹s hydrological cycle (see here http://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump for details). Forest cover is crucial for the terrestrial biosphere and the well-being of many millions of people. If you acknowledge, as the editors of ACP have, any chance however large or small that our proposals are correct, then we hope you concede that there is some urgency that these ideas gain clear objective assessment from those best placed to assess them. 4. A slightly later paper entitled ³Revisiting forest impact on atmospheric water vapor transport and precipitation², by many of the same authors is also NOT behind a paywall - and carries this forest theme further: http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/taac-en.pdf. There are numerous other climate related papers from this Russian group - that almost certainly have relevance also on the SRM side of ³Geo². Ron On May 31, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog How are they not both important‹the condensation releases the heat that carries the air upward, creating a pressure gradient that pulls the air ashore? Mike On 5/31/15, 10:09 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: The work of Makarieva and Gorshkov (note: not Gorshkov and Makarieva; she is first author on their papers on this topic) is challenging atmospheric scientists not because it points to the huge role of forests in the hydrocycle (I have been teaching that for decades) but rather the specific mechanism they propose. Their argument is that it is the pressure difference created by condensation, not the heat released by condensation, that is the more important driver. Certainly both play a big role; my understanding is that the pressure effect was largely ignored in the past. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://153/jha...@berkeley.edu On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright briancartwrig...@gmail.com x-msg://153/briancartwrig...@gmail.com wrote: To the geoengineering group, I'm curious whether group members are familiar with the biotic pump model of Gorshkov and Makarieva; this article gives a quick introduction: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html A big climate benefit of inland forests is that phase change from evapotranspiration - condensation creates low-pressure areas that pull in moisture and create healthy weather circulation. Seems to me that widespread deforestation is aggravating stalled hot-weather trends by blocking this kind of circulation. The leaf area of a mature forest offers considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open water on ocean or inland lake. Brian Cartwright -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog
Hi John‹I am not sure one can separate then. For example, where one has a thin boundary layer and then the free atmosphere above, it is like having two different fluids that don¹t mix all that well, so if far inland one gets convection pulling the lower layer in with a horizontal gradient, so resolution can matter in the vertical to maintain the distinction of the two layers, allow wave, etc. AS I said before I am not sure one can really separate the two aspects. Best, Mike On 6/1/15, 8:16 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: I'm not a climate modeler and my understanding of what goes in to conventional physics process-based atmospheric models is very limited, so correct me if I am wrong mike, but I was under the impression that it was the horizontal not the vertical pressure gradients that M G think is inadequately treated in conventional models. Isn't it those horizontal pressure forces that power their biotic pump. At least in the context of the Amazon, I would like to see a back of the envelope comparison of the pressure forces driven by condensation and the larger-scale forces that power the trade winds. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog Hi Ronal, Brian, John, et al.‹As a modeler, I would imagine the question is just what is it that one would want added to the models. Quite a number of skeptics want the models to add in long cycles evident in the observations‹that would be fine in empirical models, but the whole idea of physical models (i.e., models based on the physics, chemistry, etc.--but process based on physical principles, etc.) is not to put in arbitrary items for which there is not a physical process. So, for this forest case, what might this be? Well, having finer resolution would likely help and as one goes down to relatively fine resolution the hydrostatic assumption enforced by the formulation of the equations in these models needs to be adjusted so that non-hydrostatic influences can be included (i.e., so that the models can treat the vertical acceleration of the winds). Whether that would help in the simulations I have no real idea or experience. Another reason for going to finer resolution is to better represent orographic features, and this might be a contributing factor. There is also an aspect of doing this that I have been suggesting needs to be included. For those who remember flying into Los Angeles and seeing thin, elevated levels of pollution during the descent, it took a while to understand what was causing these (it was not formation and reformation of the inversion, for example). What a UCLA meteorology professor named James Eddinger, as I recall, found was that in the afternoon when the Sun was shining on hillsides facing to the southwest thin layers of air could rise along the heated slope, and the heating of the air would compensate the adiabatic cooling, so the air parcel would keep rising into the inversion. This continued until the air reached the top of the mountain and so ran out of the surface heating. At this point, the polluted air, having started in the marine boundary layer, could neither rise further through the inversion nor sink due to its warmth, so it spread out at its density in the inversion, forming widely spread thin layer at the altitude of the mountain. I have been suggesting there are at least two other examples of this happening (i.e., of low level air being carried up the sun-heated slopes of mountain sides that faced the afternoon sun position). One likely place would seem to be India and the Himalayas‹in the region, the polluted air is of order 9K meters high or so‹how could moist polluted air get to that altitude; IŒd suggest only by hot mountainsides in the Himalayas carrying such air upward, keeping it warm so that it does not cool and precipitate out the particulate matter. The second is the late afternoon mountain top precipitation that occurs along Mexico¹s Pacific coast mountain ridge; the whole area is under an intense anticyclone, so very dry air and a strong inversion, and yet there is precipitation at the top of the mountains in the late afternoon‹so, I¹d suggest that most marine air is rises along the heated, southwestward facing mountain slopes in the afternoon until it reaches the mountaintop, where it can cool and so condensation occurs, leading to the misty precipitation in what would otherwise be a very dry air mass. The global models really don¹t represent this‹their resolution is too coarse and their vertical layering is generally more box-shaped than sloped (use of the sigma vertical coordinate system could technically handle this if resolution fine enough). I had
Re: [geo] Re: Smart reforestation must go beyond carbon: expert | CIFOR Forests News Blog
How are they not both important‹the condensation releases the heat that carries the air upward, creating a pressure gradient that pulls the air ashore? Mike On 5/31/15, 10:09 AM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: The work of Makarieva and Gorshkov (note: not Gorshkov and Makarieva; she is first author on their papers on this topic) is challenging atmospheric scientists not because it points to the huge role of forests in the hydrocycle (I have been teaching that for decades) but rather the specific mechanism they propose. Their argument is that it is the pressure difference created by condensation, not the heat released by condensation, that is the more important driver. Certainly both play a big role; my understanding is that the pressure effect was largely ignored in the past. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On May 30, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Brian Cartwright briancartwrig...@gmail.com wrote: To the geoengineering group, I'm curious whether group members are familiar with the biotic pump model of Gorshkov and Makarieva; this article gives a quick introduction: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html A big climate benefit of inland forests is that phase change from evapotranspiration - condensation creates low-pressure areas that pull in moisture and create healthy weather circulation. Seems to me that widespread deforestation is aggravating stalled hot-weather trends by blocking this kind of circulation. The leaf area of a mature forest offers considerably more surface area for evaporation than the same area of open water on ocean or inland lake. Brian Cartwright -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink
Hi David--On the issue of sunk investments, it seems to me that I'm willing to help out those who put money into fossil fuel plants built before some date a good bit ago, but not willing to really cede the companies the right to recover money invested since that date. Whether that date should be 1985, the year of the Villach statement to the world about changing climate, or about 1990 when the industry formed the Global Climate Coalition to actively push against the science, or 1992 when the UNFCCC agreement was enacted, or 1995 with the IPCC statement on a discernible human influence, or 1997 and the Kyoto negotiations, I don't know, but for companies investing in fossil fuel facilities this century, I think they knowingly were making a risky investment, and should not be accorded an expectation that they will be able to earn back their full investment. And this goes for the oil and gas companies as well--Shell should have no expectation at all to be able to get a return for their exploration efforts in the Arctic, or the coal companies from recent leases of coal, and so on. Otherwise, one is just encouraging companies to fight and fight good science as long as they can and to be rewarded for it--and I just do not think that is a wise approach (even if that ends up to be reality over what I think should be very noisy objections). Mike MacCracken On 5/20/15, 4:08 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Greg, Certainly CCS should not be the only or even primary focus of RDD attention. And I think I understand your frustration at the lack of traction for funding other pathways. But I think it is a mistake to argue against pursuing the CCS option because of that. There is no reason to cast this as a zero-sum game. Making a positive case for funding other pathways and building a constituency for such funding is what I would suggest. You are certainly right that the coal industry is using the prospect of CCS as an argument for delaying policy action. I watch this pretty closely and my view is that this argument is not influencing any member of Congress' position. Members of Congress who vote against climate protection policies rarely use the wait for CCS argument at all and if they do, it is a makeweight to cover flat out opposition to policies to reduce GHG emissions. It is tempting to cite the fossil fuel industry's misuse of the concept of CCS as a reason to oppose it but I think that is a mistake. Is CCS expensive? Yes. But is it prohibitively expensive? Compared to what? There is a huge amount of fossil generating capacity in the world that is less than 10 years old; and more fossil plants continue to be built. Even in countries that are moving away from coal, there is still a lot of new gas generation in the pipeline. Our choices are accepting the stream of emissions from these sunk investments for the next several decades or cutting them off. We can cut them off by retiring or derating the generation from these units. But those options are pretty costly for young plants. So the costs of CCS need to be compared to the costs of idling equipment that has many multiples of the capital costs of CCS embedded in their construction. It is also worth noting that the existence of CCS as a technique has enabled EPA to propose (and soon adopt, most expect) a CO2 emission performance standard for new coal plants that is much stricter than would otherwise have been put forth. It is no small matter for the US to establish as a matter of law that no new coal plant may be built unless it captures a substantial fraction of its CO2 emissions. This is an important step on the path to policies that will require the power sector to decarbonize. I do not believe CCS should be at the head of the list of techniques that can help cut emissions but I don¹t believe it should be taken off the list either. David -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:00 PM To: geoengineering; andrew.lock...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink I would agree with Greenpeace, CCS hurts the environment, in the sense that clinging to the hope that CCS will decarbonize coal while the cost of doing this is prohibitive means that actually mitigating coal CO2 can be put off indefinitely. However, the bottom line should be the bottom line - if clean coal cannot compete in the market place with renewables then both coal and CCS should get chucked out with the bathwater. I'm of the belief that alternatives to CCS could help provide a safer, cheaper, meaningful bridge to renewables, but as long as expensive CCS is viewed as the only game in town, coal interests have a ready excuse for BAU. Greg On Wed, 5/20/15, Andrew
Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink
Hi David--Well, yes, a bit of return of profits from earlier years. An interesting question would be whether leaving them as stranded assets while stimulating the economy by converting to green, US-generated energy would be a net positive or negative for the economy. Accounting for the real social cost of carbon, I am guessing the former effect on the economy, and I imagine it might also be, in effect, progressive (i.e., it might help reduce the rich-poor equity problem). Mike On 5/20/15, 4:34 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: I agree with every bit of this Mike. I was only making a point about the comparative costs of different strategies. I would be happy with a policy that made the shareholders of the fossil-investing companies bear all of the costs but they are still costs. And if one is arguing that a particular technique like CCS is too costly, it is important to compare the costs of other ways of reducing emissions by the same amount. -Original Message- From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:21 PM To: Hawkins, Dave; gh...@sbcglobal.net; Geoengineering; Andrew Lockley Subject: Re: [geo] Throwing the Carbon Capture Baby out with the Coal Bath Water | Everything and the Carbon Sink Hi David--On the issue of sunk investments, it seems to me that I'm willing to help out those who put money into fossil fuel plants built before some date a good bit ago, but not willing to really cede the companies the right to recover money invested since that date. Whether that date should be 1985, the year of the Villach statement to the world about changing climate, or about 1990 when the industry formed the Global Climate Coalition to actively push against the science, or 1992 when the UNFCCC agreement was enacted, or 1995 with the IPCC statement on a discernible human influence, or 1997 and the Kyoto negotiations, I don't know, but for companies investing in fossil fuel facilities this century, I think they knowingly were making a risky investment, and should not be accorded an expectation that they will be able to earn back their full investment. And this goes for the oil and gas companies as well--Shell should have no expectation at all to be able to get a return for their exploration efforts in the Arctic, or the coal companies from recent leases of coal, and so on. Otherwise, one is just encouraging companies to fight and fight good science as long as they can and to be rewarded for it--and I just do not think that is a wise approach (even if that ends up to be reality over what I think should be very noisy objections). Mike MacCracken On 5/20/15, 4:08 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Greg, Certainly CCS should not be the only or even primary focus of RDD attention. And I think I understand your frustration at the lack of traction for funding other pathways. But I think it is a mistake to argue against pursuing the CCS option because of that. There is no reason to cast this as a zero-sum game. Making a positive case for funding other pathways and building a constituency for such funding is what I would suggest. You are certainly right that the coal industry is using the prospect of CCS as an argument for delaying policy action. I watch this pretty closely and my view is that this argument is not influencing any member of Congress' position. Members of Congress who vote against climate protection policies rarely use the wait for CCS argument at all and if they do, it is a makeweight to cover flat out opposition to policies to reduce GHG emissions. It is tempting to cite the fossil fuel industry's misuse of the concept of CCS as a reason to oppose it but I think that is a mistake. Is CCS expensive? Yes. But is it prohibitively expensive? Compared to what? There is a huge amount of fossil generating capacity in the world that is less than 10 years old; and more fossil plants continue to be built. Even in countries that are moving away from coal, there is still a lot of new gas generation in the pipeline. Our choices are accepting the stream of emissions from these sunk investments for the next several decades or cutting them off. We can cut them off by retiring or derating the generation from these units. But those options are pretty costly for young plants. So the costs of CCS need to be compared to the costs of idling equipment that has many multiples of the capital costs of CCS embedded in their construction. It is also worth noting that the existence of CCS as a technique has enabled EPA to propose (and soon adopt, most expect) a CO2 emission performance standard for new coal plants that is much stricter than would otherwise have been put forth. It is no small matter for the US to establish as a matter of law that no new coal plant may be built unless it captures a substantial fraction of its CO2 emissions. This is an important step
Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL
Going back just a bit in the message chain, the way that the oil companies are planning on protecting the oil platforms from the shifting of sea ice is, as I understand it from comments a couple of years ago by the head of the world's leading icebreaker naval architecture company in Helsinki, is to have two icebreakers upwind of each oil platform breaking up the large plates of sea ice headed toward the platform. Given how much force wind on sea ice and then sea ice on a platform could exert, I rather doubt the idea of having a sheet of ice around the platforms would be the approach they would be using. Now, while the icebreakers may be able to break the large sheets of ice into smaller pieces, in doing this there is greater transport of heat from the water to the atmosphere, and this leads to greater formation of ice (which is why when icebreakers are helping ships get through, they need the ships to follow pretty close behind). So, the icebreakers (and this would be true in the Great Lakes and Hudson River, both of which had icebreakers working during this past cold winter) may provide a short-term benefit in protecting the oil platforms, their longer term effect (assuming they are doing this during the fall and winter when the Sun is not up) would be to increase the formation of sea ice. Mike MacCracken On 5/4/15, 11:32 AM, Alan Gadian a...@env.leeds.ac.uk wrote: Ken, Can I comment here please. Without negating any of your comments, I would like to add that Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is very effective at cooling the polar regimes. The atmospheric heat engine's purpose is to transfer heat from the equator to the pole. Cooling the tropical / subtropical regimes by reflecting solar radiation there will very effectively cool the poles. Of course reflecting solar radiation in polar regions will cool those regions, but in the winter the subtropical albedo increase will be very effective. Cheers Alan p.s. Ben Parkes and many others hope to get a paper out on this soon. On Mon, 4 May 2015, Ken Caldeira wrote: I sent this out before but it was rejected because of too many attachments, so here it is with fewer attachments. Folks, It would be good to do an ice thickening simulation, but I don't think the results will differ widely from our Arctic ocean albedo simulations. To restore sea ice to pre-industrial conditions with a 2xCO2 atmosphere using top-of-atmosphere insolation changes (a stand in for idealized aerosols), we needed to reduce insolation north of 70 degrees N by about 25%. This effected a global cooling on nearly 2 C. (Caldeira and Wood 2008) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4039.figures-only When we whitened the ocean north of 70 N, we achieved an Arctic cooling of about 2 C. That is to say, the effect of ocean whitening was an order of magnitude less. Cooling the Arctic enough to regrow Arctic sea ice yields a lot more cooling than do direct efforts to regrow the same amount of Arctic sea ice. Sea ice loss is a symptom of warming as well as a climate feedback. Treating this symptom treats part but far from all of the warming. I would regard this conclusion as tentative, but a good working hypothesis for future exploration. Best, Ken PS. We also had another relevant study where we directly added and removed sea ice from the Arctic, but in a model where meridional ocean heat transport could not respond. (Caldeira and Cvijanovic 2014) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu website: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/ blog: http://kencaldeira.org @KenCaldeira My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu, with access to incoming emails. Postdocpositions: https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/postdoctoral-opportun ity-g lobal-climate-modeling/ On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Sev Clarke sevcla...@me.com wrote: As John seems to be referring to my Ice Shields concept that is an extension of Peter¹s original work, and which may be the first to envisage methane capture using hexagonally-close-packed arrays of ice shields and wind turbine power to concentrate, collect, compress, separate and pipe the methane (see http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/sev-clarke ), perhaps I might be permitted to respond to both Fred and Mark. Of course, the answer is that it would most likely be the deep-pocketed exploration, gas petrochemical industries, pipeline electricity distribution authorities, the wind farm industry, and logistics and utility companies associated with these that would be most interested financially, though polar marine governance organisations, governments, international organisations and NGOs would doubtless insist on being
Re: [geo] Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain
One update and a science comment on Hansen et al.¹s update of the Faustian bargain. 1. Hansen¹s note is from two years ago and since then the new OCO2 satellite has been launched and is in operation (see http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov). 2. On the science, just a comment relating to the second paragraph, namely that a major cause of the increase in sulfate aerosol effect in the mid-20th century was not a result of ³little pollution control² but of the type of pollution control that was done. Prior to WWII, most industrial pollution was released near ground level and so the lifetime of SO2 emissions was a day or two (the result being tremendous air pollution and ecological and health effects‹recall Pittsburgh, Denora, and the Sudbury smelter, etc.). The solution to the pollution problem was tall stacks, with the dark ash typically being filtered out and the SO2 lofted well up in the boundary layer and into the lower troposphere, where it had time to be converted to sulfate and the lifetime grew to of order a week or so. This helped reduce local air pollution, but created the sulfate layer and greatly added to the acid precipitation problem. It was then in the 1970s (but continuing for a couple of decades later) that North America and Europe cleaned up the SO2 problem, reducing sulfate loading in the North Atlantic region (and perhaps as well in the Arctic, though that has not gotten much attention‹and perhaps should get more as this might be allowing more sunlight to reach the springtime sea ice, and so contributing to the more rapid melt back of sea ice than many of the models are simulating). Now all of this issue has moved to eastern and southern Asia. Overall, however, a wonderful example of learning from the time history of the record. Mike MacCracken On 4/9/15, 3:33 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : Hansen offers a good overview of the issues relating to aerosol clean up http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2989535 TheHuffingtonPost Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain Dr. James Hansen Posted: 03/31/13 04:41 PM ET Updated: 05/31/13 05:12 AM ET Co-written by Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato Humanity's Faustian climate bargain is well known. Humans have been pumping both greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) and aerosols (fine particles) into the atmosphere for more than a century. The CO2 accumulates steadily, staying in the climate system for millennia, with a continuously increasing warming effect. Aerosols have a cooling effect (by reducing solar heating of the ground) that depends on the rate that we pump aerosols into the air, because they fall out after about five days. Aerosol cooling probably reduced global warming by about half over the past century, but the amount is uncertain because global aerosols and their effect on clouds are not measured accurately. Aerosols increased rapidly after World War II as fossil fuel use increased ~5 percent/year with little pollution control (Fig. 1). Aerosol growth slowed in the 1970s with pollution controls in the U.S. and Europe, but accelerated again after ~2000. The rapid growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past decade is mainly from increased coal use (Fig. 1), mostly in China with little control of aerosol emissions. It is thus likely that there has been an increase in the negative (cooling) climate forcing by aerosols in the past decade, as suggested by regional aerosols measurements in the Far East, but until proper global aerosol monitoring is initiated, as discussed below, the aerosol portion of the amplified Faustian bargain remains largely unquantified. In our current paper we describe another component to the fossil fuel Faustian bargain, which is suggested by a careful look at observed atmospheric CO2 change (Fig. 2). The orange curve in Fig. 2 is the 12-month change of CO2 at Mauna Loa. This curve is quite noisy, in part because it has double noise, being affected by short-term variability at both the start-point and end-point in taking the 12-month difference in CO2 amount. A more meaningful measure of the CO2 growth is provided by the 12-month running mean (red curve in Fig. 2). The temporal variability of the red curve has physical significance, most of the variability being accounted for by the Southern (El Nino-La Nina) Oscillation and the Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the early 1990s, as discussed in our paper. NOAA recently reported the second largest annual CO2 increase in their Mauna Loa record. What they report is the end-of-year change in the noisy orange curve, the end-of-year values being indicated by blue asterisks in Fig. 2. It is practically certain that still larger CO2 increases will soon be reported, because of the huge increase of the rate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past decade (black curve in Fig. 1), indeed we must expect reports of annual CO2 increases exceeding 3 ppm CO2. An interesting point
Re: [geo] What If We Lost the Sky? NYT on sky whitening
Hi David—I agree that quantification matters. A constant Pinatubo loading over the world would be offsetting something like a 3C warming (presumably over and above where we are), so a really significant amount of climate change. Reasonably early Pinatubo cloud cut direct radiation by about 2% and converted something like 20% of the beam to diffuse (which did cause a significant impact on the first demonstration of a solar thermal installation), so it did indeed have some effect. If Santer et al. are roughly correct, a major contributing factor to the supposed hiatus (slowing of increase in global average temperature) has been small volcanic eruptions putting sulfate into the stratosphere. The injections that have occurred might merit being considered a natural test of the gradual onset of stratospheric SRM, and has anyone noticed? If we set our goal as limiting further rise and were aggressively limiting emissions of long- and short-lived gases/aerosols, and then used SRM at a much lower intensity than reversing the full effects of a CO2 doubling, the question is under that situation would we lose the sky? Also, I might note, one reason to be thinking about, for example, doing SRM mainly in polar regions (or over the ocean in the case of cloud brightening) is that the change in sky conditions would be mainly over non-populated areas. So, nice to have an article about the issue, but it would sure be nice to have more context. Mike MacCracken On 2/20/15, 3:52 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Quantification is important on this point. We should be able to calculate the impact of a certain quantity of aerosols in the stratosphere on sky whitening (the Rayleigh effect if I recall correctly). These impacts are well-understood in the troposphere. (When I was at EPA in the Carter administration, I spent a considerable amount of time developing a rule to abate emissions contributing to regional haze. Then, the primary concern was the impact on line of sight visibility from an observer on the ground to distant landscape features.) Not surprisingly the amount of change that is perceptible is greatest in atmospheres that are the most pristine (a splash of red wine on a white rug). For stratospheric injection I assume the impact on sharpness of landscape features per number of particles would be much less but the impact on whiteness of the sky above might be very noticeable. The fact that such whitening may have no health impacts is beside the point in my view. The perpetual whitening of a previously deep blue sky would be a loss we should understand and put into the calculus of the costs of SRM programs. But if robust analysis shows the whitening impact of any plausible SRM program would be undetectable, then that issue could be taken off the table. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 3:02 PM To: Michael MacCracken Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] What If We Lost the Sky? NYT on sky whitening Can anybody provide me with a citation to contemporaneous accounts of the Mt Pinatubo layer where someone was complaining about negative effects of whiter skies? Is there any documentation of ill health effects of whiter skies after Mt Pinatubo? Has anybody provided a clear citation quantifying the negative impact of Mt Pinatubo on optical astronomy? I recall contemporaneous comments about vivid sunsets, but I do not recall any contemporaneous commentary about whiter skies. Statements like you wouldn't have blue skies anymore' are just absurd. This discussion of 'white skies' seems characterized by extreme and unsubstantiated claims. On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: In my view, by the time we would be doing enough climate intervention to lose the sky we would also likely have experienced permanent inundation of southern Florida, much of Bangladesh, quite possibly the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta (and so much of California's agricultural production), many low-lying atolls and small island nations, and quite a number of coast areas and cities--with much more inundation lying ahead. And the southwestern US and Australia would likely be dealing with 40 plus years of so-called drought (that is, still giving a false impression that rain would eventually be returning), there would be extensive thawing of permafrost emitting large amounts of CO2 (if we are luck enough that it is not methane) and tremendous loss of biodiversity, and lots more occurring as well. It really does seem to me that discussions of the potential impacts of climate intervention need to be discussed within the larger context of ongoing climate change and ocean acidification. I would also like to have heard if we really lost the sky for a couple of years following
Re: [geo] What If We Lost the Sky? NYT on sky whitening
In my view, by the time we would be doing enough climate intervention to lose the sky we would also likely have experienced permanent inundation of southern Florida, much of Bangladesh, quite possibly the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta (and so much of California's agricultural production), many low-lying atolls and small island nations, and quite a number of coast areas and cities--with much more inundation lying ahead. And the southwestern US and Australia would likely be dealing with 40 plus years of so-called drought (that is, still giving a false impression that rain would eventually be returning), there would be extensive thawing of permafrost emitting large amounts of CO2 (if we are luck enough that it is not methane) and tremendous loss of biodiversity, and lots more occurring as well. It really does seem to me that discussions of the potential impacts of climate intervention need to be discussed within the larger context of ongoing climate change and ocean acidification. I would also like to have heard if we really lost the sky for a couple of years following the Pinatubo eruption to give some context from actual experiences. Alan's comments about much more vivid sunrises and sunsets seem to me far from losing the sky--a phrase that seemed to bring on much of the discussion. Mike MacCracken On 2/20/15, 1:32 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note - a good, in-depth discussion about a little-discussed element of SRM impacts. However, the changes discussed are perhaps best understood by the impact of light pollution on existing urban populations. http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/what-if-we-lost-the-sky/?_r=1 What If We Lost the Sky? By Anna North February 20, 2015 11:49 am February 20, 2015 11:49 am What is the sky worth? This sounds like a philosophical question, but it might become a more concrete one. A report released last week by the National Research Council called for research into reversing climate change through a process called albedo modification: reflecting sunlight away from earth by, for instance, spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. Such a process could, some say, change the appearance of the sky ‹ and that in turn could affect everything from our physical health to the way we see ourselves. If albedo modification were actually implemented, Alan Robock, a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers, told Joel Achenbach at The Washington Post: ³You¹d get whiter skies. People wouldn¹t have blue skies anymore.² And, he added, ³astronomers wouldn¹t be happy, because you¹d have a cloud up there permanently. It¹d be hard to see the Milky Way anymore.² Losing the night sky would have big consequences, said Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His recent work looks at the health effects of the emotion of awe. In a study published in January in the journal Emotion, he and his team found that people who experienced a great deal of awe had lower levels of a marker of inflammation that has been linked to physical and mental ailments. One major source of awe is the natural world. ³When you go outside, and you walk in a beautiful setting, and you just feel not only uplifted but you just feel stronger,² said Dr. Keltner, ³there¹s clearly a neurophysiological basis for that.² And, he added, looking up at a starry sky provides ³almost a prototypical awe experience,² an opportunity to feel ³that you are small and modest and part of something vast.² Research on the benefits of awe, he said, suggests that without a starry sky, ³kids are going to be less imaginative, we¹re going to be less modest and less kind to each other,² and ³it may cost us in terms of health.² If we lose the night sky, he said, ³we lose something precious and sacred.² He believes whitening the daytime sky might result in ³that same loss of the sense of what¹s vast,² a sense his team¹s research suggests is ³one of the most important things that people build into their lives.² Paul K. Piff, a professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California, Irvine, says that when he studied awe among the Himba in Namibia, ³the night sky was one of the very clear elicitors² of the emotion. The sky ³has this really important role, obviously, in all sorts of different historical ways for the development of humankind and human consciousness, but it also has this shared feature of, no matter where you are and where you come from, it seems to brings about this really, really amazing and transformative experience.² ³We¹re finding in our lab that the experience of awe gets you to feel connected to something larger than yourself, see the humanity in other people,² he explained. ³In many ways it¹s kind of an antidote to narcissism.² And the sky is one of the few sources of that experience that¹s available to almost everybody: ³Not everyone has access
Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail Online and BBC interview
Dear Oliver‹With respect to the zero option when there is knowledge out there of how to build a nuclear bomb and there are facilities around that could be readily diverted to such efforts, the key question is what happens when some party then starts to build them. The zero option argument is that one would need to have a strong enough international cooperative effort (i.e., a world government with some powers) that was poised to take action rapidly to prevent this. The notion of having such a powerful global government that ensures stability for the world (plus however much security and rules) raises all sorts of concerns about its power across the spectrum of society, and whether having a bi-polar (i.e., not the mental illness definition, but two balancing centers of power or framings) or perhaps multi-polar (though this raises questions of two or more ganging up against one) world might be more stable and better allow for the free development of people and society. Also, on nuclear weapons, a reason put forth for the superpowers to retain a reasonable number of weapons in a bi-polar world, for example, is that it is very unlikely that great advantage could be accomplished with a breakout of an agreement for roughly equal numbers (or capabilities) of weapons/destructive power, etc. I would only suggest (and the points here are only a few of many that are raised and merit consideration) that the issue of what situation is optimal for society is much more complex than just the number of nuclear weapons‹at both the regional and global levels, etc. Mike On 2/16/15, 5:55 AM, olivermorton olivermor...@economist.com wrote: Jamais, Alan It seems to me that the best way to avoid geoengineering triggering tensions which rise to the level of nuclear war is to commit oneself, as I am pretty sure Alan is committed, to working towards a golbal zero option on nuclear weapons. This has the added bonus of avoiding anything *other* than geoengineering leading to the threat of war, too... ever, o On Sunday, 15 February 2015 19:03:15 UTC, cascio wrote: It¹s not a question of whether or not it's a weapon, it¹s a question of whether or not it¹s perceived as a threat. At the Berlin event, I told some of you about the CIA Center for Climate Change and National Security simulation exercise I was asked to do four or five years ago. What started as a climate disruption/storms droughts bears scenario evolved (as the China and US teams responded) into a potential SRM scenario. By the final turn, the possible deployment of SRM on one side had been perceived as a real threat to agriculture on the other, and missiles were being put on alert. Perception trumps objective reality when it comes to national security. On that note, the CIACCCNS is no longer around, as the Republican house determined that since climate change wasn¹t real, the center wasn¹t needed. Seriously. -Jamais Cascio Proof: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamais_cascio/6214330683/ On Feb 15, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Respectfully, I disagree. The status of geoengineering is perhaps more likely to be akin to trade sanctions. Imagine a bipolar world which is divided up purely into a Chinese superpower zone and an American superpower zone. There may be various skirmishes going on at any one time, as we see in Ukraine. Simultaneously, we may see ongoing trade, diplomacy and cooperation in other ways. (This pattern is common among 'frenemies'.) Where the parties have a clearly different CE preference, the concept of weaponisation becomes extremely blurred. Using CE becomes a bargaining chip like all others. In extremis, such a tool may cause profound food shortages in the counterparty's zone, or expose key infrastructure to natural disasters. How could we agree whether that constituted a weapon, or not? A On 15 Feb 2015 16:38, Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript: wrote: Based on the history of our intelligence agencies involvement in secret kidnappings and torture, killing noncombatants with drones, spying on our telecommunications, etc, we can take it as a given that secret US governmental organizations will engage in criminal behavior. However, we should be entirely clear: There is absolutely no evidence that any US intelligence agency has any interest in climate intervention for anything other than defense-related informational purposes. Furthermore, there is no plausible scenario in which climate intervention could be used effectively as a weapon. So, while I share Alan's contempt for the criminal behavior of our secretive governmental agencies, I do not think it is helpful to speculate that in this instance, the agencies are looking for new ways that they might inflict suffering on others. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260
Re: [geo] Chill factor at 'cia' weather query | Daily Mail Online and BBC interview
Fred--That depends on the proposed POTENTIAL specific objective (that is, this is all pretty speculative with little supporting research to date)---slow Arctic warming, moderate potential for very intense hurricanes, nudge storm tracks, cooling waters reaching glacial calving faces, etc. We don’t know that any are possible, but all seem to depend on energy patterns, timing, gradients, etc. that might be able to be modified by cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, water/surface brightening, vertical mixing of the water column, disruption of the insulating effect of sea ice, and other approaches that might possibly be altered in their spatial extent, intensity, and influence. Note, however, that this all assumes a good bit of mitigation is going onto stop making the situation worse—without that, on the course we are on, such specific regional/sectoral approaches, even if they might work in plausible ways, would be quickly overwhelmed and so not really worth doing. Mike On 2/16/15, 11:55 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: Fair enough. What more do you think we need to know to be confident in the success of highly specific regional interventions? ᐧ On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Fred--I’d just suggest that it is all relative. Given that no society has been able to vanquish human short-comings, perfection does not seem to be a realistic possibility, so then the question is what is least bad. It is interesting to hear some in the political domain seeming to long for the days of the Cold War with its relative clarity (fearful as we all were of possible obliteration) and, in their view, it seems, greater global stability. Relating back to geoengineering connection, at what time in history and with what governance, would climate intervention be most workable and how comfortable would we be with that with respect to other aspects? Very concerned about the growing risks and impacts of climate change, it seems to me that we may well need climate intervention even with aggressive mitigation and, recognizing the challenges of going from doing nothing to the notion of global intervention, my suggestion has been that we should first be thinking about potential regional interventions aimed at addressing very specific impacts, both to be helpful and to demonstrate that we have sufficient knowledge to be doing interventions in a cautious and iterative way—and so can be thinking about how, perhaps, to shave the undesirable part of the warming that we cannot avoid by aggressive mitigation, adaptation, and CDR. Mike On 2/16/15, 10:50 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com http://geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: We've already tried both bi-polar and multi-polar -- results were not encouraging! ᐧ On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net http://mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Dear Oliver—With respect to the zero option when there is knowledge out there of how to build a nuclear bomb and there are facilities around that could be readily diverted to such efforts, the key question is what happens when some party then starts to build them. The zero option argument is that one would need to have a strong enough international cooperative effort (i.e., a world government with some powers) that was poised to take action rapidly to prevent this. The notion of having such a powerful global government that ensures stability for the world (plus however much security and rules) raises all sorts of concerns about its power across the spectrum of society, and whether having a bi-polar (i.e., not the mental illness definition, but two balancing centers of power or framings) or perhaps multi-polar (though this raises questions of two or more ganging up against one) world might be more stable and better allow for the free development of people and society. Also, on nuclear weapons, a reason put forth for the superpowers to retain a reasonable number of weapons in a bi-polar world, for example, is that it is very unlikely that great advantage could be accomplished with a breakout of an agreement for roughly equal numbers (or capabilities) of weapons/destructive power, etc. I would only suggest (and the points here are only a few of many that are raised and merit consideration) that the issue of what situation is optimal for society is much more complex than just the number of nuclear weapons—at both the regional and global levels, etc. Mike On 2/16/15, 5:55 AM, olivermorton olivermor...@economist.com http://olivermor...@economist.com http://olivermor...@economist.com wrote: Jamais, Alan It seems to me that the best way to avoid geoengineering triggering tensions which rise to the level of nuclear war is to commit oneself, as I am pretty sure Alan is committed, to working towards a golbal zero option on nuclear weapons. This has the added bonus of avoiding
Re: [geo] The Risks of Climate Engineering - NYTimes.com Hamilton
It seems to me what would hopefully be the case (well, I wish we’d do better, but realistically) is that mitigation involving both is able to limit CO2e to 550 ppm (so, say a 3 C warming)--this would require, if emissions were kept constant at the present rate, having fossil fuel emissions go to zero in 60 years, so really is indeed a challenge. Then, the notion would be to use geoengineering techniques to shave the peak, doing as much as can be done by CDR (in my view, this would grow over time but not be able to really prevent warming going over 2 C (or better yet, lower), so the role of SRM would be to shave the peak warming from say 3 to 1.5 C or even a bit lower, aiming to phase it out as emissions went way down and CDR phased up. Basically, this way, SRM is the last strategy and not the first (cut short-lived species emissions) or second (cut CO2 emissions sharply) or third (phase in CDR) or even the fourth (adaptation), but then is the fifth [and, through some combination of approaches to it, might be started regionally—say focused on cooling the Arctic—and comes in only to the extent that the other steps cannot (of course done together) keep the global average temperature (or some other metric) to the desired limit]. With such a strategy, so with the SRM effort being relied on to do not anywhere near all of the temperature reduction (i.e., so much more modest an offset than trying to offset all of a CO2 doubling), it seems to me that, with plausible research, the models could be useful in determining how best to implement some set of the various approaches in ways that would hopefully keep what happens in various regions within or near the bounds of variability that are currently being experienced. Mike MacCracken On 2/14/15, 12:25 PM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi -- I agree with this skeptical assessment of certainty, especially with regard to impacts on regional and subregional climates and biomes critical to human life society, but as many on this list argue, the issue i choosing between a) BAU emissions with high confidence of major impacts 3-5C warming over the course of a century, vs. b) intervention scenarios that have moderately high confidence in reducing warming rate of warming to, say, 2-4C warming, coupled with low certainty about regional and subregional impacts c) unlikely/optimistic/costly scenarios of rapid emissions stabilization/reduction/withdrawal In other words, maybe there is a law of conservation of uncertainty-- you can remove some of it from some parts of the system, but (with current understanding) never anywhere near all. ᐧ On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi cushngo...@gmail.com wrote: Robert, I partly agree with you but totally disagree when you say, I quote : Clive naïvely asserts that we can’t understand enough about how the Earth system operates in order to take control of it. This is a religious argument that ignores global realities. This statement is more religious than Clive's. There is NOBODY in this earth who knows how best the climate system functions for him or her to get hold of it. Our climate predictions have long betrayed us that is why we invented the concept of climate change. A complex system like the climate is difficult to master if not impossible, especially at the global scale. If you cool temperatures in the arctic, you are likely to disturb the known an unknown sub-climatic systems in the southern hemisphere and the equatorial region. Our models are simplistic and elusive sometimes so that we cannot claim to have mastered the climate system. Do not be naive to believe that we can do better now because we know it. How can you correlate atmospheric circulation in Arizona with precipitations in somaliland? or wind pressure in Butan with vegetation change in Brazil? At what confidence level? Here the probability is small if not nil. If we cannot do that, whatever climate intervention that will be put in place in a region will improve one aspect of the climate in that specific region and worsen other variables therein and elsewhere in the globe, depending on the spectra of its impacts. Regards, Dr Cush N. Luwesi, PhD Lecturer Department of Geography Kenyatta University Nairobi, Kenya On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote: I was pleased to read Clive Hamilton’s analysis of the politics of geoengineering, since I am one of those right wing technology advocates he usefully but wrongly describes. I would really welcome intensive Republican and military and big oil interest in carbon dioxide removal, as that is the only thing with prospect of delivering results on climate security and energy security. Multinational companies have to invest in CDR to protect their stock prices, their reputations and their sources of supply. CDR can deliver a win-win for the climate
Re: [geo] National Academies reports: CDR
Just a note that I added a second comment (assuming moderator posts it) on his blog, and included below: A couple of comments: 1. While the NRC report is helpful in better explaining the need for CDR research, the notion that CDR implementation can make much of a difference while global emissions are of order 10 PgC/year and growing seems to me to be imagining far too much capacity for CDR. Also, in terms of optimal expenditure of funds to do something, efficiency provides by far the most cost-effective action now, and in many places solar and wind (and other alternative technologies) are (or are nearly) competitive with fossil fuels, especially if any account is given to external costs, and cutting emissions of short-lived species would have strong near-term effects and have many, many co-benefits. Thus, in terms of government policies, most of the implementation effort really needs to go to broad-based mitigation. Once one gets the emission trajectory headed down at a reasonable rate, CDR has a very important role to play in determining how low below a 75% or so cut in global emissions is needed (although many of us would say going back to 350 ppm CO2 would be desirable. 2. I want to take strong exception to your little comments in the table about albedo modification. To suggest that the new (physical/environmental) uncertainties from albedo modification are very negative while the benefits of avoiding sharp, unprecedented global warming are only positive makes no sense at all. The impacts of unconstrained global warming are horrendous and avoiding and slowing them would be hugely positive. Also, this notion that the uncertainties associated with climate change with albedo modification are somehow much greater than the uncertainties associated with climate change without albedo modification just does not seem defensible to me, and that is before there is virtually any research on plausible implementation strategies (e.g., gradual implementation). And that governance issues would be worse than we currently have is also, it seems to me quite arguable. What I do think is that for albedo modification to have any chance of being practically applied, we have to get on a strongly downward emissions trend and then be thinking about albedo modification as a way to shave off the worst impacts and peak warming, for it sure seems likely to be a good bit above 2 C (and I'm worried about being over .5-1 C). So, let's all agree with the NRC's first recommendation that strong mitigation is critical--if we can get on that path, then both CDR and albedo modification have, in my view the potential to be helpful if the needed research is done, with albedo modification (and I'd start by being focused on moderating the worst impacts, so regionally, before going global) phased in early and phased out as CDR can take over. To my mind, thinking about a coordinated, comprehensive strategy and effort makes much more sense than this touting of one over the other--we are so far along past addressing the issue responsibly that we need all the approaches that we have available if we want to increase likelihood of a soft landing. Mike MacCracken On 2/12/15, 12:21 AM, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote: Noah Deich provides a good summary of the CDR report at Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ I have made a comment at his blog. Robert Tulip https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Recap and Commentary: National Academy of Sciences ... https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Earlier today, the National Academy of Sciences (³NAS²) released a comprehensive study dedicated to carbon dioxide removal (³CDR²). To date, CDR has largely been ... View on carbonremoval.wordp... https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/recap-and-commentary-national- academy-of-sciences-report-on-carbon-removal/ Preview by Yahoo From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov To: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl; geoengineering@googlegroups.com geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2015, 6:31 Subject: Re: [geo] National Academies reports Also this: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/hack-the-planet-comprehensive-report-su ggests-thinking-carefully-first/ To quote: In the end, the report clearly comes down in favor of research into carbon removal technology. Overall, there is much to be gained and very low risk in pursuing multiple parts of a portfolio of [carbon removal] strategies that demonstrate practical solutions over the short term and develop more cost-effective, regional-scale and larger
Re: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate
Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate intervention‹instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere, etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were too large to really do this‹well, those uncertainties are clearly small enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties less than those involved in projections of climate change without intervention. Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science calculations, not readily understandable. Mike MacCracken On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, Doug MacMartin macma...@cds.caltech.edu wrote: On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his ³argument² is it that it fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are all the same people. It¹s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that isn¹t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the ³right answer² is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever action you can. doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug MacMartin Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' Subject: RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering would be the path we¹re currently onŠ in that sense I agree with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn¹t actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative rhetoric. There¹s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his assertion: I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way to get the camel¹s nose in the tent Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could have actually asked. (I also object to the word ³boosters², as my own perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I¹ll take the painkillers that he apparently doesn¹t want. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengine ering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad You can¹t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse. By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as ³barking mad.² The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back to space. Schemes that were
Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed
waters down to the grounding line of the ice sheets, which you might be able to interrupt in this manner? Cheers, Nathan On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 7:34:01 PM UTC-5, Mike MacCracken wrote: A bit delayed in responding to this email, but Tom Wigley had a paper in Science (copy attached) basically indicating that one would have to go back to preindustrial CO2 to stop sea level rise. An interesting research question might be how long one would need to return to a much lower radiative forcing to get sea level rise stopped before conditions could return to something like the 350 ppm CO2 level, so about as warm as one can be without the ice sheets losing mass. On this issue of ³setting the thermostat,² global average temperature might well not be the most important metric to be using. Precipitation has been mentioned, but it might well be that the rate of sea level rise would in the end be seen as being of much more relevance‹keeping a bit cooler only takes energy, relocating as a result of sea level rise is much more problematic (not just due to storm surge and inundation, but of salt water pressing into coastal aquifers, etc. And it might be much easier to get consensus on dealing with sea level rise than on a value for global average temperature. Mike MacCracken On 2/2/15, 6:59 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com http://andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I think that the assumption of a return to pre industrial is outmoded as an intervention strategy. It's one I've heard much more from social scientists than physical scientists, who typically look to prevent or reduce future rises. The only reason to return to pre industrial would be to reverse tipping point sea level rises, or others eg methane degassing from permafrost. As to the issue of disagreement and conflict, I'm absolutely with Jesse in thinking this has been grossly overblown. I view this as a commonsense position, and one that's sadly lacking from the literature. I'd strongly encourage people to publish both discursive and modelling papers on the issue. It's all too easy, apparently, for people to assume that consensus would be unusually hard to achieve - without offering any evidence for this position. The world is not typically governed by force but by agreement. A On 2 Feb 2015 11:24, J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl wrote: I generally believe that the concerns over potential conflict over solar climate engineering are often overblown. There will surely be disagreements among countries as to their desired temperatures. Yet often implied and sometimes explicitly stated in the CE discourse is that these disagreements would likely lead to armed conflict, and/or that they would render CE ineffective. Countries, including the powerful ones, routinely disagree over numerous things. My sense is that definitions and rules in the WTO and its agreements, for example, are much more consequential for them than CE would be. These conflicts are resolved through various sorts of bargaining. Perhaps I am excessively optimistic, but it seems that the nature of international conflict and resolution is fundamentally different (and more peaceful) than 100 years ago (to use Olaf¹s WW1 example), particularly among the powerful countries. Solar CE has the advantage, like much of international trade, that the advantages of countries¹ collective agreement would likely outweigh their potential, individual advantages of getting the climate which they desire. Disagreement could lead to various CE programs interfering with one another, and they would all be left worse off. That is, it is a resolvable collective action problem. From my vantage, the biggest concern would be if there were a systematic disagreement on the type and intensity of solar CE among powerful countries versus weak ones. The Ricke et al paper (which I recommend) cited by Ken begins to get at the that, but it also assumes that all countries would desire pre-industrial climates. That may not be the case. -Jesse - Jesse L. Reynolds, PhD Postdoctoral researcher Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl mailto:j@uvt.nl javascript: http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ http://works.bepress.com/jessreyn/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com http://geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geo...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: 31 January 2015 18:32 To: cushngo...@gmail.com http://cushngo...@gmail.com Cc: Motoko; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Washington Post op ed Kate Ricke's model results are often trotted out to support the 'winners
Re: [geo] Re: Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Hi Greg‹The flaw in both of our arguments seems to be our assumption that the world is rational. Right now there are tremendous opportunities for cost-effective (i.e., few-year payback) efficiency steps and yet, as noted in a CEO survey in the news yesterday, despite the clear risk and the opportunities to do something about it, the surveyed CEOs don¹t seem to think this is a significant issue. There are also tremendous opportunities to slow the warming by cutting short-lived species‹all quite straightforward and with many co-benefits to health, air quality, biomass preservation and more‹maybe the world is moving slowly to eventually do that. Fortunately, the cost of renewables/alternative energy sources is coming down so that change is starting, but lots more could be done that is cost effective (witness solar panels on my roof giving me a 9+% guaranteed after tax return on investment) and there is just not a real sense of urgency even though the Social Cost of Carbon studies (not just the new one in Nature) show an external cost of order $200/ton of CO2. Where is rationality in all of this? In a rational world, lots would be going on in mitigation and then there would still be value in pulling CO2 lower, and augmented weatherization would be then a really key step (certainly worth researching, but given all the cost effective opportunities right now not being taken advantage of, diverting money to go forward with mineral weathering seems to me a diversion of money form the most cost effective approaches). So, my problem is not with air CO2 management in concept, just that it would be so much more cost effective not to put the CO2 into the air in the first place. Mike On 1/26/15, 11:27 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Mike et al., I don't think anyone is asking mineral weathering to singlehandedly solve the problem, though the fact that it can and will naturally solve the problem given enough time means it does have the proven capacity to do so, unlike any other CDR scheme I am aware of. How much accelerated weathering we do does largely come down to extraction, processing, and movement of mineral mass. Yes, Gt's of CO2 mitigation does require Gt's of mineral, but why is this necessarily a showstopper if we fail to stabilize CO2 by other means? We currently extract about 2.5 Gt of minerals/yr. Is it unthinkable that we wouldn't/couldn't double or triple this in the interest of helping to stabilize air CO2, climate and ocean acidity? Or would you prefer to impact vastly larger land areas and potentially disrupt food and fiber production by employing IPCC-endorsed BECCS or afforestation? All methods of air CO2 management have benefits, costs, impacts, and tradeoffs. Let's hope that we invest in the research to well understand these for all of the CO2 management options available, and that we then make rational decisions on their deployment (in time) based on this info. Given the decisions and endorsements made so far, I'm not holding my breath. Hence, looking forward to that private resilience session in Paris. Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com; Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Re: [geo] Re: Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Here is another way to think of the amount of mass being talked about. The global average per capita use of carbon today is of order 9. GtC/yr/7B people, so about 1.3 ton per person of carbon. Multiply by 3.67 to get to CO2, and it is about 5 t CO2 per person. Would olivine be an equal mass (or a bit more to match mole to mole)? That is a lot of olivine‹and for every person on Earth to deal with present emissions‹even if this is off by a factor of a few!!! Every person on Earth‹not just everyone on coastlines in NJ or the US or the world. This is why we have to get global emissions down down, down and then also be doing something like this. Mike On 1/26/15, 5:36 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, placing olivine accurately is almost the exact equivalent of vacuum dredging, but in reverse. You could dump it with a huge Panamax class vessel, but it you'd end up with the drop too far from the shore, and probably too bunched up, too. With a smaller ship, like a dredger, you'd get the distribution you need. Added to which, the materials handling costs are going to be almost exactly right, because with dredging you're pulling material out of the sea in an arbitrary but nearshore location, and moving it to the nearest port with a rail head where you can get rid of it. It's olivine backwards. A On 26 Jan 2015 22:24, Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com wrote: I hesitate to add to what
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Hi Andrew--The issue is not so much the technology‹as you say there are options‹but the total mass required to make a significant difference. Mike On 1/26/15, 5:49 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: As regards transport: costings must follow strategy. To consider the civil engineering : I suggest that spreading on beaches is unnecessary and logistically difficult. Far better to dump the material in shallow coastal waters with active material transport - especially where erosion threatens settlements, such as around much of the UK coast. It will be on the beach soon enough! Open water deposition can be done with bulk carriers (either split hull or conveyor / auger fed) . Plenty of ships used for transport of minerals, grain, bulk powders, etc are available. A better spread will be less harmful to marine life, so slower deposition rates will be safer. This suggests conveyor or auger carriers . For transport from the mine, using open river flows (if that was what was implied) seems irrational. Rivers would quickly silt, and local ecosystem effects would be disastrous. In larger rivers, barges would be viable, but most mines will not be near major rivers. Rail to the coast also avoids the need to change transport mode. Again, bulk dry materials are routinely transported by rail, and no innovation is required. Ports also are commonly fed by rail, so only track to the mine head from the nearest railway need be newly laid. In Europe, one is rarely more than a few dozen miles from a railway. A large mine will function for decades, meaning track civils costs are trivial. I'm happy to help publish on this. I think a paper that goes down to site specifics would be very useful. Engineering publications give clarity and precision to methods - IKEA flat-pack instructions for fixing the climate. A Where do you get that number of $100 per ton of CO2 captured from? You come close to that number if you use that silly CCS, capture CO2 from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants, clean it with expensive and poisonous chemicals and then compress it to a few hundred bars and pump it in the subsoil. If you use enhanced weathering of olivine you have $4 for the mining of bulk rock in large open-pit mines $2 for milling it to 100 micron ?? for transport and spreading (but ?? is certainly not $94); strategically selecting new mine sites will help to reduce costs of transport. So when you do some economic calculations, use realistic figures, Olaf Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken Sent: zondag 25 januari 2015 17:27 To: Greg Rau; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Let me expand my quick description to be 90% cut in human-induced emissions (on top of all the natural sinks), so natural CDR does not count. And on the proposed removal industry, for $100 per ton of CO2, an awful lot could be done to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy, or even better efficiency, a huge amount of which could be done for much less, if we¹d try. So, nice that there is a CO2 removal approach as a backstop to what the cost of changing energy would be‹basically, you are suggesting it should cost less than $100 per ton of CO2 to address the problem. With the new paper in Nature (lead author is a former intern that worked with me at the Climate Institute) that the social cost of CO2 is more than twice the cost of, then it makes huge economic sense to be addressing the problem. So, indeed, let¹s get on with it‹research plus actually dealing with the issue. Mike On 1/24/15, 1:40 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net http://gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Mike, If it takes a 90% cut in CO2 to stop the rise in atmospheric concentration, we are already more than half way there thanks to natural CDR. About 55% of our CO2 emissions are mercifully removed from air via biotic and abiotic processes. So just 35% to go? As for CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry, here's one way to do that: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full , but low fossil energy prices (or lack of sufficient C emissions surcharge) are unlikely to make this happen. Certainly agree that we need all hands and ideas on deck in order to stabilize air CO2. But for reasons that continue to baffle me, that is not happening at the policy, decision making, and RD levels it needs to. Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net http://mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com http://Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective In terms
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
