[geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?

[Mike MacCracken]

.

The assertion that a wavelength band through the whole atmosphere is
saturated and so adding more of the gas will have no more effect is thus
just plain wrong. What matters is both the amount of the gas and the
temperature of the emitting layers. Were the atmosphere isothermal, this all
would not matter, but it is not and cannot be given that the pressure
decreases with height.

Once one has more radiation being trapped, then one has to get to the
temperature change, and this involves more processes that I won't
cover--just to note that they combine to make it so that the relationship
between temperature change and CO2 concentration is logarithmic, but this
should not be interpreted to mean that adding more CO2 is not leading to
changes in the fluxes of radiation due to saturation of the bands.

Mike MacCracken


On 4/2/09 7:38 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> 
> All the discussion here is making sense. Clearly the initial goal is to
> first reduce solar radiation energy and/or greenhouse layer radiation energy
> incident on the surface in the Arctic region and to reduce the melting of
> ice and to evaluate potential negative consequences. It is not to cool the
> planet initially, just the surface in the Arctic. Indeed, if not for the
> Artic and the melting the rest of the planet is currently doing fine.
> However, when sunspots return at some future time and the rest of the planet
> is warming, what is learned in the Arctic may be applicable.
> 
> The use of the term runaway is a bit misleading. The radiation back from the
> greenhouse layer is graybody radiation and it has a limit when it becomes a
> black body and then adding more greenhouse gas has no impact and produces no
> additional heating of the surface. The greenhouse layer heating ultimately
> saturates when it becomes a black body, independent of additional increases
> in the concentration of the greenhouse gases, hence no runaway.
> 
> Anybody have any good ideas for safely cooling the greenhouse layer gases so
> as to reduce the greenhouse layer graybody radiation flux to the Earth's
> surface?
> 
> -gene
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Carana
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:01 AM
> To: Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: the limits of geoengineering?
> 
> 
> Sure, François, but let's acknowledge that doing nothing is also taking a
> decision. Doing nothing, with the argument that this was better because
> something might not go as planned, that's not really an option. People are
> doing things without fully knowing what will happen, i.e. we're emitting
> greenhouse gases at such a scale and to such an extent that feedback effects
> are taking place that could result in a runaway greenhouse effect even if we
> did magically decide to stop emission altogether.
> 
> If we're to start somewhere (and I advocate that we do), then we might as
> well start close to the arctic, and if we'll be starting now (as I
> advocate), we can start gradually, thus getting a better understanding as we
> go (small-scale). Of course, any such attempts will be regarded as a trial,
> and of course, if something unexpectedly did go wrong, there will need to be
> plans for adjustments or even to abandon further efforts. That speaks for
> itself. But we should get things started now in order to be able to monitor
> things. If there are any reasons to believe that something could go wrong,
> please post a message with details. But the longer we wait with this, the
> greater the chance that immediate and more dramatic large-scale actions will
> need to be taken without much insight in what will eventuate.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:32 AM, f.m.maugis  wrote:
>> Sam,
>> 
>> I do not agree completely with you. The question of temperature
>> increase or decrease is not so simple. It seems to me that the
>> important action is to try to decrease the temperature somewhere on
>> the planet. Then, we see what happen.  It is very possible that
>> decreasing 2 or 3 degrees in Africa can affect Siberia with 7 degrees.
>> For the moment nobody knows. Trials have to be done.
>> 
>> Sincerely
>> 
>> François MAUGIS
>> http://assee.free.fr
>> ==
>> ==
>> =
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Sam Carana
>> Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 15:49 À : Geoengineering Objet : [geo]
>> Re: the limits of geoengineering?

[geo] FW: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House

[Mike MacCracken]

-- Forwarded Message
From: "Holdren, John P." 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:23:55 -0400

Subject: AP story on geo-engineering and the White House

Colleagues --
 
The stance of the White House on geoengineering was garbled in the AP story
about an interview with me that went out earlier this week.  In the course
of a wide-ranging half-hour interview on my new job, high-tech innovation
for economic growth, energy, national security, and climate change, I got
asked about whether we need to think about geo-engineering as a response to
the climate problem and I spent a few minutes on it.  I said that the
approaches that have been surfaced so far seem problematic in terms of both
efficacy and side effects, but we have to look at the possibilities and
understand them -- including their shortcomings -- because if other
approaches to mitigation fall short the geo-engineering approach will end up
being considered.  I also made clear that this was my personal view, not
Administration policy. I was asked to describe some examples of
geo-engineering approaches and mentioned orbiting reflecting particles and
sulfates injected into the stratosphere, explaining their shortcomings and
making clear that I was not endorsing them.   Asked whether I had mentioned
geo-engineering in any White House discussions, though, I said that I had.
This is of course NOT the same thing as saying the White House is giving
serious consideration to geo-engineering ­ which it isn¹t at this point --
and I am dismayed that the headline and the text of the article suggest
otherwise, as well as dismayed that the entire AP story focused on this
minor point in the interview.
 
Cheers anyway,
John 
 
JOHN P. HOLDREN
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President of the United States
jhold...@ostp.eop.gov, 202-456-7116
Executive Assistant Pat McLaughlin
pmclaugh...@ostp.eop.gov, 202-456-6045
 


-- End of Forwarded Message


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Fast-Track & Cheap (relatively) Solutions to Reversing Global Warming ! ! !

