Re: [geo] EGU GE post mortem
Hi Ken and Greg, Reflecting on your point, Greg, it is extraordinary the widespread antagonism to geoengineering, when it is so obviously needed to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and to prevent Arctic meltdown. We all ought to be campaigning for a grasping of the nettle of reality. We cannot rely on Nature to protect us if we do nothing to promote the natural processes which Nature provides for doing the things we need to do. We cannot continue to pretend that somehow all will be well, and we will still be nibbling our chicken nuggets in front of the TV in thirty years time. It is our turn to be protecting Nature, when the natural processes which have kept our planet in balance for the development of civilisation over the past 8000 years have suddenly been overwhelmed by mankind's intervention with a massive pulse of CO2 and methane, triggering a vicious cycle of warming and melting (albedo positive feedback) in the Arctic. It is now clear that we've run out of carbon budget if we want to avoid dangerous climate warming just from CO2, let alone from other factors like methane and albedo loss. This is clear from an excellent article in Climate Code Red [1]. This means that we have to do things which broadly come under the heading of CO2 removal (CDR geoengineering). We have to pull out all the stops, since we should be aiming to have a carbon neutral world economy within ten years and to be reducing the CO2 level back to 350 ppm in the following ten years. This means that we have to consider a combination of forest management, biochar, ocean iron fertilisation, etc. to promote photosynthesis and carbon drawdown on a massive scale, to counter the massive amounts of CO2 that we will be inevitably continuing to put in the atmosphere. It is equally clear that the Arctic is heading for complete meltdown unless the vicious cycle of warming and melting is broken. The methods of breaking this cycle again employ processes which are found in nature. We must oppose those who say geoengineering should only be used as a last resort, as if there were no crisis at this present moment to justify the use of geoengineering. The only way to protect the Arctic and its wonderful wild life habitat is to cool the Arctic. Tell that to Greenpeace and the rest! Cheers, John [1] http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/05/the-real-budgetary-emergency-burnable.html On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO23/pdf see attachment On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 Selected quotes: If it’s enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it’s enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices—power plants, automobiles—that make the problem worse.” “We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the atmosphere” before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as SRM... Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary emergency right now? “If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—at least the ones that I am aware of—you have to account for very long time scales, generally in decades,” before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he said. “We can’t count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future.” H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done? Greg -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe
Re: [geo] EGU GE post mortem
Thanks John. I share your sense of urgency. Given what is clearly at stake, it is amazing that we are forced to have discussions like this, in the absence of any effective global call to arms. It doesn't help that there isn't clarity in the science community on the seriousness of the problem and the breadth of unconventional solutions that now must be considered. Greg On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:24 AM, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ken and Greg, Reflecting on your point, Greg, it is extraordinary the widespread antagonism to geoengineering, when it is so obviously needed to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and to prevent Arctic meltdown. We all ought to be campaigning for a grasping of the nettle of reality. We cannot rely on Nature to protect us if we do nothing to promote the natural processes which Nature provides for doing the things we need to do. We cannot continue to pretend that somehow all will be well, and we will still be nibbling our chicken nuggets in front of the TV in thirty years time. It is our turn to be protecting Nature, when the natural processes which have kept our planet in balance for the development of civilisation over the past 8000 years have suddenly been overwhelmed by mankind's intervention with a massive pulse of CO2 and methane, triggering a vicious cycle of warming and melting (albedo positive feedback) in the Arctic. It is now clear that we've run out of carbon budget if we want to avoid dangerous climate warming just from CO2, let alone from other factors like methane and albedo loss. This is clear from an excellent article in Climate Code Red [1]. This means that we have to do things which broadly come under the heading of CO2 removal (CDR geoengineering). We have to pull out all the stops, since we should be aiming to have a carbon neutral world economy within ten years and to be reducing the CO2 level back to 350 ppm in the following ten years. This means that we have to consider a combination of forest management, biochar, ocean iron fertilisation, etc. to promote photosynthesis and carbon drawdown on a massive scale, to counter the massive amounts of CO2 that we will be inevitably continuing to put in the atmosphere. It is equally clear that the Arctic is heading for complete meltdown unless the vicious cycle of warming and melting is broken. The methods of breaking this cycle again employ processes which are found in nature. We must oppose those who say geoengineering should only be used as a last resort, as if there were no crisis at this present moment to justify the use of geoengineering. The only way to protect the Arctic and its wonderful wild life habitat is to cool the Arctic. Tell that to Greenpeace and the rest! Cheers, John [1] http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/05/the-real-budgetary-emergency-burnable.html On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO23/pdf see attachment On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 Selected quotes: If it’s enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it’s enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices—power plants, automobiles—that make the problem worse.” “We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the atmosphere” before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as SRM... Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary emergency right now? “If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—at least the ones that I am aware of—you have to account for very long time scales, generally in decades,” before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he said. “We can’t count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future.” H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done? Greg -- 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
Re: [geo] EGU GE post mortem
In the article Ken attached, the text offers the view on CDR (which included BECCS) that None of these currently can be deployed quickly on a large scale.. Funding is the only limiting factor for many of the CDR methods. And, this view of CDR being a non-starter on the scale side of the equation is simply not supportable. Specifically concerning the Marine BECCS concept, expansion should be supported on a robust scale simply for the biofuel and non-fuel commodities (with CDR and oceanic pH adjustment as convenient by-products). In simple words, BECCS has the ability to address the foundational problem of FF use and Marine BECCS avoids the bulk of the limiting issues found in terrestrial BECCS. The SRM side of the GE debate is completely unable to contribute at even the environmental remedial level much less being able to address the core problem of FF use. Also, Marine BECCS needs no further development of the international governance issue for all nations to be able to use the method to help meet their needs for basic food/feed/fuel/fertilizer/freshwater/polymers etc. Best, Michael On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:10:29 PM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO23/pdf see attachment On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rau, Greg ra...@llnl.gov javascript:wrote: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 Selected quotes: If it’s enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it’s enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices—power plants, automobiles—that make the problem worse.” “We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the atmosphere” before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as SRM... Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary emergency right now? “If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—at least the ones that I am aware of—you have to account for very long time scales, generally in decades,” before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he said. “We can’t count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future.” H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done? Greg -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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.
[geo] EGU GE post mortem
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO23/asset/eost2014EO23.pdf?v=1t=hvip8icos=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 Selected quotes: If it's enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering system, it's enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices--power plants, automobiles--that make the problem worse. We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the atmosphere before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such as SRM... Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an planetary emergency right now? If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere--at least the ones that I am aware of--you have to account for very long time scales, generally in decades, before you would have a significant impact from these techniques, he said. We can't count on proposed CO2 removal measures to notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future. H... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't get the job done? Greg -- 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.