I do have that book somewhere‹thanks for the reminder about it. Mike On 1/26/15, 4:12 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Mike, I sympathize with your wish to understand carbonate chemistry and it's relation to the carbon cycle in the oceans. 30 years ago I found I couldn't understand what was in the literature so I just worked it all out for myself. Its described on pages 128 to 149 in my book: consider a spherical cow. Maybe you will find that useful. Sent from my iPhone John Harte On Jan 25, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Hi John‹Good question‹and we need Greg or Ken to weigh in. My guess is that the numbers for ocean carbon on the diagram include all of the active forms of C, and so only a small amount is really in the form of CO2 and so affecting the atmosphere-ocean gradient that is calculated. I have always wished that I had more solidly come to understand ocean C chemistry. Mike On 1/25/15, 9:38 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Mike, The figure is useful: If 597 (atm) had been in equilibrium with 900 (mixed layer) pre-industrial, how can 597+165 be within a few Gt(C) of equilibrium with 900 + 18? If the atm. and the mixed layer of the sea are that far out of equilibrium, seems to me the sink will operate for a while (decades) even if future emissions = current sink over that period. In other words, what I am questioning is whether there would, within a year, be a hugely reduced gradient. Am I misinterpreting the numbers in the figure??? It will be nice to sort this out!! John John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Jan 25, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Hi John‹So I have attached a diagram of the carbon cycle from IPCC AR4WG1 Figure 7.3 that shows natural flows (in black) and then the augmentations as a result of human activities (in red) There is a time constant for uptake of particular molecules of CO2 into the mixed layer, so mass in mixed layer divided by atmospheric flux, and that is 10 years (what I think you are referring to). I don¹t think, however, that this is what determines the lag time for the net flux and so what counts in what we have been talking about‹basically, if there were suddenly no gradient, there would immediately be no net flux and it does not matter which molecule is where. So, in my view, what matters is the gradient that is created by each year¹s emissions, and as that goes down, the gradient will be less, and if the atmospheric concentration were suddenly held stable, the driving gradient would pretty quickly go to zero (there would still be the gradient with the deep ocean as its cycle time is of order 1000 years, so the flux to the deep ocean would continue. And I don¹t think there is anywhere near a 10-year lag in the concentration gradient between the atmosphere and the concentration at the top of the mixed layer‹nor do I think that the vertical mixing time down of order 100-200 meters in the upper ocean layer is anything like a decade given wave and isopychnal mixing and wind driven flows‹I¹d suggest less than a year, but that is a guess. [WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE COMMENT FROM KEN C]. Best, Mike On 1/25/15, 6:10 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://4924/jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Mike, I could be wrong but i was under the impression that the relevant time constant (inverse rate const.) characterizing the gradient-driven gross flow of CO2 from air to sea is on the order of a decade or two. A result I thought obtained from C14 tracer studies. I am also under the impression that the year to year variation in the sink strength does not track annual emissions very closely, suggesting that there are longer time constants in the system (as well as noise from variations in wind etc. and inter annual variability in the terrestrial sink). It's been a while since I looked at this so maybe my understanding is out of date. Cheers, John John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://4924/jha...@berkeley.edu On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net x-msg://4924/mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Hi John and Greg‹So responding to both messages (and I pasted John¹s into the thread) I would think the terrestrial biosphere time constant is a decade or two, but for the ocean, I¹d suggest that it is much shorter. My understanding is that the time constant
Re: [geo] Re: Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Here is another way to think of the amount of mass being talked about. The global average per capita use of carbon today is of order 9. GtC/yr/7B people, so about 1.3 ton per person of carbon. Multiply by 3.67 to get to CO2, and it is about 5 t CO2 per person. Would olivine be an equal mass (or a bit more to match mole to mole)? That is a lot of olivine‹and for every person on Earth to deal with present emissions‹even if this is off by a factor of a few!!! Every person on Earth‹not just everyone on coastlines in NJ or the US or the world. This is why we have to get global emissions down down, down and then also be doing something like this. Mike On 1/26/15, 5:36 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, placing olivine accurately is almost the exact equivalent of vacuum dredging, but in reverse. You could dump it with a huge Panamax class vessel, but it you'd end up with the drop too far from the shore, and probably too bunched up, too. With a smaller ship, like a dredger, you'd get the distribution you need. Added to which, the materials handling costs are going to be almost exactly right, because with dredging you're pulling material out of the sea in an arbitrary but nearshore location, and moving it to the nearest port with a rail head where you can get rid of it. It's olivine backwards. A On 26 Jan 2015 22:24, Bill Stahl bstah...@gmail.com wrote: I hesitate to add to what is already a leviathan of a thread... but here goes. Assuming a carbon price were in effect, could coastal governments and landowners offset the cost of beach enhancement sand replacement with CO2-sequestering sand? It would not have to optimally efficient to be substantial. On the face of it, getting permitted to use olivine on beaches seems a huge hurdle, but there is a already a tremendous amount of stirring-up of shallow coastal waters, budgeted and permitted. Transportation has already been arranged. Based on my familiarity of the Jersey Shore, coastal towns throw enough money at replacing sand that will quickly erode away, so why not put it to some long-term use? (Perhaps Atlantic City's unemployed croupiers can be sent out stirring the beaches). I have no idea how to calculate the potential scale, but perhaps this has already been done. Convince homeowners' associations to link CDR to property values and you've harnessed an unstoppable force... And is dredging relevant here? Talk about mass-handling. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Let me expand my quick description to be 90% cut in human-induced emissions (on top of all the natural sinks), so natural CDR does not count. And on the proposed removal industry, for $100 per ton of CO2, an awful lot could be done to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy, or even better efficiency, a huge amount of which could be done for much less, if we¹d try. So, nice that there is a CO2 removal approach as a backstop to what the cost of changing energy would be‹basically, you are suggesting it should cost less than $100 per ton of CO2 to address the problem. With the new paper in Nature (lead author is a former intern that worked with me at the Climate Institute) that the social cost of CO2 is more than twice the cost of, then it makes huge economic sense to be addressing the problem. So, indeed, let¹s get on with it‹research plus actually dealing with the issue. Mike On 1/24/15, 1:40 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Mike, If it takes a 90% cut in CO2 to stop the rise in atmospheric concentration, we are already more than half way there thanks to natural CDR. About 55% of our CO2 emissions are mercifully removed from air via biotic and abiotic processes. So just 35% to go? As for CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry, here's one way to do that: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full , but low fossil energy prices (or lack of sufficient C emissions surcharge) are unlikely to make this happen. Certainly agree that we need all hands and ideas on deck in order to stabilize air CO2. But for reasons that continue to baffle me, that is not happening at the policy, decision making, and RD levels it needs to. Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective In terms of an overall strategy, it takes of order a 90% cut in CO2 emissions to stop the rise in the atmospheric concentration, and that has to happen to ultimately stabilize the climate (and it would be better to have the CO2 concentration headed down so we don¹t get to the equilibrium warming for the peak concentration we reach (recalling we will be losing sulfate cooling). Thus, to really stop the warming, CDR in its many forms has to be at least as large as 90% of CO2 emissions (from fossil fuels and biospheric losses). That is a lot of carbon to be taking out of the system by putting olivine into the ocean, biochar, etc. at current global emissions levels (that are still growing). The greater the mitigation (reduction in fossil fuel emissions), the more effective CDR can be‹what would really be nice is CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry so ultimately it is as large. I¹d suggest this is why it is really important to always be mentioning the importance of all the other ways, in addition to CDR, to be cutting emissions‹that is really critical. Mike On 1/24/15, 10:19 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All Paragraph 2 mentions 'carbon negative' nuclear energy. The carbon emissions from a complete, working nuclear power station are mainly people driving to work. But digging, crushing and processing uranium ore needs energy and releases carbon in inverse proportion to the ore grade. There were some amazingly high grade ores, some once even at the critical point for reaction, but these have been used. Analysis by van Leeuwen concludes that the carbon advantage of present nuclear technology over gas is about three but that the break-even point comes when the ore grade drops to around 100 ppm. This could happen within the life of plant planned now. As we do not know how to do waste disposal we cannot estimate its carbon emissions. But just because we cannot calculate them does not mean that they are zero. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 24/01/2015 14:56, Andrew Lockley wrote: Poster's note : none of this explains why there's any need for integration. Chucking olivine in the sea seems easier and cheaper than all. http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2183871/3-ways-carbon-removal-can- help-unlock-promise-all-above-energy-strategy 3 Ways Carbon Removal can Help Unlock the Promise of an All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy January 24, 2015 ³We can¹t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Hi Greg--The problem with your calculation is that if you were to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, the ocean and biosphere would readjust to the lower atmospheric concentration and return to the atmosphere that they have taken up earlier when the original amount of CO2 was emitted. Thus, you really have to figure out how to sequester 90+% of the 37 Gt CO2/yr that is emitted‹you don¹t get to keep counting the 20 Gt CO2 taken up by the ocean and the biosphere. Mike On 1/25/15, 1:25 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Just to be clear, we currently emit 37.0 GT CO2/yr, yet in the short term only 17.5 Gt/yr remain in the atmosphere, the rest being removed by natural CDR (reviewed here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2392.html ). So our net emissions is 17.5 Gt/yr. Cutting this by 90% via enhanced CDR alone would mean removing an additional 15.8 GT CO2/yr over and above the 19.5 Gt/yr already removed, a 81% increase in CDR. Is this sufficient to stabilize air pCO2 or lower pCO2? If the latter then we'd also have to contend with legacy CO2 degassing from the ocean. It should be easier to reduce emissions than increase CDR, but then how is that going? I'd say it's time to find out just how easy or hard additional CDR is, relative to the technical, economic and political difficulties of emissions reduction, and relative to the consequences if the latter strategy continues to seriously underperform. Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net; Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Let me expand my quick description to be 90% cut in human-induced emissions (on top of all the natural sinks), so natural CDR does not count. And on the proposed removal industry, for $100 per ton of CO2, an awful lot could be done to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy, or even better efficiency, a huge amount of which could be done for much less, if we¹d try. So, nice that there is a CO2 removal approach as a backstop to what the cost of changing energy would be‹basically, you are suggesting it should cost less than $100 per ton of CO2 to address the problem. With the new paper in Nature (lead author is a former intern that worked with me at the Climate Institute) that the social cost of CO2 is more than twice the cost of, then it makes huge economic sense to be addressing the problem. So, indeed, let¹s get on with it‹research plus actually dealing with the issue. Mike On 1/24/15, 1:40 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Mike, If it takes a 90% cut in CO2 to stop the rise in atmospheric concentration, we are already more than half way there thanks to natural CDR. About 55% of our CO2 emissions are mercifully removed from air via biotic and abiotic processes. So just 35% to go? As for CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry, here's one way to do that: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full , but low fossil energy prices (or lack of sufficient C emissions surcharge) are unlikely to make this happen. Certainly agree that we need all hands and ideas on deck in order to stabilize air CO2. But for reasons that continue to baffle me, that is not happening at the policy, decision making, and RD levels it needs to. Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective In terms of an overall strategy, it takes of order a 90% cut in CO2 emissions to stop the rise in the atmospheric concentration, and that has to happen to ultimately stabilize the climate (and it would be better to have the CO2 concentration headed down so we don¹t get to the equilibrium warming for the peak concentration we reach (recalling we will be losing sulfate cooling). Thus, to really stop the warming, CDR in its many forms has to be at least as large as 90% of CO2 emissions (from fossil fuels and biospheric losses). That is a lot of carbon to be taking out of the system by putting olivine into the ocean, biochar, etc. at current global emissions levels (that are still growing). The greater the mitigation (reduction in fossil fuel emissions), the more effective CDR can be‹what would really be nice is CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry so ultimately it is as large. I¹d suggest this is why it is really important to always be mentioning the importance of all the other ways, in addition to CDR, to be cutting emissions‹that is really critical. Mike
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Hi John‹Good question‹and we need Greg or Ken to weigh in. My guess is that the numbers for ocean carbon on the diagram include all of the active forms of C, and so only a small amount is really in the form of CO2 and so affecting the atmosphere-ocean gradient that is calculated. I have always wished that I had more solidly come to understand ocean C chemistry. Mike On 1/25/15, 9:38 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Mike, The figure is useful: If 597 (atm) had been in equilibrium with 900 (mixed layer) pre-industrial, how can 597+165 be within a few Gt(C) of equilibrium with 900 + 18? If the atm. and the mixed layer of the sea are that far out of equilibrium, seems to me the sink will operate for a while (decades) even if future emissions = current sink over that period. In other words, what I am questioning is whether there would, within a year, be a hugely reduced gradient. Am I misinterpreting the numbers in the figure??? It will be nice to sort this out!! John John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On Jan 25, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Hi John‹So I have attached a diagram of the carbon cycle from IPCC AR4WG1 Figure 7.3 that shows natural flows (in black) and then the augmentations as a result of human activities (in red) There is a time constant for uptake of particular molecules of CO2 into the mixed layer, so mass in mixed layer divided by atmospheric flux, and that is 10 years (what I think you are referring to). I don¹t think, however, that this is what determines the lag time for the net flux and so what counts in what we have been talking about‹basically, if there were suddenly no gradient, there would immediately be no net flux and it does not matter which molecule is where. So, in my view, what matters is the gradient that is created by each year¹s emissions, and as that goes down, the gradient will be less, and if the atmospheric concentration were suddenly held stable, the driving gradient would pretty quickly go to zero (there would still be the gradient with the deep ocean as its cycle time is of order 1000 years, so the flux to the deep ocean would continue. And I don¹t think there is anywhere near a 10-year lag in the concentration gradient between the atmosphere and the concentration at the top of the mixed layer‹nor do I think that the vertical mixing time down of order 100-200 meters in the upper ocean layer is anything like a decade given wave and isopychnal mixing and wind driven flows‹I¹d suggest less than a year, but that is a guess. [WE NEED AN AUTHORITATIVE COMMENT FROM KEN C]. Best, Mike On 1/25/15, 6:10 PM, John Harte jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://4924/jha...@berkeley.edu wrote: Mike, I could be wrong but i was under the impression that the relevant time constant (inverse rate const.) characterizing the gradient-driven gross flow of CO2 from air to sea is on the order of a decade or two. A result I thought obtained from C14 tracer studies. I am also under the impression that the year to year variation in the sink strength does not track annual emissions very closely, suggesting that there are longer time constants in the system (as well as noise from variations in wind etc. and inter annual variability in the terrestrial sink). It's been a while since I looked at this so maybe my understanding is out of date. Cheers, John John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu x-msg://4924/jha...@berkeley.edu On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net x-msg://4924/mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Hi John and Greg‹So responding to both messages (and I pasted John¹s into the thread) I would think the terrestrial biosphere time constant is a decade or two, but for the ocean, I¹d suggest that it is much shorter. My understanding is that the time constant of the wind-stirred ocean mixed layer is a year or two‹not a decade or two. Changing the net flux rate to the deep ocean would be pretty slow, but that net flux is pretty small. And so, how would it work. Well, in terms of the net flux to the ocean, the CO2 is driven into the upper ocean by the gradient between the atmosphere and the upper ocean, so once one stabilizes the atmospheric concentration and the ocean mixed layer concentration catches, up, there will be no gradient to drive the flux. Well, this is not quite correct as the net flux to the deep ocean would continue, so there could be a net flux from the atmosphere to the upper ocean to make up that difference
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
Hi John and Greg‹So responding to both messages (and I pasted John¹s into the thread) I would think the terrestrial biosphere time constant is a decade or two, but for the ocean, I¹d suggest that it is much shorter. My understanding is that the time constant of the wind-stirred ocean mixed layer is a year or two‹not a decade or two. Changing the net flux rate to the deep ocean would be pretty slow, but that net flux is pretty small. And so, how would it work. Well, in terms of the net flux to the ocean, the CO2 is driven into the upper ocean by the gradient between the atmosphere and the upper ocean, so once one stabilizes the atmospheric concentration and the ocean mixed layer concentration catches, up, there will be no gradient to drive the flux. Well, this is not quite correct as the net flux to the deep ocean would continue, so there could be a net flux from the atmosphere to the upper ocean to make up that difference. However, the ocean surface layer would also continue to warm as there is a lag in the thermal term‹and so the warmer the mixed layer, the higher the CO2 partial pressure would be and this would tend to resist uptake of CO2. In terms of gross fluxes, the carbon rich upwelling waters would end up giving off a bit more CO2 with CO2 stabilization as opposed to the situation were the CO2 higher, and the uptake in high latitudes where water is cold would not be going up because the atmosphere-upper ocean gradient would be less, so again, one would lose the ocean sink, and that would mean that a greater share of any emissions that did occur (so in reducing the CO2 emissions from 37 Gt CO2/yr, one does not get to assume the ocean sink would continue as it has‹and I suspect that would be a pretty fast adjustment. For the biosphere, John suggests that he is quite concerned about the continuance of the terrestrial sink (basically, it seems, whether or not one stabilizes the CO2 concentration). So, as I indicated initially, it seems to me that one would pretty quickly need to be taking up 90% of the 37 GtCO2/yr by your proposed approach‹and that is a lot of carbon to be taking up. Hence, I¹ll stand by my earlier statement that it will be hard for CDR/atmospheric and oceanic scrubbing to make much of a difference with respect to slowing the rate of climate change until emissions drop a lot. Mike Msg from John Harte‹combined into this thread. Mike, I think the truth is flanked by your's and Greg's statements. If we were to reduce emissions starting immediately so that each year from here on out we emit only about half current emissions, then for a decade or two, at least, the current carbon sink would roughly equal emissions and the CO2 level would be roughly constant, as Greg suggests. The concentration gradient between air and sea would slowly shrink however and so in the longer run the sink strength would diminish and emissions would have to be reduced further. At a steady annual flow from air to sea of 15 - 20 Gt(CO2)/y, however, it would take decades before there was an appreciable diminishment of that sink flow. The real shorter-term danger I think is that soil warming and forest dieback leading to terrestrial sources of CO2, along with possible CH4 releases, all because of the warming associated with trying to keep a steady 400 ppm of CO2, would necessitate much greater emissions reduction and the sooner we achieve that the better. John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA jha...@berkeley.edu On 1/25/15, 3:23 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I'm not necessarily advocating lowering air pCO2, but stabilizing pCO2 say at the present 400 uatms. If this is stable, how does additional ocean degassing ensue? Exactly how much CDR would be needed to achieve this, the resulting response of natural CDR and natural emissions, and the required time course of this I will leave to the modelers. Ditto for achieving stability via pure anthro emissions reduction. Obviously, some combination of these will, in my opinion, be needed to stabilize pCO2. Anthro emissions reduction would appear to have significant technological and policy awareness lead relative to CDR. I'm suggesting this needs to change, in case emissions reduction alone continues to fail to achieve its promise. As for reducing air pCO2, this already happens on an intra-annual basis thanks to natural CDR and in spite of ocean degassing: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/10/23/the-annual-rise-in-c o2-levels-has-begun/#more-940 Is it unthinkable that this decline couldn't be increased to some degree via human intervention? Wouldn't it be desirable/necessary to investigate this in the now likely event that current policies and actions have us blowing by the pCO2 safety threshold for decades if not centuries, or beyond if permafrost/clathrate degassing ensues? Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc
Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective
In terms of an overall strategy, it takes of order a 90% cut in CO2 emissions to stop the rise in the atmospheric concentration, and that has to happen to ultimately stabilize the climate (and it would be better to have the CO2 concentration headed down so we don¹t get to the equilibrium warming for the peak concentration we reach (recalling we will be losing sulfate cooling). Thus, to really stop the warming, CDR in its many forms has to be at least as large as 90% of CO2 emissions (from fossil fuels and biospheric losses). That is a lot of carbon to be taking out of the system by putting olivine into the ocean, biochar, etc. at current global emissions levels (that are still growing). The greater the mitigation (reduction in fossil fuel emissions), the more effective CDR can be‹what would really be nice is CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry so ultimately it is as large. I¹d suggest this is why it is really important to always be mentioning the importance of all the other ways, in addition to CDR, to be cutting emissions‹that is really critical. Mike On 1/24/15, 10:19 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Hi All Paragraph 2 mentions 'carbon negative' nuclear energy. The carbon emissions from a complete, working nuclear power station are mainly people driving to work. But digging, crushing and processing uranium ore needs energy and releases carbon in inverse proportion to the ore grade. There were some amazingly high grade ores, some once even at the critical point for reaction, but these have been used. Analysis by van Leeuwen concludes that the carbon advantage of present nuclear technology over gas is about three but that the break-even point comes when the ore grade drops to around 100 ppm. This could happen within the life of plant planned now. As we do not know how to do waste disposal we cannot estimate its carbon emissions. But just because we cannot calculate them does not mean that they are zero. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 24/01/2015 14:56, Andrew Lockley wrote: Poster's note : none of this explains why there's any need for integration. Chucking olivine in the sea seems easier and cheaper than all. http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2183871/3-ways-carbon-removal-can-he lp-unlock-promise-all-above-energy-strategy 3 Ways Carbon Removal can Help Unlock the Promise of an All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy January 24, 2015 ³We can¹t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.² President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012 An all-of-the-above energy strategy holds great potential to make our energy system more secure, inexpensive, and environmentally-friendly. Today¹s approach to all-of-the-above, however, is missing a key piece: carbon dioxide removal (³CDR²). Here¹s three reasons why CDR is critical for the success of an all-of-the-above energy strategy: 1. CDR helps unite renewable energy and fossil fuel proponents to advance carbon capture and storage (³CCS²) projects. Many renewable energy advocates view CCS as an expensive excuse to enable business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions. But biomass energy with CCS (bio-CCS) projects are essentially ³renewable CCS² (previously viewed as an oxymoron), and could be critical for drawing down atmospheric carbon levels in the future. As a result, fossil CCS projects could provide a pathway to ³renewable CCS² projects in the future. Because of the similarities in the carbon capture technology for fossil and bioenergy power plants, installing capture technology on fossil power plants today could help reduce technology and regulatory risk for bio-CCS projects in the future. What¹s more, bio-CCS projects can share the infrastructure for transporting and storing CO2 with fossil CCS installations. Creating such a pathway to bio-CCS should be feasible through regulations that increase carbon prices and/or biomass co-firing mandates slowly over time, and could help unite renewable energy and CCS proponents to develop policies that enable the development of cost-effective CCS technology. 2. CDR bolsters the environmental case for nuclear power by enabling it to be carbon ³negative²: Many environmental advocates say that low-carbon benefits of nuclear power are outweighed by the other environmental and safety concerns of nuclear projects. The development of advanced nuclear projects paired with direct air capture (³DAC²) devices, however, could tip the scales in nuclear¹s favor.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering session at Our Common Future under Climate Change, Paris, July 7-10, 2015
And for the record, ours was (I think we used the full word limit that was allowable): Session Description: Sharp reductions in short- and long-lived greenhouse gas emissions must be the primary objective for limiting global warming. Accomplishing this will take decades, however. Despite efforts to adjust, adapt, and enhance resilience, impacts will build over time, especially for those most geographically, economically, and politically vulnerable. For these reasons, new kinds of affirmative efforts aimed at altering the climate system, collectively known as geoengineering, warrant serious consideration. First, with significant research, increasing the uptake and sequestering of carbon by the oceans and soils and/or industrial scrubbing could, over many decades and with substantial investment, become an important component of stabilizing the climate once global emissions are substantially reduced. Second, counterbalancing the remaining climatic effects and impacts by reducing the uptake and retention of energy by the climate system may be another option. Scientists and policymakers have identified a number of potential approaches to such climate engineering (e.g., by increasing the planetary albedo), but many scientific, technological, ethical and political questions remain to be addressed before it could be considered a viable policy option. These include: Technical Considerations: What scientific, engineering, environmental and societal cost/benefit/impact analysis research is needed to establish the plausibility and viability of climate engineering capabilities for: (a) stabilizing the climate on a global basis (or even possibly on a primarily regional or specific impact-focused basis) and then gradually offsetting detrimental changes of the recent past, and/or (b) preventing the onset of rapidly accelerating adverse impacts projected once particular thresholds are crossed? What kinds of resources and research effort would be needed to reduce uncertainties sufficiently to provide policymakers with an assessment of future risks and benefits of global warming with and without application of various approaches to climate engineering? Societal and Governance Considerations: What are the near-term policy implications, if any, of the increasing scientific and political interest in climate engineering? What are the risks from outdoor climate engineering research and how should they be governed? Were climate-engineering capabilities to be theoretically demonstrated, what are the governance implications, requirements, pathways, and timelines for moving from concept to plausible policy consideration and application? What are the ethical, cultural and societal implications for the natural environment, nations and their citizens, and future generations were climate engineering to become a viable policy option? How do these implications compare to policy options that do not include climate engineering? Who are the appropriate actors in the near term to address the issue? Mike PS‹So Greg, yes, we did include carbon removal in terms of governance perspectives. I think there was another proposal on the means for doing it. On 1/22/15, 10:05 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear Andrew, I would not express it like that. First, it should be sober. Second, since there are no outdoor experiments to report on, a lot of the work will be modeling, although proposals for outdoor experiments, with clear science questions that can only be answered that way, will be welcome, as will ideas for governance of such experiments. Third, science should always be communicated in a way that is understandable. Since the final sessions have not been established yet, and what we proposed (see below) may be combined with other topics, as Mike mentioned, we will have to see what the final scope of topics will be. Our proposed session abstract was: Geoengineering has been discussed extensively by IPCC for the first time in the AR5 report, but that report will be two years out of date at the time of this conference. Much research continues to be produced investigating the climate response to various proposals for radiation management, particularly artificial stratospheric aerosols, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning. This session will only address radiation management geoengineering, and not carbon dioxide reduction. It will include new results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, which is designed to understand robust climate model response to radiation geoengineering. This session invites presentations on physical, agricultural, and ecological impacts of anthropogenic control of the climate, and will contrast the potential risks and benefits of future climates with various future pathways of anthropogenic emissions, with and without geoengineering. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Re: [geo] Geoengineering session at Our Common Future under Climate Change, Paris, July 7-10, 2015
Just an added comment that four of us (myself; Stefan Schäfer, Simon Nicholson, and David Winickoff) proposed a session dealing with governance of climate engineering to the same meeting and it is also to be included somehow in the meeting--and there is also, I understand one on CO2 sequestration/removal as well. It is not yet clear if these will be treated independently or combined. But, yes, do keep this meeting in mind and we expect to hear more in the near future. Mike MacCracken On 1/21/15, 10:28 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear All, Along with Ben Kravitz and Ulrike Niemeier, I have proposed a session on geoengineering at the International Scientific Conference ³Our Common Future under Climate Change,² which will take place at UNESCO HQ in Paris, July 7-10, 2015. The deadline for abstract submissions is March 1, 1800 GMT. While all the details of the parallel sessions have not yet been worked out, please keep this in mind over the next 6 weeks so that you can plan to submit an abstract and attend the conference. This conference was organized to inform negotiators and the public of the state of climate science in preparation for the Conference of the Parties to be held in Paris in December. You can read more at: http://www.commonfuture-paris2015.org/ The themes for the parallel sessions are at: http://www.commonfuture-paris2015.org/How-to-Contribute/Parallel-Sessions/Para llel-Sessions-Themes.htm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] symposium - CE-project 7-10 July
Me too—mine relating more to the policy aspects to complement the one you and Ben Kravitz put in. Best, Mike On 12/18/14 9:26 AM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: I have proposed a geoengineering session for the Paris meeting, but have not heard back yet if it is approved. Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm RoadE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 Sent from my iPad On Dec 18, 2014, at 3:31 AM, olivermorton olivermor...@economist.com wrote: I quite agree with Mike -- it's really unfortunate to line this up against the Paris conference. That said, I don't know for sure that there will be geongeineering threads in Pars -- but there were in teh analagous Copenhagen conference six months before COP15, and this conference seems to be about setting an agenda for COP21 in a similar way. I don't suppose there is any way at this stage to move the Berlin meeting? On Thursday, 18 December 2014 03:22:13 UTC, Mike MacCracken wrote: This conference unfortunately directly conflicts with a major conference in Paris—see http://www.commonfuture-paris2015.org/--that will hopefully also have geoengineering sessions considering the larger questions about it. It also follows by just one week the IUGG conference in Prague that has a couple of geoengineering sessions. It would sure be nice if there were a bit better checking for conflicts, etc. Best, Mike MacCracken On 12/17/14 9:28 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com http://andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/the-symposium.html Current State and Future Perspectives Several European projects in the area of climate engineering research will have been completed in 2015. In Germany, the DFG’s Scientific Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP1689) will enter preparation for its second phase. Other countries are debating the merits of commencing their own research projects on climate engineering. Against this background, the Symposium „Climate Engineering Research: Current State and Future Perspectives“ in Berlin, July 7-10, 2015 has two aims in mind: To take stock on what we collectively know about climate engineering. To exchange views on the different directions in which research could and should move in order to provide sufficient information for societal decisions on Climate Engineering. See link for deadlines This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com http://legal.economistgroup.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] symposium - CE-project 7-10 July
This conference unfortunately directly conflicts with a major conference in Paris—see http://www.commonfuture-paris2015.org/--that will hopefully also have geoengineering sessions considering the larger questions about it. It also follows by just one week the IUGG conference in Prague that has a couple of geoengineering sessions. It would sure be nice if there were a bit better checking for conflicts, etc. Best, Mike MacCracken On 12/17/14 9:28 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/the-symposium.html Current State and Future Perspectives Several European projects in the area of climate engineering research will have been completed in 2015. In Germany, the DFG’s Scientific Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP1689) will enter preparation for its second phase. Other countries are debating the merits of commencing their own research projects on climate engineering. Against this background, the Symposium „Climate Engineering Research: Current State and Future Perspectives“ in Berlin, July 7-10, 2015 has two aims in mind: To take stock on what we collectively know about climate engineering. To exchange views on the different directions in which research could and should move in order to provide sufficient information for societal decisions on Climate Engineering. See link for deadlines -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Don't Believe the Hype: Do Emerging Technologies Fall Foul of Their Own PR?