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Mr. Law: With respect to your suggestion, you need to do some
background reading:

The 1992 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report did a calculation of what
would be required for near Earth orbit. Offsetting a full doubling of the
CO2 concentration would require reducing the incoming solar radiation by
something like 1.8-2% of the incoming solar radiation. The NAS indicated
that to limit solar radiation by 1% (so about half the effect of a doubling)
would take something like having 50,000 orbiting mirrors, each about 10 by
10 KILOMETERS in size (so, as they orbited, we¹d have many ongoing, but
short, mirror-induced eclipses of the Sun). Thin films  might well be
lighter, but would have to be kept in shape by structural materials, and
many are translucent, so greater area may be needed.

They also reported on a proposal to insert a deflector of solar radiation at
the L1 point (about 1.6M km toward the Sun), where there is equal
gravitational pull from the Sun and Earth‹but active management is required
to keep any object in place. This would require a deflector of radiation
that was something like 1800 km in diameter, as I recall (most cost
effectively put in place by building a manufacturing plant on the Moon).
More recently, Angel has suggested lofting via electronic launcher from the
Earth¹s surface something like a few trillion parasols, each about .8 meters
in diameter‹something that would again be quite a large project.

I¹ll leave out issues arising from the energy and environmental effects of
putting something like this in place‹but suffice it to say that these
projects would be enormously costly to put in place and would need to be
sustained for generations, and all they would accomplish is to mean we could
burn a bit more coal rather than pay the modest extra costs of nuclear,
renewables, etc. Indeed, if one wants to put so much investment into going
to space-based activities, it would seem far more plausible (to me) to be
investing in a space-based contribution to the Earth¹s energy supply (like
solar-powered satellites that would beam energy to the surface).

Best, Mike MacCracken






On 4/27/09 4:34 AM, "Raymond Law"  wrote:

> Hi Everybody,
>  
> I was referred to joining this group with my layman's version of solution to
> the subject crisis. The solutions that I am outlining below are a  ' mixing
> and matching ' of common knowledge, across a spectrum of existing and commonly
> used construction products, robotic tools and the use of the space shuttle.
> And I believe that my suggestion  could be the quickest and cheapest solution
> as of today.  And I need everybody in the know to chip in and refine my
> concepts, e.g., pointing out the problem areas, the weakest links, etc.  And
> also, when, how and where to go next, in the hope of achieving this goal for
> the benefits of all mankind,  ASAP .
>  
>  
>   
> 
__>
_
>  
>  
> Below is the outline of my concepts in the fast-track solutions in reversing
> the global warming crisis.  And I have to stress that these are only concepts
> and have yet to be developed furthers.
>  
> Main points of my Reversing Global Warming Project  :
>  
> 1.  The biggest heat source on earth's atmosphere is from the Sun and earth's
> inner heat pool.  Contrary to other believes, carbon dioxide and other green
> house gases would only affect the quality of our air, storing humidity and
> altering the reflective/refractive proficiency of solar energy, etc.  But they
> themselves do not generate heat.  And if we try to reverse global warming
> along this route, it would take too long for this route to be really
> practical.
>  
> 2.  However,   with today's technology and resources,  mankind can still do
> nothing in suppressing the heat coming up under our feet ; therefore, the
> quickest and surest route is to pull a sun shade/blind over earth.
>  
> 3.  With today's knowledge and computer power, and the country's
> understandings of earth's atmosphere, positioning acres of solar
> refractive/reflective thin films  ( widely used in new buildings' window
> panes, worldwide and are currently having large volume production in U.S.,
> China and the European Union )  in geo-stationary orbit, or much lower orbits
> if this visor is only need for a finite period of time,  should not present
> any major problems to the country. .  Using mirrors will not be practical in
> its handling and in its weight to surface area ratio.
>  
> 4.  The average radius of the earth is a known factor, add to it the average
> height of the geo-stationary or much lower orbits for placing these solar
> films is also a known factor.  Thus, we can easily calculate the total
> sup

[geo] Re: Fast-Track & Cheap (relatively) Solutions to Reversing Global Warming ! ! !

[Mike MacCracken]

I did not mean glass mirrors, just some reflecting or blocking substance.

Best, Mike


On 4/28/09 3:55 PM, "dsw_s"  wrote:

> 
> Why mirrors, rather than whatever's cheap, harmless, and opaque?
> 
> On Apr 28, 2:57 pm, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Law: With respect to your suggestion, you need to do some
>> background reading:
>> 
>> The 1992 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report did a calculation of what
>> would be required for near Earth orbit. Offsetting a full doubling of the
>> CO2 concentration would require reducing the incoming solar radiation by
>> something like 1.8-2% of the incoming solar radiation. The NAS indicated
>> that to limit solar radiation by 1% (so about half the effect of a doubling)
>> would take something like having 50,000 orbiting mirrors, each about 10 by
>> 10 KILOMETERS in size (so, as they orbited, we¹d have many ongoing, but
>> short, mirror-induced eclipses of the Sun). Thin films  might well be
>> lighter, but would have to be kept in shape by structural materials, and
>> many are translucent, so greater area may be needed.
>> 
>> They also reported on a proposal to insert a deflector of solar radiation at
>> the L1 point (about 1.6M km toward the Sun), where there is equal
>> gravitational pull from the Sun and Earth‹but active management is required
>> to keep any object in place. This would require a deflector of radiation
>> that was something like 1800 km in diameter, as I recall (most cost
>> effectively put in place by building a manufacturing plant on the Moon).
>> More recently, Angel has suggested lofting via electronic launcher from the
>> Earth¹s surface something like a few trillion parasols, each about .8 meters
>> in diameter‹something that would again be quite a large project.
>> 
>> I¹ll leave out issues arising from the energy and environmental effects of
>> putting something like this in place‹but suffice it to say that these
>> projects would be enormously costly to put in place and would need to be
>> sustained for generations, and all they would accomplish is to mean we could
>> burn a bit more coal rather than pay the modest extra costs of nuclear,
>> renewables, etc. Indeed, if one wants to put so much investment into going
>> to space-based activities, it would seem far more plausible (to me) to be
>> investing in a space-based contribution to the Earth¹s energy supply (like
>> solar-powered satellites that would beam energy to the surface).
>> 
>> Best, Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> On 4/27/09 4:34 AM, "Raymond Law"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Everybody,
>>>  
>>> I was referred to joining this group with my layman's version of solution to
>>> the subject crisis. The solutions that I am outlining below are a  ' mixing
>>> and matching ' of common knowledge, across a spectrum of existing and
>>> commonly
>>> used construction products, robotic tools and the use of the space shuttle.
>>> And I believe that my suggestion  could be the quickest and cheapest
>>> solution
>>> as of today.  And I need everybody in the know to chip in and refine my
>>> concepts, e.g., pointing out the problem areas, the weakest links, etc.  And
>>> also, when, how and where to go next, in the hope of achieving this goal for
>>> the benefits of all mankind,  ASAP .
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>> 
>> _
>> _>
>> _
>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Below is the outline of my concepts in the fast-track solutions in reversing
>>> the global warming crisis.  And I have to stress that these are only
>>> concepts
>>> and have yet to be developed furthers.
>>>  
>>> Main points of my Reversing Global Warming Project  :
>>>  
>>> 1.  The biggest heat source on earth's atmosphere is from the Sun and
>>> earth's
>>> inner heat pool.  Contrary to other believes, carbon dioxide and other green
>>> house gases would only affect the quality of our air, storing humidity and
>>> altering the reflective/refractive proficiency of solar energy, etc.  But
>>> they
>>> themselves do not generate heat.  And if we try to reverse global warming
>>> along this route, it would take too long for this route to be really
>>> practical.
>>>  
>>> 2.  However,   with today's technology and resources,  mankind can still do
>>> nothing in suppressing the heat coming up under our feet ;

[geo] Re: Televised debate

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Eugene--In that the climate was cooling over the last 5-6000 years or
so until the warming during the late 19th and through the 20th century, what
is it that underpins your belief that the climate would be warming now in
the absence of human activities? And, to convince anyone, you had better
relate it to some causal factor and not just suggest there is some cycle
from some single point with no underlying physical cause.

Mike M


On 4/30/09 5:16 PM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> 
> I keep saying it but you all seem to either disagree, but say nothing, or do
> not understand. While a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should
> increase average surface temperature through what is improperly called the
> greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be increasing in
> any case independent of anthropogenic emissions. It is what the Earth has
> done many times in the past and is doing again quite independent of AGW. So
> even if we stopped all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the
> Earth would continue to warm; albeit more slowly and not monotonically; but
> warm it will. Ultimately geoengineering will be needed independent of
> whether we cease the AGW component or not. Don't view geoengineering as a
> stopgap until we can get out act together. It will prove to be essential.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of wig...@ucar.edu
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:15 PM
> To: augustusl...@googlemail.com
> Cc: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: Televised debate
> 
> 
> Are you crazy? This is not the question. No-one on the geoeng "side"
> is suggesting we give up on mitigation. We MUST MUST MUST do this.
> Geoeng will (in my view) probably needed as well.
> 
> Please see my paper on Combined Mitigation and Geoeng in Science a couple of
> years ago.
> 
> Tom.
> 
> ++
> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a televised
>> debate on geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house
>> believes we should give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate
>> instead on finding a technofix".
>> 
>> Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be
>> interested in sponsoring such a debate?
>> 
>> Many thanks
>> 
>> Gus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Polar thermal energy conversion

[Mike MacCracken]

This is not dissimilar to a wild idea I had about 30 years ago relating to
how to freeze ice to generate, essentially, encapsulated freshwater
icebergs, that one would tow to regions needing freshwater‹and there are
some others thinking now about how to somehow use the very strong
temperature gradient to cool the Arctic or spray water as snow onto East
Antarctica or Greenland. I would note, however, that what gets coldest is
the surface of thick sea ice (not the air) as it is radiating to space as a
black body whereas air has very low radiative potential (i.e., a low water
vapor concentration)--it coos down being in contact with ice and being able
to radiate its heat to the ice, that then can radiate the energy to space.

Basically, analogous to an air conditioner, the sea water below is the
evaporator and then there must be a condenser  in the air or  the sea ice‹as
it runs, the system would transfer heat from the ocean water to, ultimately,
space, bypassing the insulating effect of the sea ice. The key engineering
challenge is to keep the system free of ice build-up. In the ocean, the
water is just above freezing and gets cooled as it transfers heat to the
evaporator‹to keep ice from forming, one would need a good flow so one
extracts just a little heat from a lot of water rather than a lot of heat
from a little water; that would take energy to accomplish unless there is a
strong current. For the condenser, the air is well below freezing and the
gas in the evaporator is likely at the temperature of the sea water, so it
is not at all clear there is enough energy to keep this from getting covered
by ice (from snowfall, etc.).

Thus, indeed, if one can figure out how to get energy from the ocean through
the ice (which tends to insulate the ocean from cooling) so the energy can
be radiated to space, one would have a way to cool the planet down during
winter (assuming the sky stays pretty clear). Given the area¹s remoteness
and the cold temperatures, etc., figuring out the engineering is thus
critical‹one would like something with no moving, that floats in the right
orientation until getting frozen into the ice, preferably has no moving
parts, etc.--figure that out and one should get a real prize.