I wonder if Climate Engineering is really equivalent in framing to the examples used in this article. For Thalidomide, Nuclear Power, and GM crops that were major companies behind them, and so the profit motive was a driving force and may well have led to some over-claiming. For Climate Engineering, it seems to me that, at least at this point, the money and industry is on the other side, and this idea is mainly being suggested by some of us scientists as a desperate, bottom of the barrel, step to be taken to avert further change being pushed on us by corporate interests (and our own poor choices). It seems to me the framing to take is more one of a tourniquet being used to staunch bleeding that is getting worse and worse. A tourniquet can be used in various ways, some beneficial if not used for too long, and some quite harmful, so I am not trying to suggest evaluation, etc. is not needed‹only that it does not seem to me appropriate to be using framings that seem to me pejorative. Mike MacCracken On 12/11/14 6:33 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : good shot from HuffPo. A recent scientific paper made similar points, namely that the monitoring and regulatory costs of CE would dwarf the engineering costs. I find these arguments compelling. I don't know whether it's common in the US, but the British idiom what can possibly go wrong (used to mock an extreme lack of foresight) may be instructive here. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6218576 HUFFPOST Don't Believe the Hype: Do Emerging Technologies Fall Foul of Their Own PR? Alexandra Gerrity 26/11/14 12:59 'Hype' might be more likely built up around the latest boyband, but many emerging technologies also rely on good marketing to bring in investment and support. Science might not get the queues (apart from the Apple store) but in the same way Apple has fumbled with the iPhone 6, many technologies are subject to a major backlash. So are emerging technologies being wounded by their own grand claims? Science is universal, right? Well, maybe it's not that simple. Science is different everywhere. Whereas the actual scientific information may be the same, the social, political, and economic factors that surround science mean that it can be different across the world. One notable example of this is the Thalidomidedisaster of the early 1960s. The precautionary principle is important in this case as it states that when risk is uncertain but plausible then actions should be taken to minimize the potential (or theoretical) harm. With reference to pre-natal care the precautionary principle is generally accepted as a good thing. The Thalidomide scandal highlights the potential consequences of ignoring that principle. Ultimately Thalidomide's aggressive marketing caused it to be hastily approved in the UK and elsewhere despite the improper testing. By contrast in the USA FDA scientist Dr. Frances Kelsey did not allow it to be prescribed without further testing so as to ensure that US citizens were protected and the drug was fully tested, this was largely due to the fact that alternatives were available.But what about the bigger ideas? The ones that are heralded to save our planet or solve our neo-Malthusian problems of overcrowding and resource depletion, where we're told the only alternative is destruction? Geoengineering is heralded as a way to solve our manmade environmental problems, created by our own 'innovations' and use of fossil fuels. When will we stop having to create technologies to cure the ailments caused by our previous technologies? Will Geoengineering cause us to be lax in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions? What will happen if this occurs and the Geongineering tactics do not work? All of these are relevant in the discussion of risk, but are we overstating the risks of Geoengineering and other emerging technologies because the benefits are being overstated? The 'novelty effect', as outlined byRayner, implies that the marketing of emerging technologies is falling into the same trap over, and over again: the 'novelty trap'. Nuclear Power explains this 'trap' pretty neatly. When it was first publicised Nuclear power was heralded as a change in technology of grand proportions to provide the power we need without using fossil fuels. It was lauded as being revolutionary, and too cheap to meter. But the reality was very different, unexpected costs incurred and the construction and running of plants created a multitude of potential dangers and health risks. In order to placate critics advocates of Nuclear Power argued that Nuclear Power was just a giant kettle, a new way of boiling water, harking back to the past to appease worry. When Nuclear Power was proposed as a revolutionary technology it created an atmosphere of fear as its benefits were overstated. To ease the minds of the public those in the industry downplayed this revolutionary aspect
Re: [geo] Negative Emissions Goals and Possibility | The Energy Collective
Regarding the phrase: ³2) Implementing highly untested and risky solar radiation management geoengineering techniques (such as injecting sulfates into the atmosphere)² it would sure be nice to have authors saying ³risky² (or is it ³highly risk²) versus what‹proceeding with climate change without SRM? In that the approaches draw from processes going on in the world now (e.g., volcanic eruptions, sulfate brightening of clouds) so there are some rough analogs and the intent is to keep close to present conditions, how is it that this is more risky than unconstrained climate change. Fine to say it may be more risky than various (though perhaps not al) of the CDR approaches, but given that the risk of unconstrained (or barely constrained given plans and actions to date) human-induced climate change is seen as so risky that we should be giving up the global fossil fuel energy system, it is a bit hard to fathom how SRM is more risky. Yes, right now uncertainties and it is untested, and there will be some unintended consequences, and there are governance, social, and equity issues as well (issues that we also have with the CO2 emissions), but in terms of risk and considering SRM as a complement and not a replacement for mitigation, etc., dismissing it as being risky does not seem convincing to me. Mike On 12/12/14 5:19 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2169321/are-negative-emissions-myth Are Negative Emissions a Myth? In a recent column for Project Syndicate, Lili Fuhr and Niclas Hallstrom rail against carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, counting them among the group of ³ineffective or impossible² solutions to climate change. The sad reality is that today, Fuhr and Hallstrom¹s conclusion is not that far from the truth for most most CDR solutions, which are not cost-competitive and/or technically-proven compared to other GHG abatement approaches. By far the best way to deal with climate change would be to follow Fuhr and Hallstrom¹s recommendation ³to reduce emissions fast, while developing alternative energy sources that allow us to leave fossil fuels in the ground.² But while ³this imperative is almost shockingly straightforward,² the reality of the situation is that we are not reducing emissions nearly fast enough: So what happens in the event that we don¹t follow Fuhr and Hallstrom¹s prescription for preventing climate change? Or even worse, what happens if it turns out thatwe need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere even further than we thought to avoid dangerous climate change? The only three options we would be left with are: 1) Failing to prevent climate change 2) Implementing highly untested and risky solar radiation management geoengineering techniques (such as injecting sulfates into the atmosphere) 3) Developing cost-effective and sustainable CDR systems to remove carbon from the atmosphere in addition to decarbonizing our economy. None of these options sound great, but option 3 (deploying CDR technologies at scale) is the only one that a) prevents climate change by dealing with its root cause, and b) doesn¹t introduce completely novel risks to our society in the process. So while CDR solutions might be ineffective today, CDR solutions could prove to be an absolutely criticaloption to preventing climate change in the future. Fuhr and Hallstrom are also right that some CDR approaches like biomass energy with CCS (bio-CCS) could ³have enormous development implications, provoking large-scale land, most likely from relatively poor people.² But Fuhr and Hallstrom are wrong that these negative consequences definitely ³would² happen, especially if a large portfolio of CDR approaches (spanning not just bio-CCS but also biochar, direct air capture, reforestation/ecosystem restoration, land management, and enhanced mineral weathering) were pursued to provide negative emissions.Instead of stridently arguing against CDR deployments, then, I would recommend that Fuhr and Hallstrom advocate for appropriate research on how to do CDR effectively and sustainably alongside broader decarbonization of the economy. Because the one thing I¹m sure of is this: the reality of our current political situation makes it a distinct probability that we don¹t decarbonize quickly enough to prevent climate change. And given this reality, investing today in an appropriate amount of RD to develop effective CDR solutions makes a lot of sense -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming - Scientific American
And yet another reasonable statement that in the end seems to me to overstate (unless one thinks he intentionally used ³predicted² to mean something different than ³projected²): ³And even at a miniscule scale engineering the climate remains a radical step with consequences for both the climate and civilization that cannot be predicted in advance.² It seems to me there is far greater likelihood of getting reasonable projections of the effects of ³miniscule scale engineering² (well, if they would indeed be above the noise given he says miniscule) than of the details of large-scale human-induced climate change. And if doing both, it is not clear to me that the uncertainty of the projections of human-induced climate change with climate engineering would be greater than of the projections of human-induced climate change without climate engineering. There are good reasons for climate engineering, once researched, not being more than a last ditch option, but it seems to me those arguments are other than it being more uncertain. Mike On 12/12/14 5:23 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-geoengineering-can-s olve-global-warming/ Fact or Fiction?: Geoengineering Can Solve Global Warming Neither blocking sunlight nor capturing carbon can stop climate change December 12, 2014 By David Biello A global deal to combat climate change lurches toward reality in Lima, Peru, this week‹and yet any politically feasible agreement will be insufficient to restrain continued warming of global average temperatures, perhaps uncomfortably high. Although recent pledges by China, the 28 countries of the European Union and the U.S. are the first signs of the possibility of restraining the endless growth of greenhouse gas pollution on a long-term basis, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have crossed the threshold of 400 parts per million‹and will reach 450 ppm in less than two decades at present growth rates. The estimated one trillion metric tons of carbon the atmosphere can absorb could be burned through in even less time, particularly if India, as it develops, picks up where China leaves off by burning coal without any attempt to capture the CO2 before the greenhouse gas spews from smokestacks. The world may find itself in need of another alternative, such as geoengineering, if catastrophic climate change begins to manifest, whether in the form of even more deadly heat waves, more crop-killing droughts, more rapid rises in sea level or accelerating warming as natural stores of carbon‹such as the ocean¹s methane hydrates‹melt down, releasing yet more greenhouse gases to drive yet more climate change. So maybe the answer is to genetically soup up plants so they can pull more CO2 out of the air and then bury them at the sea bottom? Or give the planet a giant sunshade, whether in the form of more clouds or a haze of light-reflecting sulfur bits floating in the stratosphere? In a crisis the temptation will be to use the quick fix of geoengineering, argued economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University at a research symposium on CO2 capture technologies this spring. If civilization continues, the unplanned, undirected geoengineering of the climate via burning fossil fuels‹whether coal in a power plant or oil sludge in a massive container ship steaming across the Pacific‹then perhaps nations will need to plan for a directed attempt at geoengineering or the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment as the U.K.'s Royal Society defines it. Still, scientists are starting to agree that geoengineering will prove insufficient for solving climate change. To understand this it helps to think of two distinct flavors of climate engineering: those that reduce greenhouse gases and those that block sunlight to keep the planet cool. The various sun-blocking schemes could be fast and cheap, like a fleet of airplanes spewingsulfur particles in the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions or an armada of ships brightening clouds by increasing the number of water droplets within them. On the other side, carbon removal schemes are slow and expensive, such as big air filters to suck CO2 out of the sky and bury it, turn it into fuel or otherwise keep it from trapping heat. Or the natural processes of rock weathering and plant growth that over geologic time constrain climate change could be sped up. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent comprehensive report suggested that one member of this set of ideas‹burning plants paired with CO2 capture and burial, aka bioenergy with carbon and capture, or BECCS‹might prove vital to restrain global warming. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided a $91-million loan guarantee in October to a company‹Cool Planet‹looking to build a kind of BECCS facility in Louisiana to make biofuels and biochar, a
Re: [geo] Article in Toronto Star quoting Jim Fleming and me
Hi Oliver--Yes, but quite possibly the cloud brightening effect would be far less than the rising concentrations of GHGs over time‹you really need to be doing a comparative analysis. And then also there is the question of statistical significance. Just sending this message also created a redistribution of heat that would, under the butterfly principle, change the weather‹the question is if the statistics are changed significantly or not. Mike On 11/15/14 5:09 PM, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote: Hi Stephen, 1. Cloud brightening (and any change in albedo) by sea spray or sulfate particles from DMS will change the heat distribution and temperature of the planet and therefore the winds. Best, Oliver Oliver Wingenter Assoc. Professor Department of Chemistry Research Scientist Geophysical Research Center New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM 87801 USA On 11/15/2014 4:56 AM, Stephen Salter wrote: Hi All Engineers who have to design reliable hardware are always glad to get advice from colleagues which might prevent mistakes. This advice is particularly valuable if it comes from people who have read the papers, studied the drawings and checked the algebra of the design equations. When I read Jim's comment about Rube Golberg ideas I immediately sent him a paper on the design ideas, asked him for technical criticism and offered to send him all my calculations. He has not got back to me yet but when he does, and with his permission, I would like to share them around the community. The more scutiny I can get the less chance of mistakes. If there is anyone else who can offer help in spotting potential problems about marine cloud brightening, please contact me and John Latham. Alan has done some valuable work with his list of 26 problems for solar radiation management using stratospheric sulphur. But there is not much overlap to marine cloud brightening in the troposphere and I hope he can produce a similar list. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 10/11/2014 15:03, Alan Robock wrote: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/11/09/many_experts_say_technology_c ant_fix_climate_change.html Many experts say technology can't fix climate change There are several geoengineering schemes for fixing climate change, but so far none seems a sure bet. By: Joseph Hall http://www.thestar.com/authors.hall_joe.html News reporter, Published on Sun Nov 09 2014 As scientific proposals go, these might well be labelled pie in the sky. Indeed, most of the atmosphere-altering techniques that have been suggested to combat carbon-induced global warming are more science fantasy than workable fixes, many climate experts say. ³I call them Rube Goldberg http://www.rubegoldberg.com/ ideas,² says James Rodger Fleming, a meteorological historian at Maine¹s Colby College, referring to the cartoonist who created designs for gratuitously complex contraptions. ³I think it¹s a tragic comedy because these people are sincere, but they¹re kind of deluded to think that there could be a simple, cheap, technical fix for climate change,² adds Fleming, author of the 2010 book Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. Yet the idea that geoengineering ‹ the use of technology to alter planet-wide systems ‹ could curb global warming has persisted in a world that seems incapable of addressing the root, carbon-spewing causes of the problem. And it emerged again earlier this month with a brief mention in a United Nations report on the scope and imminent perils of a rapidly warming world. That Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report http://www.ipcc.ch/ , which seemed to despair of an emissions-lowering solution being achieved ‹ laid out in broad terms the types of technical fixes currently being studied to help mitigate climate catastrophe. First among these proposed geoengineering solutions is solar radiation management, or SRM, which would involve millions of tons of sulphur dioxide (SO2) being pumped into the stratosphere every year to create sun-blocking clouds high above the Earth¹s surface. Anyone Canadian who remembers the unusually frigid summer of 1992, caused by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines a year earlier, grasps the cooling effects that tons of stratospheric SO2 can have on the planet. And because such natural occurrences show the temperature-lowering potential of the rotten-smelling substance, seeding the stratosphere with it has gained the most
Re: [geo] Re: Does CDR provide ³moral hazard² for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink
On this issue of the progress we can or cannot make, there is lots that can readily be done, and we can¹t give up pressing hard for it to happen rapidly: 1. In the US, at least, the estimate is still something like that efficiency improvements with existing technologies having a payback period of 3 years or so could reduce emissions of CO2 about 30%. 2. As the UNEP-WMO study on black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone showed, a reasonable effort could cut the projected warming from the present to 2050 in half. EDF showed a new chart at a Capitol Hill briefing on Thursday indicating how much natural gas leakage in the US could be cut with cost effective (i.e., three year or fewer payback) technologies right now‹a huge number. That the US, at least, is hardly trying, is disgraceful. 3. I just learned that in the national statistics for electricity production, the reason the solar component looks low is that the national compilation only counts the utility solar installations‹all the rest going in does not show on their statistics. Well, there is a huge amount of rooftop solar going in and doing very well (my 10 kW rooftop system, for example is giving me something like a 9% guaranteed return and a bit more in actuality‹and it is such beneficial outcomes that are leading to rapid proliferation). 4. On a number of these issues, the lawyers are helping a lot, pushing for regulations, etc. I, for one, am working on a legal declaration for one lawsuit to come soon, and another lawyer contacted me about another one if coming regulation is not adequate‹we have to keep at this, hard. So, I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup. So, once more, let¹s not circle the wagons and shoot in‹we need to be doing everything and not letting anyone off the hook on this. Best, Mike MacCracken On 11/2/14 9:42 AM, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi All - I agree with Greg here, and I would venture to say that we need to pay far more attention to photosynthesis and restoring a healthy natural carbon cycle (and accompanying water cycles) on over 12 billion acres of land worldwide. I suggest that it's the best, safest, cheapest and most effective form of geo-engineering that we could ever hope for. We, including the IPCC, all know that emissions reductions are insufficient to avoid catastrophic consequences of global warming, some of which are already playing out. And in any case it's apparent, based on twenty-five years of experience, that serious emissions reductions, despite important progress in non-carbon energy generation, aren't going to happen in any reasonable time frame. In light of current circumstances, I encourage everyone who is able to attend our upcoming ground-breaking conference, Restoring Ecosystems to Reverse Global Warming http://bio4climate.org/conference-2014 , on November 21-23, 2014 at Tufts University in the Boston area. Please pass the word! We have a remarkable roster of speakers including scientists, land managers and activists in a weekend of discussions around the power and extraordinary benefits of supporting nature's carbon-capture technology of photosynthesis. We'll explore how living processes can bridge political climate conflicts, return legacy atmospheric carbon to soils, reverse desertification and drought, and revive local economies and food supplies worldwide. Collectively we will make the case of how we've grossly underestimated soil-carbon storage potentials and what to do about it. Come, learn, ask questions, bring your expertise, challenge us - together let's work this out! Early bird rates through November 10th; student, non-profit and other discounts as well as volunteer opportunities are available. Please contact me if you have any questions, publicly or privately - I hope to see you there! Cheers! Adam === Adam Sacks Executive Director Biodiversity for a Livable Climate http://bio4climate.org === On Saturday, November 1, 2014 5:14:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : see images on Web https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/does-cdr-provide-morale-hazard -for-avoiding-deep-decarbonization-of-our-economy/ Everything and the Carbon Sink Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Does CDR provide ³moral hazard² for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? OCTOBER 24, 2014 No. But the fact that some environmentalists question the value of developing Carbon Dioxide Removal (³CDR²) approaches for this very reason merits greater analysis. The ³moral hazard² argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a ³Trojan horse² that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect
Re: [geo] Earth System Governance. World Politics in the Anthropocene | Earth System Governance
On the proposals: 1. World Environment Organization: How would this be different than UNEP (and a few parts of UNESCO, like the IOC)? 2. UN Sustainable Development Council: How would this be different than the UN Commission on Sustainable Development? 3. Etc.--sound nice but how would one really implement them? It seems to me it is not lack of information that is the problem‹it is a lack of commitment to action. Is the author really asking for a world government with some teeth. Fine idea, but there have been a good number of debates on that, and it is not at all clear that, across the board, having one world government with authority would lead to a better world than a multiparty world having many voices‹there is just no assurance that the right kind of leader would lead the world government. Now, he may address all of this, so I should read the book, but to my mind, the abstract does not sound as if it is really giving enough attention to the underlying and fundamental questions. Best, Mike On 11/2/14 1:05 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/publication/biermann-frank-earth-system-g overnance Earth System Governance Author(s):Biermann, Frank. Earth System Governance. World Politics in the Anthropocene.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2014. Humans are no longer spectators who need to adapt to their natural environment. Our impact on the earth has caused changes that are outside the range of natural variability and are equivalent to such major geological disruptions as ice ages. Some scientists argue that we have entered a new epoch in planetary history: the Anthropocene. In such an era of planet-wide transformation, we need a new model for planet-wide environmental politics. In this book, Frank Biermann proposes ³earth system² governance as just such a new paradigm.Biermann offers both analytical and normative perspectives. He provides detailed analysis of global environmental politics in terms of five dimensions of effective governance: agency, particularly agency beyond that of state actors; architecture of governance, from local to global levels; accountability and legitimacy; equitable allocation of resources; and adaptiveness of governance systems. Biermann goes on to offer a wide range of policy proposals for future environmental governance and a revitalized United Nations, including the establishment of a World Environment Organization and a UN Sustainable Development Council, new mechanisms for strengthened representation of civil society and scientists in global decision making, innovative systems of qualified majority voting in multilateral negotiations, and novel institutions to protect those impacted by global change. Drawing on ten years of research, Biermann formulates earth system governance as an empirical reality and a political necessity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News
However, briny water does increase vertical mixing (and sea ice forms not only in the Arctic, but in the far northern Atlantic, etc.), countering the effects of stratification that would limit vertical exchange of CO2. Mike On 9/23/14 7:34 PM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) is thought to primarily form in the open ocean and does not originate from the brine coming off the bottom of sea ice. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca mailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken Sent: September-23-14 6:32 PM To: Ken Caldeira; Greg Rau Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; soeren.rysga...@ad.umanitoba.ca Subject: Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News In my reading, the wording was very confusing. Reading more carefully, it seemed to me that they were saying that there will be less CO2 in the ocean as a result of melting back of the sea ice. An open Arctic with no sea ice formation would imply less down-welling due to not forming dense brine pockets, so one mechanism would be a consequence of that, and another might be due to the greater stability of the ocean in the warm season. I did not read the paper, but, once I got past some unclear wording, the sign sort of made sense. Mike On 9/23/14 1:52 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Agree with Greg. If there is any net effect of this process at all (relative to the no-ice situation) then quantitatively it must be tiny tiny tiny. If the alkalinity represented by the Ca2+ in the CaCO3 was in the surface ocean with no ice, that would tend to draw CO2 into the ocean. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric concentration of the gas. [?!] How does removing CO2 from air increase air CO2 concentrations? Anyway, can believe that CaCO3 precipitates and CO2 is generated as seawater freezes and brine is formed: Ca(HCO3)2aq --- CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O. But whether the CO2 is then subducted with the sinking brine or degasses to the atmosphere would seem critical to the air/ocean CO2 budget. That some CaCO3s is entrained in the the ice seems logical, but how the preceding reaction is reversed to consume this carbonate and CO2 is unclear. There would need to be a way to concentrate CO2 to generate H2CO3 to then consume the CaCO3s to (re)make Ca(HCO3)2aq. How does that happen? Anyway, if it does happen this would seem to offer a new explanation for glacial/ interglacial CO2 variations, not to mention a new method of modern day CDR - bomb sea ice sheets with limestone particles. Beneficial chemtrails on ice ;-) Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:56 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/arctic-sea-ice-depletion-to-result-in-r ise-of-co2-in-atmosphere_1474406.html Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere Last Updated: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:38 Washington: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric concentration of the gas. Dorte Haubjerg Sogaard, PhD Fellow, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, said that if their results are representative, then sea ice plays a greater role than expected, and we should take this into account in future global CO2 budgets. The researchers said that they have long known that the Earth's oceans are able to absorb huge amounts of CO2. But they also thought that this did not apply to ocean areas covered by ice, because the ice was considered impenetrable. However, this is not true, as the new research shows that sea ice in the Arctic draws large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean. Sogaard said that the chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed
Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News
In my reading, the wording was very confusing. Reading more carefully, it seemed to me that they were saying that there will be less CO2 in the ocean as a result of melting back of the sea ice. An open Arctic with no sea ice formation would imply less down-welling due to not forming dense brine pockets, so one mechanism would be a consequence of that, and another might be due to the greater stability of the ocean in the warm season. I did not read the paper, but, once I got past some unclear wording, the sign sort of made sense. Mike On 9/23/14 1:52 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Agree with Greg. If there is any net effect of this process at all (relative to the no-ice situation) then quantitatively it must be tiny tiny tiny. If the alkalinity represented by the Ca2+ in the CaCO3 was in the surface ocean with no ice, that would tend to draw CO2 into the ocean. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric concentration of the gas. [?!] How does removing CO2 from air increase air CO2 concentrations? Anyway, can believe that CaCO3 precipitates and CO2 is generated as seawater freezes and brine is formed: Ca(HCO3)2aq --- CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O. But whether the CO2 is then subducted with the sinking brine or degasses to the atmosphere would seem critical to the air/ocean CO2 budget. That some CaCO3s is entrained in the the ice seems logical, but how the preceding reaction is reversed to consume this carbonate and CO2 is unclear. There would need to be a way to concentrate CO2 to generate H2CO3 to then consume the CaCO3s to (re)make Ca(HCO3)2aq. How does that happen? Anyway, if it does happen this would seem to offer a new explanation for glacial/ interglacial CO2 variations, not to mention a new method of modern day CDR - bomb sea ice sheets with limestone particles. Beneficial chemtrails on ice ;-) Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:56 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/arctic-sea-ice-depletion-to-result-in- rise-of-co2-in-atmosphere_1474406.html Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere Last Updated: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:38 Washington: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of atmospheric concentration of the gas. Dorte Haubjerg Sogaard, PhD Fellow, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, said that if their results are representative, then sea ice plays a greater role than expected, and we should take this into account in future global CO2 budgets. The researchers said that they have long known that the Earth's oceans are able to absorb huge amounts of CO2. But they also thought that this did not apply to ocean areas covered by ice, because the ice was considered impenetrable. However, this is not true, as the new research shows that sea ice in the Arctic draws large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean. Sogaard said that the chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean -and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere. ANI -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[geo] On the effects of bunker fuel desulfurization
I was asked by a colleague about what is expected to happen as marine bunker fuels are desulfurized over the coming several years. My first response was that it would reduce the SO2 emissions and so the sulfate, and since sulfate adds to cooling, this would suggest the desulfurization would lead to a warming influence. But then, the key to cloud brightening is addition of CCN in relatively unpolluted regions (so yes, over remote oceans), but is not much of the ship traffic in relatively polluted regions? Experiments do seem to indicate that over-saturation of CCN tends to lead to cloud clearing--so basically we are in the Goldilocks situation--one needs to have neither too few CCN nor too many to get cloud brightening. So, might it be that in some polluted regions, reducing the SO2 emissions from marine sources might actually lead to an increase in clouds/cloud brightness? Has anyone done a really careful analysis of this? Do we really have good quantitative estimates of what might happen? And how might all of this play out as the other sources of SO2 are changing? Perhaps Stephen Salter, John Latham, Alan Gadian, et al. have a paper(s) on this that I have missed. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] On the effects of bunker fuel desulfurization
Sorry, Andrew, not the type of careful analysis that is needed. Polluted air blows off the continents and so doing cloud brightening would not work in those air masses, etc., which is why, as Stephen indicates, they want to avoid those areas, etc. Much of the NH mid-latitudes, for example, may have too much pollution all across the oceans for cloud brightening to work‹so what will happen when those polluted regions become less polluted‹will clouds appear or disappear, brighten or not? That is the question. Best, Mike On 8/14/14 11:59 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ship traffic terminates in busy ports, but on the high seas, they are relatively dispersed, and cross winds serve to distribute the sulphur and / or resulting aerosols. I remain of the opinion that making this change without good science is an extremely risky thing to do. A On 14 Aug 2014 16:43, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: I was asked by a colleague about what is expected to happen as marine bunker fuels are desulfurized over the coming several years. My first response was that it would reduce the SO2 emissions and so the sulfate, and since sulfate adds to cooling, this would suggest the desulfurization would lead to a warming influence. But then, the key to cloud brightening is addition of CCN in relatively unpolluted regions (so yes, over remote oceans), but is not much of the ship traffic in relatively polluted regions? Experiments do seem to indicate that over-saturation of CCN tends to lead to cloud clearing--so basically we are in the Goldilocks situation--one needs to have neither too few CCN nor too many to get cloud brightening. So, might it be that in some polluted regions, reducing the SO2 emissions from marine sources might actually lead to an increase in clouds/cloud brightness? Has anyone done a really careful analysis of this? Do we really have good quantitative estimates of what might happen? And how might all of this play out as the other sources of SO2 are changing? Perhaps Stephen Salter, John Latham, Alan Gadian, et al. have a paper(s) on this that I have missed. Mike MacCracken -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] On the effects of bunker fuel desulfurization
It would sure be nice if they showed the shipping routes on an equal area map instead of this projection. And surprising how few ships seem to be going in and out of Persian Gulf. Mike On 8/14/14 1:04 PM, David Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Not sure how dispersed ship traffic is, in fact. This site has some interesting data visualization for shipping patterns. http://sappingattention.blogspot.com/2014/03/shipping-maps-and-how-states-see. html From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:23 PM To: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] On the effects of bunker fuel desulfurization Sorry, Andrew, not the type of careful analysis that is needed. Polluted air blows off the continents and so doing cloud brightening would not work in those air masses, etc., which is why, as Stephen indicates, they want to avoid those areas, etc. Much of the NH mid-latitudes, for example, may have too much pollution all across the oceans for cloud brightening to work‹so what will happen when those polluted regions become less polluted‹will clouds appear or disappear, brighten or not? That is the question. Best, Mike On 8/14/14 11:59 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Ship traffic terminates in busy ports, but on the high seas, they are relatively dispersed, and cross winds serve to distribute the sulphur and / or resulting aerosols. I remain of the opinion that making this change without good science is an extremely risky thing to do. A On 14 Aug 2014 16:43, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: I was asked by a colleague about what is expected to happen as marine bunker fuels are desulfurized over the coming several years. My first response was that it would reduce the SO2 emissions and so the sulfate, and since sulfate adds to cooling, this would suggest the desulfurization would lead to a warming influence. But then, the key to cloud brightening is addition of CCN in relatively unpolluted regions (so yes, over remote oceans), but is not much of the ship traffic in relatively polluted regions? Experiments do seem to indicate that over-saturation of CCN tends to lead to cloud clearing--so basically we are in the Goldilocks situation--one needs to have neither too few CCN nor too many to get cloud brightening. So, might it be that in some polluted regions, reducing the SO2 emissions from marine sources might actually lead to an increase in clouds/cloud brightness? Has anyone done a really careful analysis of this? Do we really have good quantitative estimates of what might happen? And how might all of this play out as the other sources of SO2 are changing? Perhaps Stephen Salter, John Latham, Alan Gadian, et al. have a paper(s) on this that I have missed. Mike MacCracken -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Re: Enough of govern-nonsense