Best, Mike MacCracken


On 5/3/09 5:31 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> This idea links well into proposals for pumping seawater onto the arctic ice
> pack.  Energy to drive the pumps could come from the heat exchangers, but the
> actual effect could be far more widespread as it would result in
> radiative/evaporative cooling of sea water and further an ice-albedo feedback
> due to more resilient ice.
> 
> However, wind turbines are likely to be simpler and more efficient, and thus
> deliver better cooling by dumping more cool water onto the bitterly cold ice.
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/5/3 dsw_s 
>> 
>> Just a brainstormy late-night idea --
>> 
>> The air above the arctic and southern oceans is colder than the water,
>> especially during the long winter night.  It is possible in principle
>> (although probably not practical) to extract energy from this
>> temperature difference, by putting a heat exchanger in the air and
>> another in the water, and running a heat engine on the heat flux from
>> water to air.  If it did turn out to be feasible, it would be an
>> energy source that cools the planet -- directly by putting heat where
>> it will be radiated to space sooner, indirectly by increasing sea ice
>> coverage, and maybe indirectly again by increasing upward heat
>> transport through the atmosphere.
>> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

First, of course, one would be working to do the reflection only during the
sunlit months, so Sun is a bit higher in the sky. During peak summer, there
is as much solar incident on Arctic latitudes over 24 hours as at the
equator. Yes, at a lower sun angle, but still a lot of solar.

And as to getting the radiation reflected back to space, were the particles
small and having a surface of corner reflectors (as Teller, Wood et al
suggested some years back), all the radiation reflected would go back in the
direction that it came. That would be helpful, although, of course, then
light coming up from the bright surface would also be reflected back down,
so indeed, some work is needed on optimizing the particle (bright on top,
not reflecting on the bottom.

Mike MacCracken


On 5/11/09 11:33 AM, "xbenf...@aol.com"  wrote:

> 
> All:
> 
>   Bonnelle Denis is right that a detailed study of aerosol reflections
> needs doing. Someone may wish to use research time on it, but without
> any funding it's difficult to mount a determined attack on the many
> parameters that need varying.
> 
> The issue of particle size demands some actual experiments, to see what
> happens to candidate aerosols at the actual altitudes considered. How
> much particle growth occurs, under what conditions of humidity,
> pressure, etc? What's the true fallout time vs altitude and particle
> size? There's a whole agenda here.
> 
> I do wonder how much Lowell Wood and collaborators are doing on this,
> but Lowell is mum.
> 
> Gregory Benford
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Gorman 
> To: Bonnelle Denis ;
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 11 May 2009 1:59 am
> Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
> 
> I have to admit I hadnt thought of that aspect of
> aerosols in the arctic.
>  
> To Gregory Benfold -What do you think
> ?
>  
> John Gorman
> 
>   - Original Message -
>   From:
>   Bonnelle Denis
>   To: gorm...@waitrose.com ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; John Nissen ;
>   geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> 
>   Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 9:42 AM
>   Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and
>   cons of geoengineering
> 
> 
> 
>   Dear
>   all,
>    
>   (please
>   forgive me if the following
> geometrical arguments have already been
>   discussed).
>    
>   The
>positive feedback (albedo, methane, etc.) rationale for focusing
> about the
>   Arctic is doubtlessly great. But the geometry is not very favorable,
>especially if very tangential sun rays are concerned, which is more
> often the
>   case near the poles than near the equator.
>    
>   The
>most dramatic case is the one of the most tangential rays which: 1 -
> without
>geoengineering - would have traveled horizontally through the
> stratosphere,
>unharmed, and which: 2 - would be diffracted by the silica, half
> upwards but
>also half downwards, giving their heat to the earth. Seen from the
> sun, the
>relevant cross-section is around 10 or 20 km (the considered
> stratospheric
>   layer's thickness)
>multiplied by 2000 or 3000 km (the considered bow length). Such a
> result
>(several 10,000 km²) is not negligible when compared to the whole
> target
>cross-section (the same 2000 or 3000 km, multiplied by 300 or 400 km
> which is
>the width, seen from the sun, of the true useful target region). In
> addition,
>the effect in our x0,000 km² region will be more intense, as the rays
> which
>travel quite horizontally through the stratosphere will meet much
> more silica
>   than those which make a larger angle with the
> horizontal.
>    
>   And
>even 
> in the latter case (i.e., in all the target region, but mainly
> for sun
>rays which will reach the atmosphere with a quite small angle with
> the
>horizontal), an effect of the silica will be to increase the
> proportion of
>such rays which will be redirected towards the ground in a rather
> vertical
>   direction, instead of coming quite tangentially (the blue sky will be
>brighter). Thus, various effects will have to be considered: lesser
> absorption
>in various layers of the atmosphere, lesser reflexion on the ocean
> surface,
>deeper penetration into the ocean, etc. It doesn't seem clear to me,
> whether
>such undesired effects will be lower than the desired fact that half
> of such
>diffracted rays will be redirected upwards, i.e. outwards of the
> earth
>   climatic machine.
>    
>   Best
>   regards,
>    
>   Denis
>   Bonnelle.
>   denis.bonne...@normalesup.org
>    
>    
> 
> 
&g

[geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

A couple of points:

1. On the angle issue, this is of course taken into consideration in
calculating how much solar radiation reaches the Arctic at any given
time‹and rays just passing tangentially through will not count much at all.
That the actual incident light in high latitudes in summer, integrated over
the day, is roughly as much as at the equator (William Sellers book of
roughly 4 decades ago on climate has a nice diagram) means that there is
plenty of time when aerosols could backscatter solar radiation to space.
2. On the backscattering from reflected light, roughly speaking sulfate
aerosols forward scatter about ten times as much as they back scatter. That
would likely still be the case for the upward scattered radiation. The
cancellation would only then occur if the surface albedo were about 1, and
if it is this high, then we should not be using aerosols anyway as the
natural system is doing just fine on its own. The time to use aerosols is
when the surface-troposphere albedo is dropping lower, so the cancelling
effect would be smaller. And I don¹t think one would have to do the
mentioned iteration, again, unless the surface-troposphere albedo is high. I
guess what would be really nice to have is a particle that has a corner
reflector on top (so perfect reflection with no scattering) and is absorbing
below, so the energy is taken up high in the atmosphere where most is likely
to be radiated to space by the layer¹s CO2 (some does go down, but one is
above most of the water vapor, so its GH effect is very small).

Mike


On 5/12/09 9:53 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> You'd have to calculate this across the whole globe, surely?  If the whole
> atmos was affected, then this would mean the Earth turned from being a sharp
> round disc to a bigger, hazy one?   But, the evidence from Pinatubo surely
> demonstrates that this doesn't cause a problem, it still cools down.
> 
> However, can I ask if the backscattering from reflected light has been
> considered?  Over the tropics, where it's not snowy, this is not very
> important, but over the ice, where about 90pc of the light comes back, then
> it's massively important and (seems to) cancel out 90% of the aerosol's
> effects (you'd have to iterate that a few times, of course).  That tangental
> ray effect could then end up being very significant, and if it's more than 10%
> of the net effect then aersols will heat, not cool the arctic.
> 
> Or perhaps I'm just being thick.
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/5/12 Bonnelle Denis 
>> I agree that my point wasn't considering seasonal changes in the earth's
>> orientation relatively to the sun rays (I was in fact dealing with equinox
>> times), and that mid-summer conditions are much more favorable for the most
>> polar locations.
>> 
>> However, at each time of the summer, there exist locations where the lowest
>> point of the sun's daily trajectory is very low above the horizon, and in
>> such locations the effect of aerosol creation would be a notable increase in
>> the received luminous power during several hours around midnight. It is far
>> from sure that this would be offset by the reduction in the received heat
>> around midday (remember my point that a tangential ray would propagate
>> through many hundreds km of the stratosphere, when an oblique one would only
>> get through some tens km or air).
>> 
>> At mid summer (and during at least several weeks before and after the 21st of
>> June), these "dangerous" locations are the ones just north of the arctic
>> polar circle (a central slice of Greenland, and lands near the Northern
>> coasts of Canada and Siberia - mind the permafrost).
>> 
>> If these regions are to be avoided, would it be possible to control very
>> precisely the location (are there significant shifts of air masses from one
>> latitude of the stratosphere to another?) and the time (the particle size
>> control issue) of the aerosols to be created?
>> 
>> Denis Bonnelle.
>> 
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : John Gorman [mailto:gorm...@waitrose.com]
>> Envoyé : mardi 12 mai 2009 11:25
>> À : xbenf...@aol.com; Bonnelle Denis; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineering
>> 
>> Although I was initially worried by Denis's point that arctic aerosols will
>> capture some rays that would otherwise just pass tangentially through the
>> stratosphere, I have now done some geometry and believe that this will only
>> apply to about 0.2% of the incident sunlight on the Arctic at midsummer.
>> 
>> This is because the atmosphere is thin in comparison with the radius of the
>> earth.
>> 
>> This applies of course to all aerosols SO2 or SiO2. My main argument for
>> suggesting silica (Greg's diatoms) is that we might be able to control
>> particle size much more exactly.
>> 
>> John Gorman
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: 
>> To: ; ;
>> 
>> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:33 PM
>> Subject: [geo] Re: Balancing the pros and cons of geoengineerin

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

A couple of notes:

1. Most of the energy to carry the air up is used to push air elsewhere back
down--as air comes down elsewhere, it is compressed and this takes
energy--adiabatic heating. This heat wars the air and can then be radiated
to space, as happens in the subtropics. That the air column is dry makes
radiation of energy to space easier, but it also makes radiation from the
air harder. Together these help to explain the persistent inversions in
broad areas where air is descending.

2. I would think it could be argued that hurricanes accelerate the transfer
of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and thus to space. With the strong
dependence of evaporation rate on wind speed, having high winds accelerates
evaporation, cooling the ocean and transporting heat aloft. In addition,
hurricanes have bright clouds and so reflect solar (which is why they are so
beautiful looking from space), so reduce warming of the ocean--though they
also likely restrict IR loss from the ocean.

3. On amounts of energy, the latent heat energy released (5.2 times 10**19
joules/day) is equal to setting off a megaton nuclear weapon every 70
seconds (a megaton is 10**15 calories). Based on the friction energy
dissipated being only about .2% of the energy released, the destructive
power in energy is equal to about 2.5 Mt per day--assuming all the energy in
a megaton explosion goes into destruction--which is surely not the case as
the air is carried aloft, radiated away, etc., plus due to the very
concentrated nature of a nuclear explosion. So, maybe the destructive power
of a hurricane is equivalent to the destruction created by a one megaton
explosion every maybe 10-30 minutes or so. Seems roughly reasonable to
me--if think about a hurricane spreading its destruction over a much broader
area.