I¹d like to suggest that one reason that working through both the governance and the science of SRM will be so challenging is the very large jump being proposed, namely from doing no intentional climate engineering to taking control of the global climate. That is a huge leap, necessary as it may be to contemplate for some time in the decades ahead if negotiations prove as fruitless as they have so far. It seems to me that discussions might prove more practical and possible if the discussion was about some interim types of efforts that might be explored. For example, there have been suggestions about how to potentially moderate the increased intensification of hurricanes/tropical cyclones, which are suggested to be one of the adverse consequences of climate change. One approach suggested was to position barges in the track of storms and vertically mix ocean waters to cool the surface waters and reduce the ability of the storm to draw heat from the ocean; another approach proposed has been to use cloud brightening over an extended time to cool the waters that such storms typically pass over, so reducing the statistical likelihood of very severe storms rather than trying to limit the intensification of a particular storm. For those living, for example, in the southeastern US and Caribbean basin, or in the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan and East Asia, research to figure out if such a moderation could be be done (and there was once an indication that the Department of Homeland Security might be supporting such research) and to consider the many social science and governance issues might make for a much more focused and hopefully productive discussion. Similar discussions might focus on a number of additional specific interventions that might or might not be technically feasible and might or might not be conceivable in terms of governance and societal implications. Examples that might be considered might include seeking to cool the Arctic/slow permafrost thawing/slow loss of mass from ice sheets, seeking to modify storm tracks in order to moderate areas of intense drought, seeking to offset the loss of sulfate cooling that will come from closing down coal-fired power plants, and there are surely other ideas. Each of these proposals has a quite specific goal in mind as opposed to reversing the increase in global average temperature. Some would mainly affect (in terms of beneficial and/or harmful influences) far fewer numbers than the full global population. It just seems to me that exploring the potential issues (in terms of the physical and socio-political-ethical aspects) would make for a much more focused and manageable discussion that would help to provide insights for moving on to the possible need for a full global intervention (and it is for this reason my recent papers have focused on such possibilities). I don¹t really know if any could actually be made to work in a scientific sense (yes, doing something in one spot affects everywhere, but is the effect noticeable everywhere and how would such an effect compare to the ongoing changes that are occurring‹so there are issues of relative importance of an effect, etc.), and I don¹t know if regional governance (e.g., as might be most relevant in the case of offsetting Arctic warming or moderating tropical cyclone intensification) would make the discussion of societal and ethical aspects any easier, but it does seem to me that there is the potential for more insightful, productive, and even relevant discussion if the jump from doing no climate engineering were to potential quite focused interventions than to taking full global control. Mike MacCracken On 8/8/14 12:33 PM, Cush Ngonzo Luwesi cushngo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello guys, cool down. Governance is for your own good. The latin people say Science without conscience is lethal for the soul. This is all about governance. It is about restricting our freedom so that we may not overstep the right of other people to life. If the NASA would take the risk of accepting volunteers as treatment in its experiments, than we would lost the principle of sacredness of life, especially human life. We shall not present CE has opposed to life rather than a means of sustenance to life. Let social scientists and governing institutions scrutinize CE motives, goals and targets while we are deepening the modelling part for the better living in our global society. Cheers!!! Dr Cush Ngonzo Luwesi (PhD) Lecturer Department of Geography, Office G2B Kenyatta University Main Campus, Thika Road P.O. Box 43844 - 00100 Nairobi Tel +254 710 149 676 Corporate Email: luwesi.c...@ku.ac.ke Profile: (1) http://www.ku.ac.ke/schools/humanities/faculty/faculty-profiles/87-faculty/293 -dr-cush-ngonzo-luwesi (2) http://kenyatta.academia.edu/CushNgonzoLuwesi (3) www.researchgate.net/profile/Cush_Ngonzo_Luwesi (4) http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eHKAx0cJhl=en
Re: [geo] A Win-Win research program proposal on SRM (sunlight reflection methods)
be that one could use sea salt CCN instead of sulfate‹note I am proposing going above the marine clouds to try to get a bit longer lifetime and injecting enough to also have a clear sky effect‹whether doing that is worth the cost and effort would need to be evaluated in terms of cost of doing, inadvertent and intended outcomes, etc. But I don¹t see how this type of approach would be riskier than augmenting the stratospheric aerosol layer. Of course, this is why we need a good research program to really explore the various approaches and try to hone and refine them so as to maximize desired and minimize undesired outcomes. Mike Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D. Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs Climate Institute Suite 430 1400 16th Street N.W. Washington DC 20036-2217 Tel. 202-552-0163 Home (and home office): 301-564-4255 Email: mmacc...@comcast.net On 8/5/14 3:45 PM, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear Mike, I don't understand this suggestion. Because of the shorter sulfate lifetime than in the stratosphere (even if it is more than the 1 week you get for surface injections), you would require a much larger sulfur injection for the same radiative forcing as compared to the stratosphere, and a much larger resulting acid deposition in remote areas. And how could you be guaranteed to maintain the emissions from a lot of stacks from small enterprises that would keep changing over time based on business variations and local environmental laws? This seems to be a much riskier strategy even than stratospheric injections from a centralized operation. And why would you think most removal would be in the ITCZ? That would require the sulfate to enter the ITCZ from the surface in specific tropical regions. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 8/5/2014 2:39 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Re: [geo] A Win-Win research program proposal on SRM (sunlight reflection methods) Regarding this proposal for sustaining the sulfate cooling influence, the suggestion on this that I have been making for several years (see refs below, among others) is similar: rather than having a relatively high sulfate loading concentrated over populated areas, inject SO2 above the boundary layer (important to promote a longer lifetime) to create thinner sulfate layers over much larger remote areas of the ocean (e.g., over the Pacific and Indian Oceans), hoping to promote both clear sky and cloudy sky brightness. Doing this over the ocean would take advantage of its low albedo so that the sulfates would not be offsetting reflected solar radiation from the surface. Doing this over larger areas and at lower loadings would tend to moderate the change in energy in a given area, although there would need to be testing of this. Most removal might come in ITCZ rains, mostly over the ocean. Mike MacCracken MacCracken, M. C., 2009: Beyond Mitigation: Potential Options for Counter-Balancing the Climatic and Environmental Consequences of the Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, Policy Research Working Paper (RWP) 4938, The World Bank, Washington, DC, May 2009, 43 pp. MacCracken, M. C., 2009: On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change impacts, Environmental Research Letters, 4 (October-December 2009) 045107 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045107 [http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/4/045107/erl9_4_045107.html]. MacCracken, M. C., 2011: Potential Applications of Climate Engineering Technologies to Moderation of Critical Climate Change Impacts, IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering, 20-22 June 2011, Lima, Peru, pages 55-56 in Meeting Report, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, C. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen, and M. Mastrandrea, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. On 8/1/14 8:53 AM, ecologist ecologi...@gmail.com wrote: Currently, anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols present both Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde faces. On the one hand, tropospheric aerosols play an important role on climate, with a net cooling radiative forcing effect. On the other hand, tropospheric aerosols affect terrestrial ecosystems and human health and are associated with increased heart, lung and respiratory diseases, which lead
Re: [geo] A Win-Win research program proposal on SRM (sunlight reflection methods)
Research could look at that, but the approach I propose would put the SO2 above the boundary layer, which would let it spread more broadly, lead to a longer lifetime, and why limit one¹s coverage so much to shipping lanes? It seems to me that the bunker fuel suggestion is closer to what the cloud brightening approach is attempting. Mike On 8/5/14 5:06 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Better perhaps to adjust bunker fuel sulphur. Jason Blackstock (cc) did some excellent work on this, which I don't think got published. Presently the trend is for desulphurisation of marine bunker fuel, giving perfectly sensible port air quality improvements. This is, I understand, now the subject of legislation. However, in the deep ocean, these sulphur cuts result in measurable global warming. Simply replacing the bunker fuel sulphur for open ocean use would potentially be helpful. I hope there's some research on this in the literature, but presently I'm unaware of any. A On 5 Aug 2014 20:45, Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu wrote: Dear Mike, I don't understand this suggestion. Because of the shorter sulfate lifetime than in the stratosphere (even if it is more than the 1 week you get for surface injections), you would require a much larger sulfur injection for the same radiative forcing as compared to the stratosphere, and a much larger resulting acid deposition in remote areas. And how could you be guaranteed to maintain the emissions from a lot of stacks from small enterprises that would keep changing over time based on business variations and local environmental laws? This seems to be a much riskier strategy even than stratospheric injections from a centralized operation. And why would you think most removal would be in the ITCZ? That would require the sulfate to enter the ITCZ from the surface in specific tropical regions. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 tel:%2B1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 tel:%2B1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 8/5/2014 2:39 PM, Mike MacCracken wrote: Regarding this proposal for sustaining the sulfate cooling influence, the suggestion on this that I have been making for several years (see refs below, among others) is similar: rather than having a relatively high sulfate loading concentrated over populated areas, inject SO2 above the boundary layer (important to promote a longer lifetime) to create thinner sulfate layers over much larger remote areas of the ocean (e.g., over the Pacific and Indian Oceans), hoping to promote both clear sky and cloudy sky brightness. Doing this over the ocean would take advantage of its low albedo so that the sulfates would not be offsetting reflected solar radiation from the surface. Doing this over larger areas and at lower loadings would tend to moderate the change in energy in a given area, although there would need to be testing of this. Most removal might come in ITCZ rains, mostly over the ocean. Mike MacCracken MacCracken, M. C., 2009: Beyond Mitigation: Potential Options for Counter-Balancing the Climatic and Environmental Consequences of the Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, Policy Research Working Paper (RWP) 4938, The World Bank, Washington, DC, May 2009, 43 pp. MacCracken, M. C., 2009: On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change impacts, Environmental Research Letters, 4 (October-December 2009) 045107 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045107 [http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/4/045107/erl9_4_045107.html]. MacCracken, M. C., 2011: Potential Applications of Climate Engineering Technologies to Moderation of Critical Climate Change Impacts, IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering, 20-22 June 2011, Lima, Peru, pages 55-56 in Meeting Report, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, C. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen, and M. Mastrandrea, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. On 8/1/14 8:53 AM, ecologist ecologi...@gmail.com http://ecologi...@gmail.com wrote: Currently, anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols present both Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde faces. On the one hand, tropospheric aerosols play an important role on climate, with a net cooling radiative forcing effect. On the other hand, tropospheric
Re: [geo] Iron fertilization could backfire -- ScienceDaily
What an interesting possible component of a feedback process‹if the climate gets cold and more dust (iron) blows onto the oceans, the diatoms take up the iron, so less CO2 is taken up and that would allow for more warming. And vice-versa, if the climate gets warm with lots of vegetation, dust (iron) to the ocean goes down, starving the diatoms of iron and the plankton that take up CO2 with less need for iron dominate, pulling CO2 concentration down. Is this a possible Gaian negative (stabilizing) feedback process? Is this the real process and DMS cycle just a symbiotic process along with it‹or vice-versa? Mike MacCracken On 7/20/14 9:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising global levels. These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that absorb CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the carbon-eating plankton. Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging the food, said Ellery Ingall, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-lead author on this result. Everyone else in line gets nothing; the person's decision affects these other people. Because of this iron-hogging behavior, the process of adding iron to surface water -- called iron fertilization or iron seeding -- may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the iron and starving off the diatom's plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for nutrients, reducing the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed marine life. While scientists have known for a long time that phytoplankton use iron to fuel the process of photosynthesis, there are gaps in their understanding of how this iron cycling process works. Those gaps led scientists to miss how large an amount of iron was getting trapped in those sinking skeletons and removed permanently from the food chain. X-ray studies at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne gave scientists a way to measure the ratio of iron and silica in the plankton and surface water. Being able to use X-rays and see the element content of individual microscopic phytoplankton has completely altered our perspective on how these organisms use iron and how that could affect CO2 levels, Ingall said. In the paper Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the Antarctic seas published June 10 in the journal Nature Communications, scientists conservatively estimate that 2.5 milligrams of iron annually is removed from every square meter of surface water in the Ross Sea and sequestered in silica skeletons on the ocean floor. This is roughly equivalent to the total amount of iron deposited annually into the Ross Sea surface through snow melt, dust and upwelling of seawater. The same process may be occurring in the Southern Ocean and having a greater impact there, because this region dictates the nutrient mix for the rest of the world's oceans through migratory current patterns. More study is needed to know just how much iron is used to make the silica skeletons and how much gets trapped on the ocean floor, the researchers said. This gap in our knowledge, combined with renewed interest in iron fertilization as an approach to the current climate crisis, makes it crucial that we have an improved understanding of iron cycling in marine systems, Ingall said. Measurements of iron and silicon content in silica from living phytoplankton collected in the coastal seas of West Antarctica was derived through X-ray analysis on beamlines 2-ID-D and 2-ID-E at the Advanced Photon Source using microscopy and fluorescence techniques. High-resolution imaging, chemical identification and the ability to focus X-rays on an ultra small area of about 200 by 200 nanometers were key to this analysis. For comparison, it would take 500 samples of this size
[geo] Small scale geoengineering
So, here, from a slightly different field and not perfect, is perhaps a metaphor for how the public thinks about geoengineering as a way to address climate change, giving a sense of the challenge we will have of convincing those on the street about the sanity of what we are proposing: US considers dropping bombs in ocean to scare whales from potential oil slicks. Proponents of two controversial pipelines to British Columbia's coast say they would consider deploying underwater firecrackers, helicopters and clanging pipes, among other methods, to warn whales away from any oil spill that might result from increased tanker traffic. Globe and Mail, Ontario Just a thought. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice
I¹m a bit baffled (and late in responding. The sea water temperatures are typically very near freezing. The idea might work in the fall but I don¹t see how it works the rest of the year (ocean temperatures too near freezing in the winter; air temperatures too high in spring and summer). Mike On 5/17/14 5:57 PM, ecologist ecologi...@gmail.com wrote: Greg, Ron, Peter, Geo-group The technology proposed by Zhou and Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_ Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf to ³re-ice the Arctic² during the winter uses snow cannons powered by wind turbines floating on barges. In his doctoral thesis of Dr. Denis Bonnelle proposed a similar technology called ³Polar air and water freezing towers² for Polar Regions like in northern Norway or Alaska, where high mountains are close to the sea. The scheme of the thermal device proposed by Bonnelle (pages 120-125 http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf ) consist in transporting sea water till the top of northern mountains where the air is very cold, have a heat exchange between the cold air and the water which is carried back downhill to the ocean just before freezing, where floating ice and saltier water are released. The water is transported up and down in an open conveyor, cooled at the top of the mountain under a tall chimney, where the air that cooled the water has been warmed up and rises. The buoyancy of this hotter air than ambient warms drives turbines at the bottom of the chimney, producing renewable energy. There are multiple benefits provided by this thermal device: at the tower output moist air is released, which can favor snow falls, and thus increase the polar albedo replacing old ice on glaciers, probably polluted with soot and black carbon by whiter and fresher snow with high albedo. The ice released in the sea increases sea ice content, and increases Earth albedo. The saltier water released helps to the preservation of downwelling ocean currents and, last but not least, carbon-free electricity is produced. The capacity of these ³Polar air and water freezing towers² and ³ice-producing barges² to re-ice the Arctic, increase Earth albedo and to prevent methane hydrates destabilization deserves more scientific studies to prove the concept, which is worth being evaluated in light of the potential multiple benefits. Many other similar concepts are proposed in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-736FYU1t7Xc/U3falM8NXvI/ACA/XW0kZ4 G3FeA/s1600/snow-cannons+for+Refreezing+the+Arctic.jpg Scheme of the ³snow-cannons to re-ice the Arctic² proposed by P. Flynn [1] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_ Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf Image: A.Naeg/AFP/Scanpix. The ³ice-producing barges² are powered by wind turbines. https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Bmz8Oj_8bLE/U3fasZsHqGI/ACI/SqtcuL SbqEA/s1600/sea+ice+Polar+Device+from+Bonnelle.jpg Scheme of the ³water freezing towers² to re-ice the Arctic proposed by D. Bonnelle [2] http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf , also in [3] [1] S. Zhou P.C. Flynn. Geoengineering downwelling ocean currents: a cost assessment https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Hurricanes/Flynn%20downwelling.pdf , Clim Change, 71 (1-2) (2005), pp. 203-220. [2] D. Bonnelle. Solar chimney, water spraying energy tower, and linked renewable energy conversion devices: presentation, criticism and proposals. Doctoral thesis, July 2004 at University Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, France http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Ener gy-towers_etc.pdf (Registration Number: 129-2004) [3] D. Bonnelle. Vent artificiel OETall is Beautifull¹. Cosmogone Ed. 2003, ISBN: 2-914238-33-9 http://www.cosmogone.com/e_cosmogone/?fond=produitid_produit=100id_rubrique =26 , Lyon, France [in French]. Le mardi 13 mai 2014 17:07:43 UTC+2, peter.flynn a écrit : -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Sea Ice
Deriving energy from the very large wintertime temperature gradient is actually an idea I explored way back in the 1980s. I was going to use the gradient to make a fuel (hydrogen or something similar) that could be carried via a large submarine to lower latitudes. The problem, however, that I don't see how one gets around is keeping the above-ice structure (the condenser) from becoming covered by ice, which would act as an insulator and so really lower the efficiency. In addition, in that one is deriving the energy from the heat released as water freezes, one would also have to worry about ice coating the below-ice structure (the evaporator). It all just seemed to be rather difficult engineering. Mike On 5/14/14 9:20 PM, pcfl...@ualberta.ca pcfl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Greg, The delta T would likely average 20 to 25 C: sea water near 4, surface temperature average probably -20. Other OTEC projects would likely have the same delta T. One merit of doing this in the arctic is that the ocean is the warm source, and the problem of liberation of CO2 from a deep ocean source at surface is avoided. The capital cost of building that far in the north is very high, and the local demand for power low as well. We need to be careful not to reject any idea prematurely, but we should recognize that the locational difficulties for useful energy in the far north are severe. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: Rau, Greg [mailto:r...@llnl.gov] Sent: May-14-14 6:29 PM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] Sea Ice Any chance to transform that thermal energy to useful forms while you are at it? Arctic OTEC. In the winter that could be some serious Delta T. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:21 AM To: pcfl...@ualberta.ca Cc: Ronal Larson; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Sea Ice On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Ron et al., Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice: Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods, pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. There is a third method, a completely passive one. It's used to keep the permafrost from melting under the Alaskan pipeline. There are a huge number of thermal diodes that suck heat out of the permafrost when the air is colder. No moving parts, they contain a radiator on the top and are a closed cylinder with a few gallons of a low boiling liquid inside. It would take an awful lot of them, but a floating version would not be very expensive. They might be even more useful to freeze glaciers to the bedrock on land. If you make a case of the thermal diodes being a test of a geoengineering method, they have been in service since 1977. Keith -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Jonah Goldberg (from AEI) : Wild hasn't been pure in 10,000 years | National Columnists | ADN.com
How is it that AEI, US, GE, Dutch, England, Australian, Aboriginal and Neanderthals (and even Arctic) merit an initial capital letter, but the planet ³earth,² among all the planets, does not get similar respect. Sorry, it is a burr under my saddle, for I don¹t think that the convention of not capitalizing earth, moon, and sun, but capitalizing God, is not coincidental but a way to put down those espousing natural religions. Not just to avoid confusion with earth=dirt, we need to capitalize Earth and give it the respect it deserves‹it is the only one we have. Mike On 5/2/14 1:33 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for those helpful comments. I wasn't aware of the background of the individual author. I've previously flagged up content from the American Enterprise Institute as suspect, but I felt that's uncomfortably close to ad hominem. I felt it more appropriate to label the material instead. Despite the lack of scientific credentials, which has been usefully pointed out, I still think the article makes worthwhile reading - not least as an insight into a typically US-conservative slant on GE. To consider the content directly : Whilst the earth's population was lower in the past, the extent of changes was still dramatic. Loss of megafauna and fire clearing are just two examples of major ecosystems change that are not incomparable to geoengineering in their effects. Personally, I think we're perhaps a little too timid about geoengineering as a society. As has been pointed out on this list before many times, the background is global climate change. I think the Dutch engineers who built the fenlands in England, or the Australian Aboriginal torchmen, would have been much less cautious about deploying a 'right wing technofix' than we are prone to being. The world survived their efforts, and it will survive GE. It may not survive climate change, just like the Neanderthals didn't survive their final glacial. On 2 May 2014 04:25, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Jonah Goldberg also once proposed we should build floating wooden platforms for Arctic seals to lounge on, in the absense of Arctic ice floes He is an ideological animal who will clearly say whatever it takes to maintain his and his mother's ideology. I can't believe any thinking person would take him seriously. David On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Andrew etal 1. I don¹t see that Goldberg's blog about ³wild² and OIF adds much to our discussions on this list. Anyone reading Prof. Ruddiman has heard a lot more detail than this below, on how we have screwed up the planet. If there is something in his remarks that will help with climate change issues of any type, I fail to see it. Taking about a time period when the global population was three orders of magnitude smaller isn¹t helping solve anything 2. To better get at his climate/warming views, I recommend this commentary on Mr. Goldberg¹s views from a week ago at a blog I admire. http://climatecrocks.com/2014/04/25/climate-denial-doofus-of-the-week-jonah- goldberg/ I take Sinclair¹s main point to be that Mr. Goldberg has no reason to be called an expert on any climate topic. 3. And/or at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374887/climate-activists-uncaged-jonah -goldberg#comments Goldberg¹s previous blog piece of April 3 entitled Climate Activists Uncaged http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374887/climate-activists-uncaged-jona h-goldberg ³ (speaking presumably about most of us who are somehow uncaged, he said parenthetically: (My own view is that man plays some role in warming, but the threat is overblown and the popular remedies range from trivial to unaffordable to ridiculous.)² Ron On May 1, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : op ed, but quite an interesting perspective ç http://www.adn.com/2014/04/30/3449395/jonah-goldberg-wild-hasnt-been.html http://climatecrocks.com/2014/04/25/climate-denial-doofus-of-the-week-jonah -goldberg/ Jonah Goldberg: Wild hasn't been pure in 10,000 years April 30, 2014 The pristine natural world has been gone for a long time; get used to it.Nearly all of the earthworms in New England and the upper Midwest were inadvertently imported from Europe. The American earthworms were wiped out by the last Ice Age. That's why when European colonists first got here, many forest floors were covered in deep drifts of wet leaves. The wild horses of the American West may be no less invasive than the Asian carp advancing on the Great Lakes. Most species of the tumbleweed, icon of the Old West, are actually from Russia or Asia.The notion that America was wild when Europeans found it is more than a little racist; it assumes Indians didn't act like humans everywhere else by changing their environment. Native Americans
[geo] Recognition of article on Ocean Fertilization
This article notes that the Hutchinson medal [was] awarded to SOLAS scientists for the article 'Ocean fertilization: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance.' you can access the article at: http://solas-int.org/news/items/id-2013-hutchinson-medal-awarded-to-solas-sc ientists.html Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Physics Today article
And then there is Holdren¹s rebuttal of Christy. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielk e-climate-drought/ Mike On 3/4/14 4:15 PM, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy Spencer graph of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnide r-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/ Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts paper in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later. David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5. 8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Physics Today article
OOPS‹wrong skeptic. But article is god in any case. Mike And then there is Holdren¹s rebuttal of Christy. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielk e-climate-drought/ Mike On 3/4/14 4:15 PM, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy Spencer graph of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnide r-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/ Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts paper in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later. David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5. 8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering | The Lawrentian
I'd be delighted if that could be the case, but I am not sure we have the time to wait until it clearly is the case. We have, over the years, been promised electricity too inexpensive to monitor (for nuclear) and even more, perhaps with fusion. There has been too much time spent waiting--we need to get going aggressively now. Mike On 2/23/14 2:58 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: Mike, I think the entire idea of sacrifice is the wrong approach. What we need is a huge new source of cheap, non carbon energy. So cheap that fossil fuels are driven out of the market by being more expensive in comparison to the new source. And rather than giving up annual pay raises, how about dropping the cost of your utility bills and synthetic gasoline for a dollar a gallon? A challenge yes, but I would suggest as possible. I am not looking for paradise on earth, but an energy rich future is much more attractive than the opposite. Keith On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Agreed--it would have helped (at least conceptually) if I had said essentially phase down and out over several decades, which I would suggest is possible if we put our minds to it, even with population going up (phase in the internalization of the costs of climate change on fossil fuels and be willing to sacrifice some--so phasing up to what might be a few percent of GDP over a few decades--so equivalent to giving up an annual pay raise for one year per decade, say). A challenge yes, but I would suggest as possible. Mike On 2/23/14 12:01 AM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: world must totally give up fossil fuels There is a little bit of a political problem there, which is why you don't see sufficient action. For the foreseeable future, giving up fossil fuel energy would result in the death of perhaps 6 billion people. Now you can argue, and I won't disagree, that we let the population grow beyond what can be supported on conventional renewable energy. But that's what we have. A politically acceptable solution would have to include a way that does not involve 6 out of 7 people dying. I think I know a way this can be done, but am a long way from certain about it. Not to mention that it has known problems. Keith And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would offset--offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and irreversibilities such as loss of tens of percent of global biodiversity, sea level rise of many meters, and more. Much less any discussion of the various potential forms of geoengineering and adaptive application of it, perhaps using SRM to slow in near-term and CDR drawdown of CO2 as an exit strategy, etc. Mike MacCracken On 2/21/14 9:26 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706 Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture titled Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible? in Steitz Hall of Science.The lecture covered a brief introduction to geoengineering, its ethical challenges and the political difficulties faced by geoengineering.According to the lecture, geoengineering is defined as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Solar radiation management (SRM), a theoretical type of geoengineering which aims to reflect sunlight back into space to reduce global warming, was the main topic of Egede-Nissen's lecture.Egede-Nissen believed that there are some limitations on SRM. He said that though SRM is able to block the sunlight, the CO2 is still left on the earth, so SRM only treats the symptoms, not the causes of global warming. In order to gradually get rid of the CO2, people have to continue to use SRM, and due to the slow negative emission, it will take a very long time to achieve. This is another limitation, he said.Egede-Nissen also said that once the use of SRM begins, people would face the exit problem of SRM. Also, it is extremely hard to predict the effects of the SRM on the climate, so there is also unpredictable risk to using SRM.When considering SRM, Egede-Nissen said we must also think about the ethical challenges.He admitted that there are some justifications of doing SRM research, including the cost-benefit analysis, the value of scientific research and the emergency options for SRM research. According to Egede-Nissen, the SRM can be comparatively cheap
Re: [geo] Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering | The Lawrentian
Agreed--it would have helped (at least conceptually) if I had said essentially phase down and out over several decades, which I would suggest is possible if we put our minds to it, even with population going up (phase in the internalization of the costs of climate change on fossil fuels and be willing to sacrifice some--so phasing up to what might be a few percent of GDP over a few decades--so equivalent to giving up an annual pay raise for one year per decade, say). A challenge yes, but I would suggest as possible. Mike On 2/23/14 12:01 AM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: world must totally give up fossil fuels There is a little bit of a political problem there, which is why you don't see sufficient action. For the foreseeable future, giving up fossil fuel energy would result in the death of perhaps 6 billion people. Now you can argue, and I won't disagree, that we let the population grow beyond what can be supported on conventional renewable energy. But that's what we have. A politically acceptable solution would have to include a way that does not involve 6 out of 7 people dying. I think I know a way this can be done, but am a long way from certain about it. Not to mention that it has known problems. Keith And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would offset--offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and irreversibilities such as loss of tens of percent of global biodiversity, sea level rise of many meters, and more. Much less any discussion of the various potential forms of geoengineering and adaptive application of it, perhaps using SRM to slow in near-term and CDR drawdown of CO2 as an exit strategy, etc. Mike MacCracken On 2/21/14 9:26 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706 Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture titled Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible? in Steitz Hall of Science.The lecture covered a brief introduction to geoengineering, its ethical challenges and the political difficulties faced by geoengineering.According to the lecture, geoengineering is defined as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Solar radiation management (SRM), a theoretical type of geoengineering which aims to reflect sunlight back into space to reduce global warming, was the main topic of Egede-Nissen's lecture.Egede-Nissen believed that there are some limitations on SRM. He said that though SRM is able to block the sunlight, the CO2 is still left on the earth, so SRM only treats the symptoms, not the causes of global warming. In order to gradually get rid of the CO2, people have to continue to use SRM, and due to the slow negative emission, it will take a very long time to achieve. This is another limitation, he said.Egede-Nissen also said that once the use of SRM begins, people would face the exit problem of SRM. Also, it is extremely hard to predict the effects of the SRM on the climate, so there is also unpredictable risk to using SRM.When considering SRM, Egede-Nissen said we must also think about the ethical challenges.He admitted that there are some justifications of doing SRM research, including the cost-benefit analysis, the value of scientific research and the emergency options for SRM research. According to Egede-Nissen, the SRM can be comparatively cheap, but the long time-frame required and the side effects of doing SRM research can be cause for reconsideration.At the end of the talk, Egede-Nissen said he wanted to leave an irrelevant take home message. He said,The environment is a bathtub. He explained that if we put the carbon in the earth, it would drain out of the atmosphere in a much slower rate. He believed that it is a very common misunderstanding to think that stopping emissions today will improve the situation, because the past emissions will remain there for hundreds of years.Freshman Sara Zaccarine said that it was interesting that his talk aimed at raising questions rather than answering them. She said, His examples are very relevant to us and it is helpful to understand a lot more. She also likes that he brought the large-scale issue down to more specific points.Sophomore Lena Bixby thinks the ethical issues are important. People have the technology, but we are not doing anything about the problem. She said it is like a moral test: Are we doing anything wrong by not doing anything
Re: [geo] Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering | The Lawrentian
And apparently no mention at all of the adverse impacts that SRM would offset‹offsets so serious that there is global agreement (if not yet sufficient action) that the world must totally give up fossil fuels to avoid, that are viewed as potentially having nonlinearities and irreversibilities such as loss of tens of percent of global biodiversity, sea level rise of many meters, and more. Much less any discussion of the various potential forms of geoengineering and adaptive application of it, perhaps using SRM to slow in near-term and CDR drawdown of CO2 as an exit strategy, etc. Mike MacCracken On 2/21/14 9:26 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002706 Visiting lecturer discusses moral quandaries in geoengineering POSTED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2014 BY XUE YAN On Tuesday, Feb. 18, Bjornar Egede-Nissen, from the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario, gave a lecture titled ³Geoengineering: Ethically Challenged, Politically Impossible?² in Steitz Hall of Science.The lecture covered a brief introduction to geoengineering, its ethical challenges and the political difficulties faced by geoengineering.According to the lecture, geoengineering is defined as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Solar radiation management (SRM), a theoretical type of geoengineering which aims to reflect sunlight back into space to reduce global warming, was the main topic of Egede-Nissen¹s lecture.Egede-Nissen believed that there are some limitations on SRM. He said that though SRM is able to block the sunlight, the CO2 is still left on the earth, so SRM only treats the symptoms, not the causes of global warming. In order to gradually get rid of the CO2, people have to continue to use SRM, and due to the slow negative emission, it will take a very long time to achieve. This is another limitation, he said.Egede-Nissen also said that once the use of SRM begins, people would face the exit problem of SRM. Also, it is extremely hard to predict the effects of the SRM on the climate, so there is also unpredictable risk to using SRM.When considering SRM, Egede-Nissen said we must also think about the ethical challenges.He admitted that there are some justifications of doing SRM research, including the cost-benefit analysis, the value of scientific research and the emergency options for SRM research. According to Egede-Nissen, the SRM can be comparatively cheap, but the long time-frame required and the side effects of doing SRM research can be cause for reconsideration.At the end of the talk, Egede-Nissen said he wanted to leave an ³irrelevant² take home message. He said,³The environment is a bathtub.² He explained that if we put the carbon in the earth, it would drain out of the atmosphere in a much slower rate. He believed that it is a very common misunderstanding to think that stopping emissions today will improve the situation, because the past emissions will remain there for hundreds of years.Freshman Sara Zaccarine said that it was interesting that his talk aimed at raising questions rather than answering them. She said, ³His examples are very relevant to us and it is helpful to understand a lot more.² She also likes that he brought the large-scale issue down to more specific points.Sophomore Lena Bixby thinks the ethical issues are important. People have the technology, but we are not doing anything about the problem. She said it is like a moral test: ³Are we doing anything wrong by not doing anything about [global warming]?² -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Ethical differences between CDR and SRM
Dear David‹Very interesting effort to summarize the ethical aspects. The problem I have with the analysis is that it seems to me to totally leave out the adverse consequences of global warming that would be alleviated. That is, the whole intent of geoengineering is to reduce risks from CO2-induced changes in climate, and your analysis seems to be commenting on SRM, in particular, in terms of just doing it without the offsetting benefit, as if it were being proposed back in the 1950s when there were ideas of melting the Arctic ice to get at the region¹s resources. The notion now is to, considering the gradual offsetting approach, to keep the climate about as it is or recently was (thus avoiding major losses of biodiversity, ice sheets, etc.) and so, if mitigation were pursued actively to keep us under, say 2.5-3 C, would be used to keep us at -.5 to 1 C above preindustrial (so much less SRM needed as compared to that to reverse a full doubling of CO2) and the idea would be to continue to phase up mitigation and CDR so one could phase out SRM over time, so there would be an exit strategy. I would also like to offer a different perspective on this issue of uncertainties about SRM that is raised, Clive Hamilton, for example making a case of it. If we have enough confidence in the models and our understanding of the physics (and ecology, etc.) to be using our projections of the climate warming 4 C or so (hence, well into the range where models have not been tested and where the world has not been for tens of millions of years) to justify telling the world that it must get quickly get off of the fossil fuel energy system that provides 80+% of the world¹s energy--and I am on the side that is convinced of that, then I just do not understand how it can be argued that the uncertainties of SRM, using techniques that have a natural analog we can learn from, aimed at keeping the climate about as it is now (so in the range models have been tested on), can be so great that we should not consider the approach. I do not disagree that there is much to learn and that there are issues of governance and ethics involved, but it seems to me that arguing that the uncertainties in the modeling is too large just plays into the hands of the deniers on model uncertainties. My view is that we should actually be evincing confidence in the model abilities to simulate the major aspects of what would result from SRM (and CDR) and that what the model results show is that there are limits in how well GHG-induced climate change can be offset (I think these limits can likely be moderated by some clever thinking about how to do SRM) and that there are complex issues and implications of such a course (and the most complex of the governance issues may well be how to maintain the SRM effort when the public has not had to actually experience the adverse impacts that are being offset). I just think the framing to date is well off the mark. Best, Mike MacCracken On 1/26/14 12:47 AM, Rosemary Jones juppite...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. There cannot be a problem with either of the following SRM strategies, ethical or otherwise, and as a necessary addition to the equally essential transition to zero carbon technologies. 1. Ensuring all road and runway services are balanced pale and dark, so at least the amount of radiation reflected back from the paler surfaces is equal to the amount entrenched in the darker ones. 2. Spraying an area of ice and snow bereft rock equal to that lost in the last 50 years with chalk based solar reflective paint. The reason why there cannot be an ethical or other sort of problem with either of these strategies is that the first is a return to earlier SR normality, and the second is a replication of SR conditions as they used to be before the chaos got going. All that we need is a UN Climate Action Program to organize the spraying, payment from everyone wealthy enough to the GCF, and concomitant reforestation to provide the shade there used to be, and employing the poorest people because that's essential in order to get the work done, and the ethical cost of solving the climate problem. Rosemary Jones. -- -- On Friday, 24 January 2014 19:26:49 UTC-8, David Morrow wrote: In an earlier thread, Ron had asked about ethicists' views on the differences between CDR and SRM. I don't know of any detailed treatment of the topic. I'd be grateful if anyone could point one out. For the reasons I'll explain below, ethicists have focused most of their attention on SRM or on specific methods of CDR, such as ocean fertilization. But I figured I'd take a stab at articulating what I see as the main differences between the ethics of CDR and the ethics of SRM. The following comments apply to SRM and CDR generally. Not all of the comments
Re: [geo] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report
Hi Ronal‹Interesting idea. I would just note that while sea ice in the summer acts to reduce uptake of heat, in the winter it traps heat in the ocean that would normally be radiated away. So, really what one would want to do is keep sea ice off the ocean or broken up during the fall and early winter and then use a snow-making approach like you propose to make ice covered with snow that would carry on into the summer. Alternatively, one might want to work to thicken ice that is already there as once ice is a meter or so thick it is having an insulating effect and so heat loss is already limited, and further limiting it would not make as big a difference in slowing wintertime heat loss as thickening up thin ice. So, one could consider making the remaining pack ice thicker in the early and mid winter and then focusing on building extend of thin, snow-covered (to get the high albedo) ice in the late winter so it is there to reflect sunlight as it comes up in the spring. These are just suggestions and meanderings‹what seems clear to me is that one would need to work out and test (in models and for real) various strategies to find the optimal one for particular situations‹just going out in the fall and starting snow-blowing without a real strategy would seem to me to be unlikely to be optimal. Mike MacCracken On 12/27/13 12:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Greg and list (adding Peter Flynn) 1. Thanks for bringing this NOAA report to our attention. Clearly a worsening situation - especially in ice volume (as area/extent have to soon radically go to zero to follow the non-linear path of ice volume.Until today I hadn¹t thought of anything new to add. 2. This is following up on the discussion many months ago of the idea broached by Prof. Peter Flynn of thickening the arctic ice by added layering from above with salt water ice flooding. (snow-making likely to not be as energy efficient) The only new thought is using moth-balled submarines from navies around the world (especially the US and Russia, who have the most - and we can use either active or mothballed). 3. I don¹t expect lots of different navies to jump at this, but I think a test may be achievable from some navy - and we only need one. It seems to me this could/should be the cheapest approach to adding ice - with the sub moving every day or few days to a new spot, concentrating on those locations which are most likely to be salvageable with a small additional thickness. The experts seem to have a good handle on thicknesses. One sub isn¹t enough, but there are probably a hundred if globally we really get scared of the total loss of arctic ice for even months on end. (I believe a ³zero² area in September is likely in 2-3 years) 4. The main modification to the sub is for a low head high volume pump - a head of less than a meter generally, given the small percentage of the ice above water level. The size of one or more units has to be limited by the max sub (nuclear?) power output when stationary. 5. I have added Prof. Flynn to get his reaction. (And thank him also for his recent useful biomass paper sent to this list - with a later note coming on that). Ron On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131212_arcticreportcard.html?gobac k=%2Egde_2792503_member_5817279106236063746#%21 According to a new report released today by NOAA and its partners, cooler temperatures in the summer of 2013 across the central Arctic Ocean, Greenland and northern Canada moderated the record sea ice loss and extensive melting that the surface of the Greenland ice sheet experienced last year. Yet there continued to be regional extremes, including record low May snow cover in Eurasia and record high summer temperatures in Alaska. ³The Arctic caught a bit of a break in 2013 from the recent string of record-breaking warmth and ice melt of the last decade,² said David M. Kennedy, NOAA¹s deputy under secretary for operations, during a press briefing today at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San Francisco. ³But the relatively cool year in some parts of the Arctic does little to offset the long-term trend of the last 30 years: the Arctic is warming rapidly, becoming greener and experiencing a variety of changes, affecting people, the physical environment, and marine and land ecosystems.² Kennedy joined other scientists to release the Arctic Report Card 2013 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ , which has, since 2006, summarized changing conditions in the Arctic. One hundred forty-seven authors from 14 countries contributed to the peer-reviewed report. Major findings of this year¹s report include: -- 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
Re: [geo] Sulphur injection regime - request for comments
A good place to start looking for an answer is studies done 30-40 years ago when there were plans for a supersonic transport fleet of aircraft. DOT sponsored the Climate Impact Assessment Program (CIAP) and then a follow-on High-Altitude Pollution Program (or something like that). I am not sure that material is on the Web, though some of us have some of it (I am not at home at moment to go check out the potentially relevant chapters, etc.). A good person to ask might be Joel Levy of NOAA. Mike MacCracken On 11/14/13 4:17 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: I have an atmosphere related question which I hope someone can shed light upon. This project, http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/propulsion-lasers-for-large-scale.html Or as a lecture I gave last July at Google, http://youtu.be/qCiw99yRBo8 It is a space based solar power project that can grow large enough to displace fossil fuels in a bit over two decades from the start. It displaces fossil fuels by seriously undercutting them, electric power for half the price of the least expensive from coal, and synthetic oil for less than $50 per bbl going down to $30/bbl. It's based on new technology (high efficiency solid state lasers) that has come along in the last 4-5 years and the old idea of power satellites One problem is that the rocket planes that haul the parts to orbit dump from 12 million tons to 240 million tons of water into the atmosphere each year, about half above 25 km. I am not qualified to estimate what this will do to the atmosphere, but I know some of you are. _Some_ damage can probably be tolerated since (if it works at all) it should solve the energy, carbon and climate problems. I would very much appreciate any thoughts you might have. Keith Henson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Dr. Adrian Tuck dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk wrote: At the suggestion of Andrew Lockley, I am forwarding this to the whole group. -- Forwarded message -- From: Dr. Adrian Tuck dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk Date: 14 November 2013 05:58 Subject: Re: [geo] Sulphur injection regime - request for comments To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: James Donaldson jdona...@chem.utoronto.ca, Matt Hitchman m...@aos.wisc.edu, Erik Richard erik.rich...@lasp.colorado.edu, Heikki Tervahattu heikki.tervaha...@gmail.com, Veronica Vaida va...@colorado.edu, Chuck Wilson jwil...@du.edu [1] The PALMS initial results in 1998 destroyed the belief long held by atmospheric aerosol scientists (largely engineers, atmospheric physicists and modellers) that the aerosol was either pure sulphuric acid or ammonium sulphate. In fact there were up to 46 elements present over the population in the UT/LS. The chemical composition has very large effects on what the aerosols do chemically, physically and radiatively; the chemists' question What is it made of? cannot be ignored. With that as background, here is a take on the composition of volcanic plumes:- Composition Schematic draw of volcanic eruption The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals.The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano. Water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions. Can we infer that in the case of volcanic injection of SO2, the requisite water is there also, in abundance? Would high-altitudeinjection of CO2 also act to cool, radiatively? If these are true, there may well be big differences with rocket-based injection methods. [2] It is a truth universally acknowledged that the greatest source of uncertainty in the assessment of the effects of fossil fuel burning on climate is the role of aerosols (with apologies to Jane Austen). It is therefore unwise as well as ironic to base geoengineering proposals upon injecting them into the UT/LS. [3] As it says in [1], volcanoes fluctuate widely in their characteristics. This is something they share with the behaviour of the entire fluid envelope of the planet, see Lovejoy Schertzer's book published earlier this year by CUP. It is idle to pretend that we can predict the behaviour of this highly nonlinear, coupled system with confidence beyond a week or so. On 13 November 2013 09:39
Re: [geo] proposed definition of geoengineering, suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)
or Russia decided to put much of their entire landmass under an SRM scheme that somehow didn't move out of their territory (lets say create whitened low level cloud cover in someway) whether that would also fall outside of this definition (since its a standard of X AND Y AND Z that need to be met to meet the definition). 3. You say 'de minimis' has a well established standard which i'd be interested to see.. but naively it strikes me as a cover for argumentation by a proponent of any scheme that they fall outside of the definition b y claiming to have only a 'de minimis' effect. De minimis from whose viewpoint? a claimed 10,000 sq km fertilized patch was argued to be small (de minimus?) by HSRC in the context of the entire Pacific Ocean but it was viewed as large and consequential from the context of some BC fishers and shellfish harvesters who are concerned that the red tides closing their shellfish beds all winter may have been as result of the fertilization (which can't be proven either way - what standard of proof would 'de minimis' require?). Whether something is de minimis in terms of impacts then becomes a tiresome fight between different sets of understandings, requiring political arbitration. It complexifies and polarizes governance rather than simplifies it. Jim On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote: Just got a note from some international legal experts saying that de minimis was an established standard but material effect is not well grounded in international law, so I now suggest this form: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: The problem is that in practice people use the word geoengineering to refer to things they don't like, don't want to see deployed, don't want to fund, seek to impede research on, etc. Geoengineering in practice is a pejorative term that has already been brought into legal parlance as a result of decisions by the CBD. If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out from under this pejorative umbrella. Defining geoengineering in the way you do, I fear, will harm the development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture, afforestation/reforestation, etc. I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this, more at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least define it in a way that does the least harm. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. Aimed at is as bad as intended. What i should have said: large-scale technological interventions that act to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote: I think there's a problem with intentended. It defines the act in terms of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny, This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're trying to avoid. FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote: Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition now reads: Geoengineering refers to activities (1) intended to modify climate (2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or across international borders (3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Belatedly, just to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real commitment to strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at least, or it will be excuse to delay or do less. This way climate engineering is used to shave the peak warming after mitigation (of both short and long-lived species) rather than a substitute. Mike On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system deployment. This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. -- This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of catastrophic outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for peak shaving amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for peak shaving strategies. -- I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented here is the best possible formulation. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction
Gene‹The problem is that how much can be done by geoengineering is limited‹geoengineering is not an option in itself, it can only be effective over time if there is also mitigation and adaptation (and still some suffering). Mike On 9/13/13 4:45 PM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Mike: As scientists you need to continue to develop technology for reducing global temperature. Let us hope you are extremely successful. Let others deal with emission reduction, which is not part of geoengineering although it is an important part of global warming mitigation. Emission reduction is partly technical, not part of geoengineering but political and what happens will be determined by politicians. Don't make geoengineering hostage to the politicians. As scientists you have a lot on your plate. It seems unwise to put yourselves in the position of fighting the politicians and energy companies. -gene From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:43 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Re: [geo] Linking solar geoengineering and emissions reduction Belatedly, just to note I agree with Ken that what we need is action or real commitment to strong mitigation before consider global engineering, at least, or it will be excuse to delay or do less. This way climate engineering is used to shave the peak warming after mitigation (of both short and long-lived species) rather than a substitute. Mike On 9/11/13 12:36 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu about:blank wrote: We do not want to be in a situation where a solar geoengineering system is used to enable continued increases in CO2 emissions. Therefore, a reasonable demand is that no new smokestacks or tailpipes be built after a solar geoengineering system is deployed. Another way of phrasing this is to demand that new construction of all new CO2-emitting devices cease prior to any solar geoengineering system deployment. This would help address the concern that solar geoengineering could provide cover for continued expansion of CO2-emitting industries. Norms that would prevent simultaneous solar geoengineering deployment and increasing CO2 emissions would help diminish the likelihood of bad outcomes and could help broaden political support for solar geoengineering research. -- This would limit deployment of solar geoengineering systems to the case of catastrophic outcomes and would not permit use of solar geoengineering for peak shaving amid promises of future reductions in CO2 emissions. Thus, this proposal does have a substantive implications for peak shaving strategies. -- I am floating this idea without being certain that the formulation presented here is the best possible formulation. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu about:blank http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: New paper on polar SRM
Hi Bill‹That is a good question to look closely at. I would suggest, without having done the studies, so doing so speculatively, that in that the complex pattern of geography, land-sea, etc. currently lead to energy being added now to the atmosphere in an uneven way, and so I am not convinced having some moderate unevenness would be a problem, etc. Yes, in detail, the weather would be affected, but the question is whether the statistics of the weather (i.e., the climate) is altered. But, indeed, research is needed on this. Mike On 9/3/13 2:51 PM, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com wrote: Re the more detailed model: Both high haze and MCB have a problem, that of uneven application and its probable consequences. Big perturbations in seasonal delivery of moisture to a region result in drought and/or deluge. Indeed, one states' drought may be another state's deluge, simply because of a detour in the precip pipeline. What can cause a detour? The current example comes from the land warming twice as fast as the ocean surface, the excess high pressure systems over land forcing a rearrangement in flow patterns. Uneven external forcing is another way, cooling one region to create denser air while not doing the same to its neighbors. Winds rearrange. Thus my concern about uneven application of shadows. But shadows have penumbrias that vary with the length of the shadow. In our eyes, shadows caused by debris floating around can be seen only if the obstruction is close to the retina. If the debris is halfway back to the lens, its shadow will be too fuzzy to register. Thus I see uniform sunlight reduction as necessary to avoid additional drought and deluge, and see the most likely way of achieving uniformity to involve sunscreens that are far above the atmosphere. Of course, success in reducing solar input would do nothing for reducing ocean acidification since dimming will not get rid of the growing excess of CO2. Air capture of CO2 is the only thing I know that could back us out of the danger zone for extreme weather and acidification. Cheers, -Bill On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:49:54 AM UTC-7, Mike MacCracken wrote: A new paper by myself, Ho-Jeong Shin, Ken Caldeira, and George Ban-Weiss that provides a conceptual look at the notion of polar SRM is available for free download at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ The results suggest that a much more detailed model evaluation of this possible approach to limiting the amplified climate change in high latitudes is merited. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: New paper on polar SRM
Hi Andrew: Agreed. Speculating a bit, if, as Jennifer Francis hypothesis is right that the jet stream has become wavier as the equator-pole gradient has been reduced, then one would expect for the jet to be pushed back toward the more zonal flow of the past, but that certainly needs to be a question that is researched. Do remember that without doing anything, global warming will continue to go on essentially unabated. Mike On 9/3/13 4:23 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking as a periodically soaked/parched and frozen/boiled brit, I think that the effect of polar only SRM on the jet stream would need to be thoroughly investigated before anyone seriously proposed it. A On Sep 3, 2013 9:17 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Bill‹That is a good question to look closely at. I would suggest, without having done the studies, so doing so speculatively, that in that the complex pattern of geography, land-sea, etc. currently lead to energy being added now to the atmosphere in an uneven way, and so I am not convinced having some moderate unevenness would be a problem, etc. Yes, in detail, the weather would be affected, but the question is whether the statistics of the weather (i.e., the climate) is altered. But, indeed, research is needed on this. Mike On 9/3/13 2:51 PM, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com http://william.cal...@gmail.com wrote: Re the more detailed model: Both high haze and MCB have a problem, that of uneven application and its probable consequences. Big perturbations in seasonal delivery of moisture to a region result in drought and/or deluge. Indeed, one states' drought may be another state's deluge, simply because of a detour in the precip pipeline. What can cause a detour? The current example comes from the land warming twice as fast as the ocean surface, the excess high pressure systems over land forcing a rearrangement in flow patterns. Uneven external forcing is another way, cooling one region to create denser air while not doing the same to its neighbors. Winds rearrange. Thus my concern about uneven application of shadows. But shadows have penumbrias that vary with the length of the shadow. In our eyes, shadows caused by debris floating around can be seen only if the obstruction is close to the retina. If the debris is halfway back to the lens, its shadow will be too fuzzy to register. Thus I see uniform sunlight reduction as necessary to avoid additional drought and deluge, and see the most likely way of achieving uniformity to involve sunscreens that are far above the atmosphere. Of course, success in reducing solar input would do nothing for reducing ocean acidification since dimming will not get rid of the growing excess of CO2. Air capture of CO2 is the only thing I know that could back us out of the danger zone for extreme weather and acidification. Cheers, -Bill On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:49:54 AM UTC-7, Mike MacCracken wrote: A new paper by myself, Ho-Jeong Shin, Ken Caldeira, and George Ban-Weiss that provides a conceptual look at the notion of polar SRM is available for free download at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ The results suggest that a much more detailed model evaluation of this possible approach to limiting the amplified climate change in high latitudes is merited. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: New paper on polar SRM
First, I¹ll agree that pulling out the CO2 is preferable‹just hard to do fast enough. On the issue of what would happen, if what Jennifer Francis has been saying, then increasing the equator-pole temperature gradient (by cooling the Arctic, or both poles) would tend to lead to a more zonal jet and less meander, so it is not clear it would lead to additional drought and deluge‹but that is exactly why to do some research. Mike On 9/3/13 7:08 PM, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Mike, Re the complex pattern of geography, land-sea, etc. currently lead to energy being added now to the atmosphere in an uneven way, and so I am not convinced having some moderate unevenness would be a problem, etc. But we are looking here at deviations from the usual variations. To take my two adjacent states example, while uneven delta forcing may not change the two-state mean precip, one nonetheless gets a lot of damage from additional drought and deluge. Cheers, -Bill On 9/3/13 2:51 PM, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com http://william.cal...@gmail.com wrote: Re the more detailed model: Both high haze and MCB have a problem, that of uneven application and its probable consequences. Big perturbations in seasonal delivery of moisture to a region result in drought and/or deluge. Indeed, one states' drought may be another state's deluge, simply because of a detour in the precip pipeline. What can cause a detour? The current example comes from the land warming twice as fast as the ocean surface, the excess high pressure systems over land forcing a rearrangement in flow patterns. Uneven external forcing is another way, cooling one region to create denser air while not doing the same to its neighbors. Winds rearrange. Thus my concern about uneven application of shadows. But shadows have penumbrias that vary with the length of the shadow. In our eyes, shadows caused by debris floating around can be seen only if the obstruction is close to the retina. If the debris is halfway back to the lens, its shadow will be too fuzzy to register. Thus I see uniform sunlight reduction as necessary to avoid additional drought and deluge, and see the most likely way of achieving uniformity to involve sunscreens that are far above the atmosphere. Of course, success in reducing solar input would do nothing for reducing ocean acidification since dimming will not get rid of the growing excess of CO2. Air capture of CO2 is the only thing I know that could back us out of the danger zone for extreme weather and acidification. Cheers, -Bill On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:49:54 AM UTC-7, Mike MacCracken wrote: A new paper by myself, Ho-Jeong Shin, Ken Caldeira, and George Ban-Weiss that provides a conceptual look at the notion of polar SRM is available for free download at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ The results suggest that a much more detailed model evaluation of this possible approach to limiting the amplified climate change in high latitudes is merited. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] New paper on polar SRM
A new paper by myself, Ho-Jeong Shin, Ken Caldeira, and George Ban-Weiss that provides a conceptual look at the notion of polar SRM is available for free download at http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/301/2013/ The results suggest that a much more detailed model evaluation of this possible approach to limiting the amplified climate change in high latitudes is merited. Mike MacCracken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY
Saying it slightly differently than Greg, I was astonished that the first call was not to limit emissions as a way to make the alternative unnecessary. Calling for governance mechanisms for geoengineering seems to me to make it more likely, as if it is something we will all need to do together (and, in my view, we may, comparing to the alternative of not doing anything while emissions continue upward). If one wants to avoid geoengineering, then call for better mechanisms for and much better efforts at controlling emissions‹that is what we absolutely need. Mike On 8/11/13 6:11 PM, Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov wrote: How about the dangers of the alternative: Continuing to unset the Earth's thermostat (and pH-stat)? ...the temptation to seriously consider a technological fix will become irresistible to many. Let's hope so! Are we going to solve the CO2 problem in the absence of technology - new renewable energy schemes, CO2 mitigation of fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency? And, yes, if the preceding strategies continue to fail, do we not solicit and research alternative technologies like geoengineering in the event that some ideas prove to be effective, safe, timely, and needed? What is the rational alternative if the objective is to collectively preserve our one small planet? Isn't technology an essential part of that collective? I certainly agree that we .need to strengthen global decision making institutions, and we need to do so in a way that is fair and democratic. I might add that global decision making needs also to be open-minded, objective, timely and based on facts learned through carefully conducted, open research, not based on folklore and unproven fears that blithely whitewash all technology as unnecessary, unworkable, evil, or worse. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 1:22 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] The dangers of trying to set the Earth's thermostat - USA TODAY http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2632983 by Andrew Strauss and William C.G. Burns, USATODAY Climate geoengineering is the name for the most audacious idea to master nature. Right now, energy companies, scientists, policymakers and even some environmentalists around the world are considering the possibility of attempting to manually override the Earth's thermostat to counter the effects of global warming.No, this isn't something out of Gene Roddenberry or Stephen King. This is real. In fact, it is so real that the world's most prominent body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will address its merits in the group's Fifth Assessment Report due out early next year.Geoengineering covers a range of technologies. Some are apparently quite benign such as painting roofs white so as to reflect solar energy back into space. But, such schemes are also unlikely to have a significant impact on the climate. Those with the greatest current potential also tend to present the greatest risk. The two most often discussed strategies are stratospheric aerosol spraying and ocean iron fertilization.The former option would entail spraying sulfur or a similarly reflective compound into the stratosphere via planes or balloons to reflect solar radiation back into space. The projected cost of stratospheric spraying is relatively cheap, in the billions to tens of billions of dollars a year. Proponents argue that scientists could distribute enough reflective particles in the air to return temperatures back to pre-industrial levels if we wished.Ocean iron fertilization takes its inspiration from the knowledge that algae (which absorb carbon) feed on iron. Consequently, dump iron filings in iron-poor parts of the ocean, and soon you have carbon-absorbing algae blooms. Again, the cost is low.However, both of these options pose substantial known risks to humans and ecosystems. Stratospheric spraying could substantially reduce precipitation in South and Southeast Asia, potentially shutting down seasonal monsoons that more than a billion people rely upon for growing crops, or imperil replenishment of the ozone layer. Ocean iron fertilization could result in the proliferation of algae species that won't support higher order predators, or prove toxic in the marine environment. Moreover, the Earth's ecology is vastly complex, and both of these technologies may also pose significant unknown risks that are impossible to assess before it is too late.Sensing such dangers, most people have an instinctively negative reaction to climate geoengineering. The reality, however, is that unless we deal seriously with the climate change problem (which we are not) the siren call of geoengineering will grow. And, when we get to the point where burgeoning concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing undeniable catastrophes --
Re: [geo] Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks:Amazon:Books
Much better stated, but I would also add that there are a wider range of possible interventions than are usually discussed, and drawing major conclusions from looking at too small a set of possibilities seems to me like choosing a path to take without considering all the possible routes. Mike On 8/11/13 4:25 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1107023939 Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues, and Governance Frameworks:Amazon:Books Product Description The international community is not taking the action necessary to avert dangerous increases in greenhouse gases. Facing a potentially bleak future, the question that confronts humanity is whether the best of bad alternatives may be to counter global warming through human-engineered climate interventions. In this book, eleven prominent authorities on climate change consider the legal, policy and philosophical issues presented by geoengineering. The book asks: when, if ever, are decisions to embark on potentially risky climate modification projects justified? If such decisions can be justified, in a world without a central governing authority, who should authorize such projects and by what moral and legal right? If states or private actors undertake geoengineering ventures absent the blessing of the international community, what recourse do the rest of us have? Book Description In this book, eleven prominent authorities on climate change consider the legal, policy and philosophical issues presented by geoengineering. The book asks: when, if ever, are decisions to embark on climate modification projects justified? If they are justified, in a world without a central governing authority, who should authorize such projects and by what moral and legal right? About the Author Dr Wil Burns is the Associate Director of the Energy Policy and Climate Program at The Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. He also serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy and as Co-Chair of the International Environmental Law Committee of the American Branch of the International Law Association. He is also the former Co-Chair of the International Environmental Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law, and Chair of the International Wildlife Law Interest Group of the Society. He has held academic appointments at Williams College, Colby College, Santa Clara University School of Law, and the Monterey Institute of International Studies, Middlebury College. Prior to becoming an academic, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs for the State of Wisconsin, and worked in the non-governmental sector for twenty years, including as Executive Director of the Pacific Center for International Studies.Andrew Strauss is the Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development and a Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law. Professor Strauss is co-author of the fourth edition of International Law and World Order, and his articles have appeared in international journals such as Foreign Affairs, the Harvard Journal of International Law and the Stanford Journal of International Law. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School and taught on the law faculties of the National University of Singapore and Rutgers Camden Law School. In addition, he has been a lecturer at the European Peace University in Austria, served as the Director of the Geneva/Lausanne International Law Institute and the Nairobi International Law Institute and been an Honorary Fellow at New York University School of Law's Center for International Studies. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences
Dear Simon-- I wonder if you could expand a bit on your remark that: These simulations could be of great use - indeed, the objective uncertainties around geoengineering are so large as a basic fact that I actually believe anyone who believes it to be automatically good or automatically bad for the climate to be more or less ideological. I am wondering whether you are referring to uncertainties about whether they would work or not, or a sense that we have no idea about unintended consequences and outcomes that might make them a poor alternative to continuing with global warming without geoengineering? I ask because it seems to me that the uncertainties related to continuing on with global warming carrying the climate at a very rapid pace into conditions not experienced in at least many millions of years must surely be larger than those associated with using analogs to natural cooling mechanisms to try to keep the climate near to the relatively familiar and understandable situation where we are now (or recently were). Despite the large uncertainties about future global warming, indeed, in part because of the uncertainties, we are confident enough to be encouraging the world to end its at least economically beneficial fossil fuel use. As Paul Crutzen suggested, that efforts to slow, stop, and reverse global warming through mitigation are going so slowly when the risk seems so high of irreversible consequences would seem to me to suggest that at least some tolerance of uncertainties about geoengineering needs to be acknowledged and accepted---that level to be determined by a risk analysis based not on geoengineering alone, but on global warming with and without geoengineering of various types or degrees. Thank you in advance then for a bit more explanation of your position. Regards, Mike MacCracken On 8/6/13 3:31 PM, Simon Driscoll drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk wrote: Hi Russell, I feel like I've been asked a couple questions on behalf of someone else's article that I simply *posted* - the article gives his email address should you wish to contact him about it on this forum. As such, yes. One can debate over precise wording, but I agree - I hope I understand you correctly. On resolution in general, I think improved resolution could be tremendously useful - as pointed out by Tim Palmer and others in recent climate studies (with a mention to geoengineering in the below quote by Tim). These simulations could be of great use - indeed, the objective uncertainties around geoengineering are so large as a basic fact that I actually believe anyone who believes it to be automatically good or automatically bad for the climate to be more or less ideological. Such studies as below could be a strong factor in having models reasonable enough to make much stronger statements about geoengineering impacts. Overall, the experience in Project Athena confirmed the general expectation of the World Modeling Summit that dedicated computational resources can substantially accelerate progress in climate simulation and prediction. The availability of such resources not only enabled some detailed explorations of issues that were previously considered beyond the scope of computers used for climate but also was an important incentive for the formation of the international team. ... An important element of this collaboration was the presence of experts from national modeling centers, which argues in favor of another of the summit¹s recommendations, namely the enhancement of national modeling capabilities in the key centers around the world. ... the impact of dramatically increased spatial resolution was apparent for numerous important aspects of climate, including such diverse features as North Atlantic blocking, tropical cyclone intensity, and patterns of regional climate change. Considerable more work is needed to carry on the investigation of how best to take advantage of future improvements in high-end computing for higher fidelity climate simulation and insights into future climate change. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00043.1 Just as the nations of the world came together to fund the Large Hadron Collider, allowing scientists to study the moments after the Big Bang in the sort of detail needed to reveal the workings of mother nature, so the nations of the world should come together to fund the sort of supercomputers that would allow us to simulate the climate of the coming century with much greater reliability than is currently possible. The impact that this will have for mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering policies is likely to be enormous. http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/climate-change-simulation-tim -palmer Best wishes, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department of Physics University of Oxford Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 Mobile
Re: [geo] Re: CIA Backs $630,000 Study Into How To Control The Weather
The information appears to indicate that the study is being undertaken by the Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. So, this is a public study and members of panel have been announced, etc. and will all be as transparent as Academy studies are. See http://dels.nas.edu/Study-In-Progress/Geoengineering-Technical-Evaluation-Se lected-Approaches/DELS-BASC-12-04?bname=basc So, no reason to think anything nefarious is going on. Mike On 7/17/13 2:58 PM, Jim Lee rez...@gmail.com wrote: So much for transparency? Will geoengineering become national security and thus hidden under classified stamps? Has any member of this group been approached by the CIA or NAS, or are you not at liberty to say I have been hopeful that this community would embrace open discussion, and sincerely hope that whatever comes of this study remains open to the public. This is mentioned here as well * http://dels.nas.edu/Study-In-Progress/Geoengineering-Technical-Evaluation-Sele cted-Approaches/DELS-BASC-12-04 * * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/CpJCKKGRBJE * * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/alL4E2sWvZ8 * * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/geoengineering/kbciEyb1IwM * * http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/cia-geoengineering-control-climate -change * * http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/17-3 * http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingId=6748 Project Title: Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts PIN: DELS-BASC-12-04 Major Unit: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dbasse Division on Earth and Life Studies http://dels.nas.edu/ Sub Unit: Board on Environmental Change and Society http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/becs Ocean Studies Board http://dels.nas.edu/osb Board on Atmospheric Sciences Climate http://www7.nationalacademies.org/basc RSO: Dunlea, Edward Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences; Engineering and Technology Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts July 16, 2013 - July 17, 2013 National Academy of Sciences Building 2100 C St. NW Washington D.C. If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open to the public or need more information please contact: Contact Name: Shelly Freeland Email: sfreel...@nas.edu Phone: 202-334-2649 Fax: 202-334-3825 Agenda: July 16, 2013 National Academy of Sciences Building 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Room 125 OPEN SESSION 1:30 pm Discussion Focus of the Study Goals for discussion: - More clearly understand perspectives of report sponsors what are the most important issues to be covered in the report? - Explore nuances of committee¹s task what should be included in report? 1:30 PM Welcome Marcia McNutt, Committee Chair 1:40 PM NOAA perspective Rick Rosen and Dian Seidel, NOAA 1:50 PM NASA perspective David Considine, NASA 2:00 PM Open discussion Committee and Guests 3:00 PM Break 3:15 PM Discussion Perspectives from the Community Goals for discussion: - Hear from community what issues are important to other communities (e.g., scientific community, policy community, etc.)? - Explore committee¹s task how can report be of use to a broader community? 3:15 PM Jane Long, Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Geoengineering (via telecon) 3:45 PM Robert Socolow, Princeton University 4:15 PM Thomas Karl USGCRP and Thomas Armstrong OSTP/USGCRP (via telecon) 4:45 PM Open discussion 5:30 PM Open session ends RSVP is required to attend this meeting. Jim Lee http://terraforminginc.com/ http://climateviewer.com/ On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:47:00 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3611166 CIA Backs $630,000 Study Into How To Control The Weather Huffington Post UK Jul 17, 2013 The US Central Intelligence Agency is reportedly funding a study into how to control the weather.That's right, being able to learn to control the governments and foreign operatives of the rest of the world isn't quite enough - the CIA also wants to manipulate their climates.Well, sort of. What the CIA is actually doing is funding part of a $630,000, 21-month study into the science of modifying the climate, known as geo-engineering.Langley is interested in both solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques.The former involves sending material into the atmosphere in an attempt to block infrared radiation and so halt rising temperatures - possibly permanently. The latter is just what it sounds like - learning to remove massive amounts of carbon dioxide from air, in order to limit the effects of climate change.Reported by Mother Jones, the study intends to learn and describe what is known about the viability for
Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?
Dear Peter--I must have missed the paper. I agree that it could help thicken the ice. It seems to me the problems here, however, would be the engineering of it--how does one make it happen without icing up the whole apparatus, and how does one power it efficiently? On powering it, it would be great if it could take advantage of the temperature difference between the water below the ice and the air temperature above the ice, but it would just seem to me that the potential for icing up would be huge, so it would be hard to put out some sort of floating buoy system that just sprayed out a continuing stream in many directions, etc. I'd be interested in hearing about any ideas in this regard. Regards, Mike MacCracken On 6/17/13 4:56 PM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time) and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend. This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat transfer from the water layer to the air. I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it can be stopped at once. Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM To: joshuahorton...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic? Sounds like a modeling exercise: stimulating should be simulating, I assume. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as follows: There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice. (http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat e-silver-bullet/) Does anyone know what he is talking about? Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.commailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr i...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting
Hi Greg‹Back some years ago, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Crack-Up ( 1936), The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One might think that we could be considering both mitigation and adaptation (preparedness) together instead of in an opposed manner. Mike On 6/15/13 11:49 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Note that the President's science advisers have chosen to use the word preparedness rather than adaptation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_ener gy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf You have no choice but to adapt, but you can choose to prepare. While you're adapting to what's happening to you, you can try to prepare for what's going to happen to you. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Guess it's official: Plan A (= emissions reductions) has failed. So we're jumping directly to Plan C ( = survival mode). Apparently the messaging about Plan B (= SRM and CDR) never got through, or someone's decided we're not going there(?) Best of luck to future generations. Some of us tried to change the outcome. So crank on that XL pipeline. Frack the heck out of those Bakken, Barnett, Montney, Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Utica shales. And if gas supplants king coal in the US, then let's just ship the excess to China. Let's hear it for Plan C, and let's party while we still can(?) Greg http://news.yahoo.com/climate-talk-shifts-curbing-co2-adapting-130423769.html Now officials are merging efforts by emergency managers to prepare for natural disasters with those of officials focused on climate change. That greatly lessens the political debate about human-caused global warming, said University of Colorado science and disaster policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. It also makes the issue more local than national or international. If you keep the discussion focused on impacts ... I think it's pretty easy to get people from all political persuasions, said Pielke, who often has clashed with environmentalists over global warming. It's insurance. The good news is that we know insurance is going to pay off again. Describing these measures as resiliency and changing the way people talk about it make it more palatable than calling it climate change, said Hadi Dowlatabadi, a University of British Columbia climate scientist. It's called a no-regrets strategy, Dowlatabadi said. It's all branding. All that, experts say, is essentially taking some of the heat out of the global warming debate. Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press 8 hrs ago WASHINGTON (AP) ‹ Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise. The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather. It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement last week of an ambitious plan to stave off New York City's rising seas with flood gates, levees and more that brought this transition into full focus. After years of losing the fight against rising global emissions of heat-trapping gases, governments around the world are emphasizing what a U.N. Foundation scientific report calls managing the unavoidable. It's called adaptation and it's about as sexy but as necessary as insurance, experts say. It's also a message that once was taboo among climate activists such as former Vice President Al Gore. In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Gore compared talk of adapting to climate change to laziness that would distract from necessary efforts. But in his 2013 book The Future, Gore writes bluntly: I was wrong. He talks about how coping with rising seas and temperatures is just as important as trying to prevent global warming by cutting emissions. Like Gore, governmental officials across the globe aren't saying everyone should just give up on efforts to reduce pollution. They're saying that as they work on curbing carbon, they also have to deal with a reality that's already here. In March, President Barack Obama's science advisers sent him a list of recommendations on climate change. No. 1 on the list: Focus on national preparedness for climate change. Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point, New York's Bloomberg said in announcing his $20 billion adaptation plans. The bottom line is: We can't run the risk. On Monday, more than three dozen other municipal officials from across the country will go public with a nationwide effort to make their cities more resilient to natural disasters and the effects of man-made global warming. It's an insurance policy, which is investing in the future, Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, Calif., who is chairing
Re: [geo] Re: COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE : International Journal of Modern Physics B:
Much less about misunderstanding at all about the issue of saturation, a criticism of Arrhenius that has been addressed many, many times and kicked out of science as an issue by Manabe and others in the 1960s. Mike On 5/31/13 1:33 PM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: According to the University of Waterloo News: The peer reviewed paper published this week not only provides fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities compared with the conventional sunlight driven ozone depleting and CO2 warming models. This UW article, Global Warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide' is here http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-s tudy-says . The article contains a picture of a proud Dr. Lu. A version of Dr. Lu's paper is on arxiv, i.e. here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf . Quoting from that paper: it was shown [Lu cites previous papers of his own to substantiate this] that there has been absolute saturation, i.e. no GHG effect associated with the increasing concentrations of non-halogen gases, since the 1950s. Because no matter how much the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere other than halocarbons increases in the coming decades there will be no warming of the planet as a result, and because the concentration of halocarbons in the atmosphere is declining, Dr. Lu makes this superior prediction: http://uwaterloo.ca/news/sites/ca.news/files/styles/body-500px-wide/public/up loads/images/20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change1.png The dean of the faculty of science at the University of Waterloo buys this. According to UW's Waterloo News, that dean, Terry McMahon, said this: This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change. Indeed. Incidentally, Dr. Lu appears to have no interest in, and does not account for, the rising heat content of the global ocean, in this paper. On Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:25:18 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : if this is real, it will create quite a fuss. Some humble pie will be eaten -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] FW: TOS NEWS - MAY 2013
Some of you may be interested in this contest. Mike -- Forwarded Message From: The Oceanography Society the_oceanography_soci...@mail.vresp.com Reply-To: The Oceanography Society reply-bb0395dbd9-5114496098-7...@u.cts.vresp.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:21:29 + To: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net Subject: TOS NEWS - MAY 2013 Paul G. Allen Ocean Challenge: Mitigating Acidification Impacts Two informational webinars have been held to date regarding the Paul G. Allen Ocean Challenge: Mitigating Acidification Impacts. Webinar recordings and registration information, answers to frequently asked questions, and submission guidelines are all available at: http://www.pgafamilyfoundation.org/oceanchallenge/ http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TheOceanographySocie/bb0395dbd9/5114496098/9175cabb 59 To aid planning efforts for submission evaluation for this Ocean Challenge as well as planning for future projects, responses to a three-question survey are requested from the community. Please take a moment to provide feedback by June 5, 2013 at the following website: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9SY7VLZ http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TheOceanographySocie/bb0395dbd9/5114496098/76cce738 5f The deadline for concept submissions is July 31, 2013. Further information is available at: http://www.pgafamilyfoundation.org/oceanchallenge/ http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TheOceanographySocie/bb0395dbd9/5114496098/a29b32ad ac -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June
Again, I can only say that I hope the context for the study is that climate change is happening and leading to/projected to lead to very serious consequences, all so serious that the recommendation is that all countries completely get off of fossil fuels that supply 80+% of the world's energy. From the titles of the projects, it sounds as if the analysis will be done absent the context, which would make very little sense and be of quite limited use. What is needed is a comparative risk analysis: global warming with and without climate engineering. Mike MacCracken On 5/23/13 5:28 PM, aoschlies aoschl...@geomar.de wrote: A new Priority Program on the assessment of climate engineering is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG): „Climate Engineering: Risks, Challenges, Opportunities?“ (SPP 1689) – coordinated by Andreas Oschlies, GEOMAR, Kiel. Its first 3-year phase (2012-2015) is funded with about 5 Mio Euro. The kick-off meeting will take place in Berlin 3rd of June 2013 (http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/auftaktveranstaltung-podiumsdiskussion. html). The aim of the Priority Program is to help constraining the significant uncertainties in our current understanding of the environmental, societal and political risks, challenges and possible opportunities of climate engineering. This will help to enable a responsible decision-making about CE. Due to the complexity of the topic we will conduct our assessment in a broad interdisciplinary research team. A crucial concern of the Priority Program is to involve the general public and carry out the research in a transparent manner. The first phase oft the program will include the following subprojects: • „How to Meet a Global Challenge? Climate Engineering at the Science-Policy Nexus: Contested Understandings of Responsible Research and Governance “ - Barben (RWTH Aachen), Janich (TU Darmstadt) • „Arguing about CE: Towards a Comprehensive Ethical Analysis of an Ongoing Debate“ – Betz (KIT), Ott (CAU Kiel), Visbeck (GEOMAR) • „Comparative assessment of potential impacts, side-effects and uncertainties of CE measures and emission-reduction efforts (ComparCE)“, Ilyina (MPI Hamburg), Oschlies (GEOMAR), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) • „Climate Engineering Impacts: Between Reliability and Liability (CEIBRAL)“, Carrier (Uni Bielefeld), Goeschl (Uni Heidelberg), Proelß (Uni Tier), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) • „Fingerprints analysis of extreme events caused by stratospheric sulfur injections (FASSI)“, Cubasch (FU Berlin) • „Contextualizing Climate Engineering and Mitigation: Complement, Substitute or Illusion? (CEMICS) “, Edenhofer (PIK), Hartmann (Uni Hamburg), Held (Uni Hamburg), Lawrence (IASS) • „Climate Engineering on Land: Potentials and side-effects of afforestation and biomass plantations as instruments for Carbon Extraction (CE-LAND) “, Gerten (PIK), Kracher (MPI Hamburg), Lucht (PIK), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg) • „Learning about cloud brightening under risk and uncertainty: Whether, when and how to do field experiments (LEAC)“, Quaas (Uni Leipzig), Quaas (CAU Kiel) The DFG has asked three further subprojects to submit a revised proposal. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Climate Engineering Ethical Challenges and Governance | IASS Potsdam
It is interesting, or maybe disappointing, how those in social sciences (well, those involved in setting up this conference) are focusing more and more attention on climate engineering when the real problem, we generally all agree, is the climate change being caused by ongoing GHG emissions, so the most important topic of all for social scientists would seem to be the reasons for the failure of nations to take heed. For all the discussion of climate engineering being possibly a diversion from mitigation, it thus seems a bit odd that it is social scientists who seem to be diverting their attention so readily from the top of what would seem to be an agreed upon priority list starting with efficiency, direct mitigation (of long and short-lived gases), adaptation, various approaches to carbon removal, and finally, in a desperate attempt to alleviate suffering, some forms of SRM. Yes, SRM is sort of getting on the total list, but this is because of the problems of doing everything else higher on the list, and I hope that would be part of the discussion‹why is it that SRM is having to be considered? How did we really get in this predicament, and what are the other ways out of it? Mike MacCracken On 5/20/13 11:29 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.iass-potsdam.de/node/184/news/climate-engineering-ethical-challenge s-and-governance Climate Engineering Ethical Challenges and Governance In the course of a three day conference on ³The Ethical Challenges of Climate Engineering² from 22nd to 24th of May 2013 hold by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, there will also be the possibility to discuss challenges and problems of the governance of CE research as well as possible deployments from different parts of the world (e.g. Europe, USA, Australia, Asia) with leading experts in normative theory, environmental ethics and philosophy will answer your questions. The public round table discussion on ³Climate Engineering Governance Different perspectives from Around the World² will take place on May 23rd, 2013 from 6:30 pm to 8 pm.The goal of the conference on challenges for ethics induced by Climate Engineering, however, is not to evaluate CE from a particular normative perspective, but rather to identify important challenges put forward by CE, and to search for ways to best deal with these challenges:How applicable are our normative theories for problems raised by CE, e.g. uncertainties, complex processes and large scale and long lasting effects?What do different normative approaches bring to bear on the various ethical aspects of CE and for which do we lack plausible normative analyses?The conference doesn¹t want to provide a solution but rather focus on clarifying the agenda for future research in climate ethics with respect to CE. Doing so, we hope to help to bundle future research on normative aspects of CE and to create a network of researchers dedicated to this task.For decades Climate Engineering the planetary-scale engineering of the climate aimed at intentionally counteracting the undesired side effects (global warming) of other human activities (emitting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) has failed to gain traction in the mainstream scientific community. But with little progress on climate change policy and growing global GHG emissions, Climate Engineering is increasingly being considered in scientific and political circles around the world. For many Climate Engineering signals special issues of governance and political legitimacy, prompting the need for new or strengthened global norms of justice and community, and novel institution. For others talk about these issues is futile at the current state of affairs and the related uncertainties.The background of the conference is the interdisciplinary research microcosm of the IASS cluster Sustainable Interactions with the Atmosphere (SIWA) which is investigating the impacts, uncertainties and risks of CE, and the EU project European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE), which is coordinated by the IASS.We welcome anybody who is interested in taking part in the public discussion as well as media representatives. Please register for organizational reasons with me...@iass-potsdam.de . The round table discussion will be in English. Public Round Table Discussion³Climate Engineering Governance Different Perspectives from Around the World² 23rd May, 2013 | 6.30 - 8 pm Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies | Berliner Straße 130 | 14467 Potsdam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not Œglobal public good¹, and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one
This has been my way of thinking about this as well. And this way the
options for the future continue to be a combination of mitigation,
adaptation, and suffering, with the last likely to become more and more
evident, given the slow pace of (and vested interest opposition to)
mitigation and the limits and challenges of adaptation.
Mike MacCracken
On 5/11/13 2:58 PM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote:
Solar geoengineering is arguably a form of adaptation, which is defined as:
Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems
in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which
moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities.
Carbon dioxide removal is arguably an enhanced carbon dioxide sink and thus a
form of mitigation, which is defined as:
An anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of
greenhouse gases.
These are definitions out of IPCC, 2001.
On Saturday, May 11, 2013, wrote:
Alan cc list and Emily
Shucks. I agree with you about the SRM form of geo not being
mitigation.
But I was hoping that this list might agree that the mitigation term
reducing could/should be interpreted broadly enough to include removing.
The reason to not do so is what?
Ron
From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu');
To: em...@lewis-brown.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'em...@lewis-brown.net');
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com javascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'geoengineering@googlegroups.com');
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:19:27 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not Œglobal public good¹, and why
it's ethically misleading to frame it as one
Dear Emily,
IPCC has used standard definitions of these terms for decades. They are
jargon, but the community accepts these definitions, rather than a broader
dictionary definition. Mitigation means reducing emissions that cause global
warming.
Alan Robock
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 5/11/2013 11:54 AM, Emily L-B wrote:
Hi
I would call SRM 'mitigation' (ie it reduces the Earth's temp from ghg
pollution) like double glazing mitigates noise pollution from a motorway.
Neither address the source of the problem, but they mitigate one of the
problems. It could be called Symptom mitigation.
CDR is also mitigation - reducing the pollution directly once emitted.
Reducing emissions (what NGOs call mitigation) is mitigating the cause of
the pollution.
Mitigating climate impacts, indirect impacts and transboundary impacts on
fauna and flora are a legal duty for any country with legislation like NEPA
in the USA and the EIA directive in the EU. Analogous legislation exists
elsewhere too.
Should we be litigating any company with big projects covered by theses and
countries not complying?
Any lawyers on the list?
Best wishes,
Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry
From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 08:26:37 -0700
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
ReplyTo: kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineeringgeoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not Œglobal public good¹, and why
it's ethically misleading to frame it as one
The definition of a pure public good in this paper is:
First, a pure public good is a good that satisfies two conditions. It is
nonrival: one person¹s
consumption of the good does not inhibit another person¹s consumption. It is
also
nonexcludable: once it is available to some, others cannot be prevented from
consuming it.
Gardiner argues that we already know that everyone cannot benefit from solar
geoengineering. This seems to be an empirical claim that is possibly true
but not well-supported by quantitative analysis. It is often said that there
will be winners and losers but that is a claim that has not been
established. In most analyses based on commonly-used metrics of cost,
everyone benefits by some level of solar geoengineering [cf. RIcke et al,
attached].
Gardiner also imagines scenarios of coercion which, while possible are
merely speculation.
It may be premature to assert that we solar
--
You received this message because you
[geo] FW: Prof Carlos M. Duarte on the Guardian's story about a White House meeting on the Arctic: it was an entire fabrication.