Mike MacCracken


On 6/5/09 9:07 AM, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:

> 
> Some answers, perhaps to the question of what happens to all that energy in
> a hurricane, provided by the aptly named Chris Landsea.  Chris was also on
> TV last night on the National Geographic program, Hurricanes (2009).  In
> addition to not knowing much about what happens above 35,000 ft in a
> tropical cyclone, including the region of the boundary with the (Overworld)
> stratosphere and the upper troposphere, not much is known about what happens
> near the marine boundary layer at around 200 ft, where the hurricane draws
> the water vapor from the sea surface into its structure.  To learn more
> about it, pilots flew at around 200 ft above the sea surface of an active
> hurricane, Isabel.  Brave or crazy.  You decide.  The danger at high
> altitudes is icing.  In their case, it was salt spray condensing on the
> engines that caused them to end the mission.
> 
> As to where does the energy go, it appears that most of it stays in the
> troposphere.  Hurricanes are heat machines that draw their energy from water
> vapor.  The water vapor condenses in the thunderstorms of the eyewall and
> feeder bands.  The air flow is from the surface to the top of the eyewall
> and then it spills over and down back into the storm or over the edge of the
> clouds at the top.  In some ways, hurricanes resemble the tropics, with
> rising moisture laden air that reaches a cold point where it is dried out
> and spreads out horizontally via the Brewer Dobson circulation.
> 
> The air that leaves the top of a hurricane is cold already, so it is not
> sending much energy back into space.  The kinetic energy used to cause the
> winds to circulate is generated at the expense of heat energy from condensed
> water vapor, but is small by comparison with that released from producing
> clouds and rain.
> 
> Eventually all of the heat energy, in the form of infrared radiation, leaves
> the Earth's atmosphere and goes into space.  Because this process is
> continuous, individual photons only spend a fraction of a second in the
> atmosphere, replaced by others instantaneously emitted.  When a hurricane is
> done for, the remnants are typically absorbed by another weather system and
> carried, in the case of Atlantic hurricanes, into the N. Atlantic, sometimes
> as far east as Ireland.  Given the altitudes at which these weather systems
> operate, I don't think they send much IR back to space either.  Thus, I
> don't believe hurricanes are an effective means of reducing the amount of
> energy in the troposphere, what we typically mean when we say "the
> atmosphere."
> 
> Stopping some tropical cyclones or all of them (we can't stop any of them
> now, so this is just speculation, no matter what technology is considered)
> might impact the regional heating of the planet, but I still doubt it would
> have much of any effect on GHG driven warming and overall global warming.
> Weakening the wind speeed of these storms would cer

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

Some further comments are included (labeled "MCM"):


On 6/6/09 3:17 AM, "dsw_s"  wrote:

> 
>> The air that leaves the top of a hurricane is cold already, so it is not
>> sending much energy back into space.
> 
> What about radiation from cloud tops?  I would expect cloud tops to
> radiate much more readily than air at that altitude, both because of
> being a condensed phase that can emit blackbody radiation effectively
> and because of being warmer than air at that altitude normally is.
>
MCM: There is some going out from cloud tops, and indeed more than from dry
air, but it is far less than would go out in absence of the clouds reaching
that high.
 
>> Most of the energy to carry the air up is used to push air elsewhere back
>> down--as air comes down elsewhere, it is compressed and this takes
>> energy--adiabatic heating.
> 
> That doesn't sound right.  At adiabatic lapse rate, a convection cell
> should be energy-neutral before friction is taken into account.
> Energy needed to compress air is balanced by work done by expanding
> air, just as energy needed to lift air against gravity is balanced by
> the work done by gravity on sinking air.  So energy applied to drive
> convection would all be available to be dissipated in other ways.
> 
> Or are you saying that cyclones occur within a situation where the
> background lapse rate is well below adiabatic, and the energy mostly
> goes to overcome that stability?
>
MCM: Air goes up at moist adiabatic rate, but has to be forced down at the
dry adiabatic rate (e.g., over deserts). This tends to go on remotely--like
monsoons rising in one place, and dry subtropics being in another. If
getting this cycle going were easy (as you suggest--self-compensating), we'd
be having convection all the time--and we don't. It takes moisture release
to drive the system (cold air aloft does not come cascading down--the air up
there has to be forced down over a very broad area).

>> One way to test the theory that the tropical cyclones increase radiation of
>> IR to space would be to observe the upwelling IR in the path and area
>> surrounding these storms using satellites and compare to the IR prior to the
>> arrival of the storm.
> 
> If you look at the path after the hurricane has gone by, the IR
> emission from the surface will be affected by the fact that the storm
> mixed warm surface water with cooler water below.  So if you want to
> include the surroundings where the air sinks, you would have to
> account for that.
>
MCM: Yes, but the oceans are also cooled a lot by all the evaporation that
took place to power the hurricanes.
 
> On Jun 5, 1:02 pm, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:
>> One way to test the theory that the tropical cyclones increase radiation of
>> IR to space would be to observe the upwelling IR in the path and area
>> surrounding these storms using satellites and compare to the IR prior to the
>> arrival of the storm.  The reflection of sunlight is a separate issue and I
>> would argue that this is no more or less effective than any other white
>> clouds or even the low level stratocumulus to be whitened using the cloud
>> ships.  Since one of the advantages of the cloud ships was to be reduced
>> SST's and thus weaker or fewer tropical systems, the net impact of these
>> would need to be further explored.
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mike MacCracken" 
>> To: "Alvia Gaskill" ; ;
>> 
>> "Oliver Wingenter" ; "Geoengineering"
>> 
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
>> 
>> A couple of notes:
>> 
>> 1. Most of the energy to carry the air up is used to push air elsewhere back
>> down--as air comes down elsewhere, it is compressed and this takes
>> energy--adiabatic heating. This heat wars the air and can then be radiated
>> to space, as happens in the subtropics. That the air column is dry makes
>> radiation of energy to space easier, but it also makes radiation from the
>> air harder. Together these help to explain the persistent inversions in
>> broad areas where air is descending.
>> 
>> 2. I would think it could be argued that hurricanes accelerate the transfer
>> of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and thus to space. With the strong
>> dependence of evaporation rate on wind speed, having high winds accelerates
>> evaporation, cooling the ocean and transporting heat aloft. In addition,
>> hurricanes have bright clouds and so reflect solar (which is why they are so
>> beautiful looking from space), so reduce warming of the ocean--though they
>>