I though there might be interest in this forwarded message to a colleague. Mike From: Carlos Duarte [mailto:carlos.dua...@uwa.edu.au] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:27 AM To: Subject: Re: can you tell me anything about the White House briefing no the Arctic that reportedly took place last week? Dear ___, Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, the report on The Guardian was an entire fabrication. There was indeed a meeting in Washington, but it was a regular research meeting, not involving any of the agencies or persons mentioned, nor discussing any dramatic, imminent event, nor providing advice to the US administration. A letter is following to the editor of The Guardian to alert him of the errors and requesting that a note be published. Best regards, Carlos Carlos M. Duarte Director of The UWA Oceans Institute, and Winthrop Professor at the School of Plant Biology -- End of Forwarded Message -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] NOAA Seminar
Note the following NOAA seminar is coming up tomorrow: Ocean Fertilization, Marine Geoengineering and the London Convention/London Protocol http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/seminars/2013/04-apr.html#OneNOAAScienceSeminars_3 0Apr2013_NODCLIB April 30, 2013; 12:00-13:00 Eastern Time; NOAA HQ SSMC-3 http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/seminars/OneNOAA_Seminar_Locations.html#SSMC Library; (Add to Google Calendar https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATEtmeid=Y3B0bThyNDcyaXZ idGo0ajZrcHExbXRwbjggbm9hYS5nb3ZfNDk0NDMyMzQzNjMzMzJAcmVzb3VyY2UuY2FsZW5kYXI uZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQtmsrc=noaa.gov_49443234363332%40resource.calendar.google.com ) Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty
While I would agree I should have said only some in the North want to maintain the cold conditions, that is also something all living near the coasts of the world should favor, for along with warming of the Arctic comes some significant rise in global sea level due to melting of mountain glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, rising sea level around the world, thawing of permafrost and release of CO2 and/or CH4 that amplifies global warming, disruption of mid-latitude weather, biodiversity loss, migrating species well-being and more. So, I¹d suggest that all of is in the world have a vested interest in keeping the Arctic cold, and should be pushing hard for a cold Arctic. Mike On 4/17/13 8:45 AM, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com wrote: While it is certainly true that many people residing in the far north are accustomed to colder weather and would prefer to have it remain unchanged by human behavior, and it is certainly true that resource extraction companies will benefit from warmer northern temperatures, the story is a bit more complex than that. * The far north is a big place with lots of people living in it. Many of them might prefer a warmer future with greater wealth. For example, I am virtually certain that there are a great many people living in Alaska who would gladly accept this bargain. * When I was in college (a long time ago ...) I was a research assistant for a graduate student who did research on why so-called indigenous peoples wound up in extreme climatic regions. I looked at hundreds of groups using the microfilmed Human Research Area Files in the 8th floor of the University of Michigan Graduate Library. His research concluded that it was because they had lost conflicts with neighboring groups and been pushed to the margins of the habitable zone. This calls into question the whole premise that indigenous peoples are living where they want to be. * Studies have repeatedly shown that cold has a stronger effect on mortality than heat. * Far northern regions are part of larger nation-states that set policy for the nation as a whole, so petitions have no force of law and are not going to settle anything. As for the species living there ... yes, I support the concept of preserving large areas of untouched habitat. As you are probably aware, the research by Jackson et al. on novel climates http://nctc.fws.gov/EC/Resources/climate_change/lcc/nov_10/williams_a nd_jackson%20_2007_frontiers.pdf suggests that absent reductions in radiative forcings, we are going to see a lot of disappearing habitats. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote: Sorry Gene‹While some resource extraction companies are interested in a warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold. Mike On 4/15/13 11:59 AM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov http://esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov euggor...@comcast.net http://euggor...@comcast.net wrote: This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world prefer warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather localized control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since I doubt they can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a huge difference if they don't Focusing on localized cooling might be a more successful approach to achieving cooling as desired. Nordhaus may be right. Moreover countries like the US are nearing the ability to be self sufficient on fossil fuels requirements, the best is yet to come, and the economic advantages are immense so CO2 emission reduction might not be economically popular in the US. This is a tough political arena. From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com http://andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com http://geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model of human social behavior. Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to mitigate emissions. However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a situation in which society decides to do everything feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering. In public
Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty
Sorry Gene‹While some resource extraction companies are interested in a warmer Arctic, the people of the north have petitioned for their right to be cold, and the species that are there depend on it being cold. Mike On 4/15/13 11:59 AM, esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov euggor...@comcast.net wrote: This ignores the possibility that some northern regions of the world prefer warming and may not want overall CO2 emissions reduction, but rather localized control of cooling.and this is a tough issue to deal with since I doubt they can be forced to stop emitting CO2. However, it may not make a huge difference if they don't Focusing on localized cooling might be a more successful approach to achieving cooling as desired. Nordhaus may be right. Moreover countries like the US are nearing the ability to be self sufficient on fossil fuels requirements, the best is yet to come, and the economic advantages are immense so CO2 emission reduction might not be economically popular in the US. This is a tough political arena. From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:04:35 AM Subject: Re: [geo] FEEM - Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty Also, these sorts of analyses assume that Homo economicus is an adequate model of human social behavior. Nordhaus pointed out in the early 1990's that if solar geoengineering works as advertised, basic economic modeling indicates this would reduce incentive to mitigate emissions. However, if we do get ourselves in a situation where the broad public comes to believe that climate change poses a major threat, then I can conceive of a situation in which society decides to do everything feasible to reduce this threat, including both emissions reduction and solar geoengineering. In public events, I have seen people who doubted the reality of climate science accept the possibility of catastrophic outcomes when presented with a potential quick fix. So, solar geoengineering can help get people to accept the potential for bad outcomes, and then once they accept that, then the next step is to see that the quick fix isn't all that much of a fix after all. In other words, I think that consideration of solar geoengineering may lead more people to want to work harder on emissions reduction, and thus lead to greater, not lesser, emissions reductions. --- I note also that this paper makes the assumption that it will be uncertain for some time whether solar geoengineering will work. As Andrew points out, early tests, etc, that lead to more information could change the results. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : will be interesting to see how their analysis is constrained as the error bars on SRM are reduced over time. http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=5456sez=Publicationspadre=73 2013.031 NOTE DI LAVORO Geoengineering and Abatement: A ¹flat¹ Relationship under Uncertainty Authors: Johannes Emmerling, Massimo Tavoni Series: Climate Change and Sustainable Development Keywords: Geoengineering, Mitigation, Climate Policy, Uncertainty JEL n.: Q54, C63, D81 Abstract The potential of geoengineering as an alternative or complementary option to mitigation and adaptation has received increased interest in recent years. The scientific assessment of geoengineering is driven to a large extent by assumptions about its effectiveness, costs, and impacts, all of which are highly uncertain. This has led to a polarizing debate. This paper evaluates the role of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) on the optimal abatement path, focusing on the uncertainty about the effectiveness of SRM and the interaction with uncertain climate change response. Using standard economic models of dynamic decision theory under uncertainty, we show that abatement is decreasing in the probability of success of SRM, but that this relation is concave and thus that significant abatement reductions are optimal only if SRM is very likely to be effective. The results are confirmed even when considering positive correlation structures between the effectiveness of geoengineering and the magnitude of climate change. Using a stochastic version of an Integrated Assessment Model, the results are found to be robust for a wide range of parameters specification. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Better Climate Simulation Model?
Hi Dr. D--As the article about the paper notes, this idea was explored about 40-50 years ago. It turned out then that there was a real problem in closing the set of equations---that is, in figuring out a way to write an equation for, for example, the statistical deviation of a flow, etc. Even assuming that the authors are successful in closing the set of equations, it seems to me they are too late. The interest is no longer in how the overall climate will change (that is the broad statistics they would be generating), but in the details of the changes in the kinds of weather that are likely. Basically, we live the changes in the weather‹the changes in climate just give changes in the long-term average and, while they determine some types of impacts, the real key is in how the weather is changing (that is, the typical sequencing of the weather, etc.). So, a general finding that summertime precipitation in the northeastern US is going to increase is really not very useful information‹did it all occur in one storm, how is it spread over the season, how much did evaporation go up, and lots more? So, overall, might well be interesting for doing climate change studies over millions of year period, etc., but for projecting 21st century climate change, my sense is that we really want to be able to see what the details will look like (even though, to date, we have been doing too little analysis of all of this). Mike M On 3/5/13 10:20 PM, Dr D durb...@gmail.com wrote: I am curious what climate modelers think of the following paper Basically, the authors want to simulate climate forcers rather than every single area in a climate model Climate scientists might have missed this paper as it was published in a physics journal Summary for the public: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145807.htm Ref: S. M. Tobias, J. B. Marston. Direct Statistical Simulation of Out-of-Equilibrium Jets. Physical Review Letters, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Hi Stephen‹First, I don¹t have any record of getting your coded modulation email of Feb 20. I did get a note on that from you late last year and reminder note on responding around January 20, but have not seen anything since (perhaps you just sent your latest message to active modelers). On this issue of an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function, I just don¹t think it exists and that any relationships that there might be from some places to others would not be consistent over the seasonal cycle or with interannual variability, etc. Yes, there are some indications of relationships of, for example, how various parts of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean may alter atmospheric circulation under some conditions and thus lead to downstream effects, but the relationships are not all that consistent and persistent and can be affected by other types of conditions (e.g., the state of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). There sometimes seem to be other relationships in the system (e.g., Atlantic hurricane occurrence linked to ENSO stage; African drought to SST in some regions, etc.), but most relationships tend to be mainly regional and have modest statistical support over some parts of the year or a decade, but can be affected by what is going on elsewhere as well. So, if a really strong (in terms of energy content) perturbation like ENSO is not creating a consistent response and other relationships are perhaps even weaker, it just seems to me really implausible that there would be something like the everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function you are seeking for undertaking cloud brightening interventions that involve a good bit less energy. And even if you had such relationships (changing over the annual cycle and adjusted for other factors--say a volcanic eruption‹occurring, I don¹t see how one would really make use of them as there would likely need to be simultaneous applications in different regions, and, given how the atmospheric circulation connects the world, I would not think that the responses would add linearly or consistently, etc. Now, while an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function seems to me unlikely, this is not to say that regional cloud-brightening or other approaches to change the energy balance will not have responses elsewhere‹I just think they are likely to be meaningfully significant in some coupled regions relatively close in and not, in most cases, far downwind (my exception here would be if the energy intervention were to cause the atmospheric circulation to switch how it went around some major orographic feature like the Himalayas). Thus, I do think that there will need to be looks at what might result from regional changes in the energetics‹but it will not be nearly so simple or constant in time as an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function. Best, Mike PS‹And yes, on the island initiative‹how would one weigh a negative impact now versus potential benefits later. Would society (globallly) agree to take actions having negative consequences today for benefits later? The current COP negotiations do not give much of a sense of confidence on this, even if individual countries are seeming willing to step forward. On 2/22/13 5:40 AM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Mike I agree completely with what you say which is why I am trying to get an everywhere-to-everywhere transfer function of the side-effects of cloud albedo control and why I am disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm being shown by the climate modelling people to try the coded modulation experiment described in the email I sent with my email of 20 February. It is almost as if they did not like to get ideas from electronics engineers, that they do not like being told that they are using the wrong colours and map projections to show their results and that it might be interesting to test spray variation according to the phases of the monsoons and the el Nino cycle, which they have not yet done. You mentioned islands in a remote area. Such places are the most likely to be affected by rising seal levels and so we ought to think about levels of compensation for not having geo-engineering hardware ready for use if needed and not understanding all of its effects. I have already seen estimates of the costs of the droughts and the probability that they are the result on climate change. But it is not clear who is going to pay. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 21/02/2013 17:28, Mike MacCracken wrote: Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering Just to take the issue one step further, it has come up
Re: [geo] Coded modulation
Hi Stephen--Interesting. I am open to models suggesting my intuition is inadequate. One point not very much addressed in the draft paper seemed to me to be how long one kept the intervention going. Near as I could tell, the paper hardly mentions, but it seems as if the intervention is running all year long. A question would seem to be is whether one might see more definitive connections if one looked on a monthly basis, such that some months would have more effect than another? Best, Mike On 2/22/13 1:13 PM, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Mike As promised. Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] pre-print of forth-coming paper: Svoboda, T and Irvine, PJ, Ethical and Technical Challenges in Compensating for Harm Due to Solar RadiationManagement Geoengineering
Just to take the issue one step further, it has come up in the area of even doing field testing. Let¹s suppose that we want to do a field test of the cloud brightening approach. The field test would be done at such a low level that it would not really generate present benefits (i.e., any significant counter-balancing of adverse impacts) for anyone, but let¹s suppose it might (though not clear how) cause some negative influence to some one‹say someone on an island out in the remote area where the test is being done. Let¹s also suppose that the field experiment would be expected to show that this approach could be used to counter-balance significant future climate change and in that way create a large net benefit (so, yes, some relatively limited negative impacts, but many, widespread benefits (or, at least, significant reductions in anticipated adverse impacts). So the question then arises, what if the present offended party objected to the experiment going forward because of negative impacts (or possible unknown consequences)? The net present effects of this experiment would be negative, but there would be great potential benefits in the future that would be foregone. In some sense, for the close-in direct consequences, this is likely not unlike the testing of new medicines, so there would be a need for informed consent and damages. While there may be precedents for the potential direct damages, a key question would be how to deal with the less well-defined unknowns and how does one consider the benefits of gaining knowledge about potentially achieving net benefits (so, yes, some damages) in the future. Pretty clearly, climate engineering will not go forward without testing, and testing raises the question of how to weigh/consider potential near-term negative consequences to gain confidence in an approach that would provide net benefits in the future. Basically, I would just suggest that we need to have social science consideration of both the issues arising around testing as well as for potential application. Mike On 2/21/13 9:28 AM, David Morrow dmorr...@gmail.com wrote: Doug, Interesting question. I'd have to think about it more; it's probably more complicated than it appears. (What isn't?) The basic issue is that on most ethical frameworks, one party may sometimes have the right to insist that some other party refrain from harming them, even when the latter party would benefit from doing so. To take a well-worn but dramatic example, I have a right to insist that you refrain from harvesting my organs, even if you were confident that doing so would save the lives of several other people. I certainly don't need to compensate people for refusing to give them my organs. The wrinkle is that this right may not apply when the first party is responsible for the second party's distress -- and that may be the case in your SRM scenario. Let us stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that in virtue of their fossil fuel exports, Russia and Canada bear some non-neglible responsibility for the climate change that some future SRM-seeking states are trying to counteract. If Russia and Canada oppose SRM because the warmer climate benefits them, they might not be able to defend themselves by claiming that others have no right to harm them. If they blocked SRM in that scenario, they might be obligated to compensate those who wanted to use it. That's my initial response, anyway. Does that seem sensible? David On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:39:12 PM UTC-6, Doug MacMartin wrote: Agree that we all need to work together. Two quick comments: 1. Just want to reiterate to the non-physical-scientists that while it is quite plausible that some would be harmed by SRM (a trivial example being those who want to ship through the Arctic) it is premature to assume any specific harms from SRM, as it depends on the method, the amount, and how it is implemented (e.g. our Nature Climate Change paper indicating that some harms could be reduced by tailoring the distribution, along the lines of John Stephen¹s observations that precip changes depend on where you do MCB.) And even if you specify everything, I would at least wait for GeoMIP analysis to understand a bit of model robustness. I only skimmed through, but I think Peter and Toby were reasonably careful to say ³could² most of the time rather than ³would² 2. This is a serious question, not a joke: is there an ethical framework to ask about compensation to those who would be harmed by blocking the use of SRM? I.e., in some hypothetical future scenario in which there was great confidence that many people could benefit from SRM, should those who don¹t want SRM compensate those who would likely be harmed by that decision? If not, why not? doug -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: [geo] Re: Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
Hi Ken--My question on the definition being used would be if ³impacts² is the right word as that usually refers to the consequences of changes in climate, so what is covered in IPCC WG 2 rather than WG 1. I would suggest that SRM is interested in limiting ³the amount of anthropogenic climate change² or ³the effects on climate of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases² or ³the effects on climate of anthropogenically caused changes in radiative forcing² or something similar. Now, I do agree that the intent of doing these actions is to limit the impacts of climate change on society and the environment, but global SRM directly is focused on counter-balancing the response of the climate system to the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, and not, for example, trying to directly limit the shifts in ranges of ecosystems, etc. I would actually suggest that some of what might be regionally focused efforts to alter the energy balance, such as use microbubbles to limit absorption of solar radiation in Hudson Bay and thereby lead to a greater presence of sea ice (with goal of limiting the effects of an open Hudson Bay on North American weather and on polar bear habitat, for example) would be closer to the definition of SRM intending to limit impacts‹though still not as direct as might be pursued in other ways of dealing with impacts (like resettling polar bear populations, etc.). Mike On 2/20/13 2:01 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: Russell, I am prone to side with Humpty Dumpty when it comes to words that do not yet have a narrow agreed-upon definition. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean‹neither more nor less. -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, 1872. We are defining solar geoengineering in the context of our study. Other definitions may be appropriate in other contexts. Best, Ken On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com wrote: Ken's ERL abstract commences : Solar geoengineering is the deliberate reduction in the absorption of incoming solar radiation by the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. It is worth noting the unsuble distinction between this global paradigm and aiming to reduce the uptake of solar energy to limit warming locally for purposes quite unrelated to the aim of reducing impacts of anthropogenic climate change. such as water conservation or mitigating urban heat island effects. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] 1. Prospects for an Emergency Drawdown of CO2
Hi Adrian--Interesting question, but does not the domain of the entropy analysis matter? Basically, one is going to be using materials to channel solar energy (via wind power and growth of algae) into concentrated form, that one then stores. So, letting solar energy just cause heating and then that heat being radiated away increases entropy and the efforts proposed here basically slow that process down by intercepting the energy and using it to not so rapidly disperse. Is that not just what a forest does, or a forest plantation, etc.? Mike On 1/27/13 9:08 PM, Dr. Adrian Tuck dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk wrote: With regard to the sequestration of excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and halocline, I'd like to see an entropy analysis of such a procedure. The entropically entailed energy cost of removing the present burden at a dilution 400 ppmv is very likely to be so large that a thermodynamic profit, as contrasted to a possible short term economic one, is probably unattainable. Even if it could be theoretically done in an engineering sense, the nonlinearities in the entire, coupled system would still make the consequences unpredictable. On 28 January 2013 00:51, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com wrote: This is written for a less expert audience than seen here at Google Groups Geoengineering, but bear with me as this is an example of how to frame policy priorities. wcal...@uw.edu Suppose we had to quickly put the CO2 genie back in the bottle. After a half-century of thinking small about climate action, we would be forced to think big--big enough to quickly pull back from the danger zone for tipping points and other abrupt climate shifts. By addressing the prospects for an emergency drawdown of excess CO2 now, we can also judge how close we have already come to painting ourselves into a corner where all escape routes are closed off.7 Getting serious about emissions reduction will be the first course of action to come to mind in a climate crisis, as little else has been discussed. But it has become a largely ineffective course of action11 with poor prospects, as the following argument shows. In half of the climate models14, global average overheating is more than 2°C by 2048. But in the US, we get there by 2028. It is a similar story for other large countries. Because most of the growth in emissions now comes from the developing countries burning their own fossil fuels to modernize with electricity and personal vehicles, emissions growth is likely out of control, though capable of being countered by removals elsewhere. But suppose the world somehow succeeds. In the slow growth IPCC scenario, similar to what global emissions reduction might buy us, 2°C arrives by 2079 globally-but in the US, it arrives by 2037. So drastic emissions reduction worldwide would only buy the US nine extra years. However useful it would have been in the 20th century, emissions reduction has now become a failed strategy, though still useful as a booster for a more effective intervention. We must now resort to a form of geoengineer-ing that will not cause more trouble than it cures, one that addresses ocean acidification as well as overheating and its knock-on effects. Putting current and past CO2 emissions back into secure storage5 would reduce the global overheating, relieve deluge and drought, reverse ocean acidification, reverse the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise, and reduce the chance of more4 abrupt climate shifts. Existing ideas for removing the excess CO2 from the air appear inadequate: too little, too late. They do not meet the test of being sufficiently big, quick, and secure. There is, however, an idealized approach to ocean fertilization5 that appears to pass this triple test. It mimics natural up- and down-welling processes using push-pull ocean pumps powered by the wind. One pump pulls sunken nutrients back up to fertilize the ocean surface--but then another pump immediately pushes the new plankton production down to the slow-moving depths before it can revert to CO2. How Big? How Fast? The atmospheric CO2 is currently above 390 parts per million and the excess CO2 growth has been exponential. Excess CO2 is that above 280 ppm in the air, the pre-industrial (1750) value and also the old maximum concentration for the last several million years of ice age fluctuations between 200 and 280 ppm. Is a 350 ppm reduction target12, allowing a 70 ppm anthropogenic excess, low enough? We hit 350 ppm in 1988, well after the sudden circulation shift18 in 1976, the decade-long failure of Greenland Sea flushing24 that began in 1978, and the sustained doubling (compared to the 1950-1981 average) of world drought acreage6 that suddenly began in 1982. Clearly, 350 ppm is not low enough to avoid sudden climate jumps4, so for simplicity I have used 280 ppm as my target: essentially, cleaning up all excess
Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland¹s melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all
Hi Andy‹I would just note that I am concerned that there may have been too much focus on temperature and not enough on the fluxes of energy determining the energy balance of the ice sheet; air to ice heat transfer is likely a pretty small term. So, during the Eemian, there was a lot more summer solar radiation on to the ice compared to present, but due to lower CO2 concentration there was much less back IR radiation to the ice in both summer and winter compared to the present, and this reduced back-radiation would have let the Greenland ice sheet get rid of a lot of its absorbed heat during the winter as compared to today. My main point in making this comment is only to note that we really have to be careful in hypothesizing about how it will be have unless we are working with models that force a quantitatively rigorous analysis that keeps track of all terms in the energy balance equation all year round (plus, of course, internal ice dynamics and thermodynamics). Just making comments based on the change in the solar radiation during the summer, or about an inferred temperature (and remember that we have no real thermometers, etc.--plus one knows to know about wind speed, etc. to get the energy transfer term) has the potential to be very misleading. Mike MacCracken On 1/28/13 7:12 AM, Andy Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote: There's also fresh input from Richard A. (and Waleed Abdalati) on Greenland and sea level in this new dot earth post: Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland's Ice Has Endured Warmer Climates http://nyti.ms/Yq7uhA I turned to Richard Alley http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/richard-alleys-orbital-and-clima te-dance/ , who¹s become a vital touchstone for me on such research, for some insights. Here¹s his comment, followed by my closing thoughts: I have three immediate responses: Satisfaction in the great success of the collaboration, concern that this slightly increases worries about future sea-level rise from human-caused warming, but technical questions that may leave us more-or-less where we were before on the biggest picture. Taken in turn: Having watched colleagues go to the immense effort of learning what information is desired by policymakers and other citizens, assemble the logistical and scientific abilities to supply that information, and actually do it over a lot of years, and knowing just how many of their kids¹ soccer games and recitals some of the scientist-parents missed, I have to smile when the team succeeds so well. As to the big picture, there is strong evidence from the history of sea level on coasts from the Eemian that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets shrank notably, contributing to a globally averaged sea-level rise of very roughly 20 feet. This occurred primarily in response to a rearrangement of where sunshine reached the planet and when during the year, with more summer sunshine in the north but very little total change. And, some uncertainty has remained on the exact balance between Greenland and Antarctic contributions. The new paper suggests that the contribution from Greenland was on the low end of the prior estimates, but has little effect on the estimated total sea-level change, which points to a larger Antarctic source than the previous best estimate. In my opinion (and I believe the opinions of many colleagues), we have greater understanding of Greenland¹s ice than Antarctica¹s, and we have greater confidence that Greenland will be ³well-behaved² ‹ we will more easily project changes in Greenland¹s ice, with greater confidence that changes begun now will take centuries or longer to be mostly completed. By shifting more of the sea-level rise into the less-understood ice, and thus into the ice with greater chance of doing something rapidly, I believe the new paper at least slightly increases the concerns for coastal planners, even if the chance of a rapid change from Antarctic ice remains small. As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of paleothermometers for the central Greenland ice cores over the last 100,000 years, providing multiple validation and high confidence that temperatures have been estimated accurately. The very changes in the ice sheet that are of greatest interest here also make the effort quite difficult. The melting of the Eemian interferes with gas-based paleothermometry, and with the total-gas technique that provides constraints on changes in surface elevation. A U.S. government CCSP report on Arctic paleoclimates a few years ago (to which I contributed) [link http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/eyes-turn-to-antarctica-as-stud y-shows-greenlands-ice-has-endured-warmer-climates/%3Ehttp://www.climatescien ce.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/final-report/default.htm ] estimated changes in temperature and ice volume for this interval. The new estimates overlap with the older ones. Were I working on that report now, I would
Re: [geo] Re: Why Greenland's melting could be the biggest climate disaster of all
Hi Andy‹Your agreement with the dismissive statement on Greenland seems terribly short-sighted. Over the coming decade (if not already), we¹ll be setting a course for Greenland that will lead to much higher sea level in the future (and the contributions from Greenland and Antarctica will end up being far more than from thermal expansion and melting glaciers). A key issue at present among politicians is the impacts we are imposing on future generations (national debt, etc.)--well, dealing with Greenland melting is quite the predicament we would be posing to future generations (so the children and grandchildren of today¹s politicians). Mike On 1/28/13 9:56 AM, Andy Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote: A sideshow to sea-level questions on policy-relevant time scales. (2100-ish at best).. You're talking geological scale here. Tad Pfeffer's 2008 analysis of worst-case discharge rate still a keystone to clear thinking on this. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Homer-Dixon t...@homerdixon.com wrote: ³Greenland . . . is a sideshow in the sea level question.² I see nothing in the Dahl-Jensen article that could possible justify such a sweeping and dismissive claim. Alley himself says: ³We have high confidence that warming will shrink Greenland, by enough to matter a lot to coastal planners.² Thomas Homer-Dixon University of Waterloo On Jan 28, 2013 5:12 PM, Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote: There's also fresh input from Richard A. (and Waleed Abdalati) on Greenland and sea level in this new dot earth post: Eyes Turn to Antarctica as Study Shows Greenland's Ice Has Endured Warmer Climates http://nyti.ms/Yq7uhA I turned to Richard Alley http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/richard-alleys-orbital-and-clim ate-dance/ , who¹s become a vital touchstone for me on such research, for some insights. Here¹s his comment, followed by my closing thoughts: I have three immediate responses: Satisfaction in the great success of the collaboration, concern that this slightly increases worries about future sea-level rise from human-caused warming, but technical questions that may leave us more-or-less where we were before on the biggest picture. Taken in turn: Having watched colleagues go to the immense effort of learning what information is desired by policymakers and other citizens, assemble the logistical and scientific abilities to supply that information, and actually do it over a lot of years, and knowing just how many of their kids¹ soccer games and recitals some of the scientist-parents missed, I have to smile when the team succeeds so well. As to the big picture, there is strong evidence from the history of sea level on coasts from the Eemian that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets shrank notably, contributing to a globally averaged sea-level rise of very roughly 20 feet. This occurred primarily in response to a rearrangement of where sunshine reached the planet and when during the year, with more summer sunshine in the north but very little total change. And, some uncertainty has remained on the exact balance between Greenland and Antarctic contributions. The new paper suggests that the contribution from Greenland was on the low end of the prior estimates, but has little effect on the estimated total sea-level change, which points to a larger Antarctic source than the previous best estimate. In my opinion (and I believe the opinions of many colleagues), we have greater understanding of Greenland¹s ice than Antarctica¹s, and we have greater confidence that Greenland will be ³well-behaved² ‹ we will more easily project changes in Greenland¹s ice, with greater confidence that changes begun now will take centuries or longer to be mostly completed. By shifting more of the sea-level rise into the less-understood ice, and thus into the ice with greater chance of doing something rapidly, I believe the new paper at least slightly increases the concerns for coastal planners, even if the chance of a rapid change from Antarctic ice remains small. As to the technical parts, as described in many sources, we have lots of paleothermometers for the central Greenland ice cores over the last 100,000 years, providing multiple validation and high confidence that temperatures have been estimated accurately. The very changes in the ice sheet that are of greatest interest here also make the effort quite difficult. The melting of the Eemian interferes with gas-based paleothermometry, and with the total-gas technique that provides constraints on changes in surface elevation. A U.S. government CCSP report on Arctic paleoclimates a few years ago (to which I contributed) [link http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/eyes-turn-to-antarctica-as-stu dy-shows-greenlands-ice-has-endured-warmer-climates/%3Ehttp:/www.climatescie nce.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/final-report/default.htm ] estimated changes in temperature and ice
[geo] Reminder of Climate Engineering Symposium at DACA-13
REMINDER DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS IS 31 JANUARY 2013 Davos Atmosphere and Cryosphere Assembly DACA-13 8 12 July 2013, Davos, Switzerland Symposium 4.4: Can deliberate intervention moderate polar climate change and associated impacts? With the pace of climate change increasing and the array and magnitude of climate impacts intensifying, particularly in high latitudes, increasing attention is being paid to the potential for limiting anthropogenic climate change and/or associated impacts through large-scale interventions. Possible intentional approaches include modifying the solar or infrared radiation balance on regional to global scales, altering biogeochemical cycles (CO2, CH4, etc.), and intervening to limit impacts on flora and fauna. Although specific approaches have been proposed, relatively little is understood about their potential effectiveness and possible unintended consequences. Issues of technological feasibility are also largely unexplored. Papers are invited that describe and address the potential effectiveness and scientific and technical problems associated with deliberate interventions to moderate or reverse human-induced changes in climate and/or the environment. Possible examples include modelling studies of the climatic impacts of proposed schemes for altering the absorption of solar radiation; approaches to reducing release of terrestrial carbon in high latitudes; and evaluations of technological feasibility. Papers are invited that analyze the strengths and limitations of possible approaches to intervening to moderate local to global changes in climate and/or consequent environmental and societal impacts, and/or that address issues relating to possible approval, monitoring, implementation, and overall governance. Session conveners Lead-convener: Michael MacCracken (mmacc...@comcast.net mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net ) Co-convener: Peter Wadhams (p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk mailto:p...@damtp.cam.ac.uk ) Additional information The IAMAS IACS Associations of the IUGG invite the international scientific community to their joint 2013 Assembly - the DACA-13 conference - to discuss latest developments in atmospheric and cryospheric research. DACA-13 will be held in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos, which can be reached by train from Zurich Airport in about two hours. Davos, Europe's highest city, is situated in the eastern part of the Swiss Alps at 1560 meters above sea level. To look at the program, please go to http://www.daca-13.org/program/index_EN To submit an abstract, please go to http://www.daca-13.org/AbstractSubmission/index_EN To check out the preliminary schedule for the week, please go to http://www.daca-13.org/daca13/program/WeekSchedule_EN To read the call for abstracts from 1 October 2012 in full length, please go to http://www.daca-13.org/wsl/daca13/news/CallforAbstracts/index_EN Important Dates Deadline for abstracts without grant application 31 January 2013 Acceptance information and draft program28 February 2013 Deadline early bird registration31 March 2013 Conference DACA-13 8 -12 July 2013 If you have any questions regarding the conference or the scientific program, please contact the Project Manager for DACA-13, Anja Schilling (anja.schill...@slf.ch). For questions related to the location, accommodation or travels, please contact the head of the Davos Congress Administration, Michèle Lagger (michele.lag...@davos.ch). -- 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.