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

oud cover may also play a role
> in cooling the ocean, by shielding the ocean surface from direct sunlight
> before and slightly after the storm passage. All these effects can combine
> to produce a dramatic drop in sea surface temperature over a large area in
> just a few days.[22]
> 
>   Scientists at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research estimate
> 
> that a tropical cyclone releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200
> exajoules (1018 J) per day,[17] equivalent to about 1 PW (1015 watt). This
> rate of energy release is equivalent to 70 times the world energy
> consumption of humans and 200 times the worldwide electrical generating
> capacity, or to exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20
> minutes.[17][23]
> 
>   While the most obvious motion of clouds is toward the center, tropical
> 
> cyclones also develop an upper-level (high-altitude) outward flow of clouds.
> 
> These originate from air that has released its moisture and is expelled at
> high altitude through the "chimney" of the storm engine.[15] This outflow
> produces high, thin cirrus clouds that spiral away from the center. The
> clouds are thin enough for the sun to be visible through them. These high
> cirrus clouds may be the first signs of an approaching tropical cyclone.[24]
> 
>   http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5e.html
> 
>   Subject: C5e) Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by cooling
> 
> the surface waters with icebergs or deep ocean water ?
> 
>   Contributed by Neal Dorst
> 
>   Since hurricanes draw their energy from warm ocean water, some
> proposals have been put forward to tow icebergs from the arctic zones to the
> 
> tropics to cool the sea surface temperatures. Others have suggested pumping
> cold bottom water in pipes to the surface, or releasing bags of cold
> freshwater from near the bottom to do this.
> 
>   Consider the scale of what we are talking about. The critical region
> in the hurricane for energy transfer would be under or near the eyewall
> region. If the eyewall was thirty miles (48 kilometer) in diameter, that
> means an area of nearly 2000 square miles (4550 square kilometers). Now if
> the hurricane is moving at 10 miles an hour (16 km/hr) it will sweep over
> 7200 square miles (18,650 square kilometers) of ocean. That's a lot of
> icebergs for just 24 hours of the cyclone's life.
> 
>   Now add in the uncertainty in the track, which is currently 100 miles
> (160 km) at 24 hours and you have to increase your cool patch by 24,000 sq
> mi (38,000 sq km). For the iceberg towing method you would have to increase
> your lead time even more (and hence the uncertainty and area cooled) or risk
> 
> your fleet of tugboats getting caught by the storm.
> 
>   For the bag/pipe method you would have to preposition your system
> across all possible approaches for hurricanes. Just for the US mainland from
> 
> Cape Hatteras to Brownsville would mean covering 528,000 sq mi (850,000 sq
> km) of ocean floor with devices.
> 
>   Lastly, consider the creatures of the sea. If you suddenly cool the
> surface layer of the ocean (and even turn it temporarily fresh), you would
> alter the ecology of that area and probably kill most of the sea life
> contained therein. A hurricane would be devastating enough on them without
> our adding to the mayhem.
> 
>   Last updated August 13, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike MacCracken" 
> To: "dsw_s" ; "Geoengineering"
> 
> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:41 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
> 
> 
> 
> Some further comments are included (labeled "MCM"):
> 
> 
> On 6/6/09 3:17 AM, "dsw_s"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> The air that leaves the top of a hurricane is cold already, so it is not
>>> sending much energy back into space.
>> 
>> What about radiation from cloud tops?  I would expect cloud tops to
>> radiate much more readily than air at that altitude, both because of
>> being a condensed phase that can emit blackbody radiation effectively
>> and because of being warmer than air at that altitude normally is.
>> 
> MCM: There is some going out from cloud tops, and indeed more than from dry
> air, but it is far less than would go out in absence of the clouds reaching
> that high.
> 
>>> Most of the energy to carry the air up is used to push air elsewhere back
>>> down--as air comes down elsewhere, it is compressed and this takes
>>> energy--adiabatic heating.
>> 
>> That doesn't sound right.  At adiabatic lapse rate, a 

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Mike MacCracken]

Ken et al.--I have done a similar calculation with MAGICC‹and when you do
the full set of gases, note that tropospheric ozone and black carbon drop
very quickly as well, and  methane over a couple of decades, so there is an
offset to the sulfate warming if we can reduce those other forcings.

And on the rapidity of the response, note that for volcanic forcings, one
gets a pretty quick response, at least of the mixed layer. If one is up to
an equilibrium, then it would take a lot longer to get the heat out of the
deeper ocean layers.

Mike MacCracken


On 6/12/09 12:02 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
wrote:

> I note that Tom got greater cooling than we got in Matthews and Caldeira for a
> related scenario.  (We ignored sulfur and non-CO2 greenhouse gases.)
> 
> Our paper was done using the UVic model and its thermal response seems
> sluggish when compared to other models, so Tom's results may well be correct.
> 
> I am surprised that the cessation of sulfur emissions did not cause more of an
> overshoot.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> 
> kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tom Wigley  wrote:
>> John,
>> 
>> You are wrong. If we stop all emissions immediately, the warming
>> trend will stop and reverse. In the attached ms I set all emissions
>> to zero from 2021 onwards.
>> 
>> Tom.
>> 
>> +++
>> 
>> John Nissen wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No, it's all wrong - about the CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere
>>> > and the planet cooling.  On the contrary, if we were all to drop dead
>>> > tomorrow, global warming would continue for thousands of years, as I
>>> > explain in the thread I started, about the GREAT LIE.  There'd also be
>>> > an immediate warming spurt, as  the sulphur aerosol pollution (which has
>>> > a cooling effect) would be quickly washed out of the atmosphere.
>>> > And,within a few decades, on top of the CO2 warming would be the warming
>>> > from methane as permafrost melted, and the sea level would rise 60-70
>>> > metres as Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted.
>>> >
>>> > Thus, if we disappear, or just carry on as we are for that matter, the
>>> > Earth will continue tipping into a super-hot state, which probably won't
>>> > be habitable for humans, even at the poles.  However it is unlikely that
>>> > the Earth will go the way of Venus, with the oceans boiling away, if
>>> > that's any comfort.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> >
>>> > Alvia Gaskill wrote:
>>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath:_Population_Zero
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I recently saw the Nat. Geo program "Aftermath: Population Zero," one
>>>> >> of several hypothetical accounts of what the world would be like
>>>> >> without people.  Not less people, no people.   These seem to have been
>>>> >> inspired by the work of Alan Weisman, author of the book "The World
>>>> >> Without Us."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In addition to describing what would happen to domesticated animals
>>>> >> and pets left without humans to take care of them, the fate of
>>>> >> infrastructure is also presented.  This particular program (there is
>>>> >> another one that has been turned into a series on the History Channel
>>>> >> called, appropriately enough, "Life After People"
>>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People ;
>>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People:_The_Series  [for those
>>>> >> people still not depressed enough after watching the original
>>>> >> documentary]) also explores changes in the Earth's climate without its
>>>> >> number one interferent, us.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> After 150 years, winters are colder than during the last days
>>>> >> of humans with greater snowfall, indicating declining GHG levels.  It
>>>> >> is stated t

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating:

Based on the earlier email on the energy involved in and dissipated by
hurricanes, the heat release of a hurricane (on average‹big ones are higher
by a good bit) is on order of 5.2 * 10**19 Joules per day. Convert that to
calories, assume you want to dissipate 10% of the energy to slow the storm
down a bit (and this would really mean increasing the natural dissipation
rate by a factor of 40‹which is  lot given that the drag of the surface
ocean is now the major sink of drag energy‹that this factor is so large
should give you real pause). But any way, to deposit the energy you are
talking about as heat in the ocean, your drag devices would have to warm the
upper 10 meters of the ocean over an area having a radius of 300 km by
roughly 0.3 C‹that is a very great amount (just think how much effort the
Sun takes over the seasonal cycle to warm a bit thicker layer by somewhat
more). We are talking about huge amounts of energy‹so, on this argument, I
am on the side of David saying ³nonsensical.²

Your arguments on CO2 lifetimes, etc. are being addressed by others.

Mike


On 6/12/09 3:24 AM, "Bonnelle Denis"  wrote:

> About this "beyond nonsensical" idea:
>  
> I was just commenting a post which dealt with angular momentum and which
> proposed to use kite devices. About this point, I only added the adjective
> "strong". About ships, their being submitted to storm winds isn't, indeed,
> necessary for my idea: submarines could do the job as well. And they could
> more easily move between inside the hurricane's eye - where the surface winds
> are weaker - and outside the whole hurricane - where the crew could safely
> join the rest of the world. Reversed propellers and other hydrodynamic brakes,
> in order to exchange angular momentum, could be fitted to submarines as well
> as to ships. 
>  
> Their "strength" and the kites' one is a matter of design, but mainly of size
> and finally of materials quantities. I do not pretend that I have done the
> least beginning of an economic appraisal, but if anyone was willing to, it
> would be a good thing.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Denis.
> 
> De : David Schnare [mailto:dwschn...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 11 juin 2009 13:09
> À : Bonnelle Denis
> Cc : ds...@yahoo.com; geoengineering; lmich...@vortexengine.ca
> Objet : Re: [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
>  
> 
> For those of us who have been on a ship, on the ocean and near a hurricane,
> much less under it, the idea of having any ship, much less many of them,
> flying kites and reversing engines in some kind of large circle is beyond
> nonsensical.  It's sort of like having the government control GM - might sound
> like a good idea, but really!
> 
>  
> 
> d
> 
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Bonnelle Denis 
> wrote:
> 
> This analysis is interesting, but I'd split the first sentence in three parts:
> "To have harmful wind speeds, a hurricane needs to have a large underpressure
> air column in its middle, and this underpressure has to be protected by the
> centrifugal force, which results from a lot of angular momentum".
> 
> However, when these ideas are being translated to figures (numbers), an
> important parameter comes in : the radius. The centrifugal force effect is
> negligible at the beginning of the air path (when Coriolis's force builds the
> angular momentum up) and at the end of the same path. It is only in its
> middle, i.e. at a middle altitude (maybe from 1000 m to 8000 m) that this
> effect is maximum.
> 
> So, if you'd like to use some strong kites to create a drag, a useful device
> could be to have some boats along a circle in the hurricane's eye, being drawn
> by kites 1000 or 2000 m high, using their propellers as brakes (and even
> transmitting some mechanichal power to an electrical engine which would act as
> a power generator). This would transfer the hurricane's angular momentum - at
> the point where this momentum is most implicated in the hurricane's
> self-stability - to the sea, i.e. it would create an interesting angular drag.
> 
> Conversely, I am not very much convinced by angular momentum exchanges with
> the upper layer of the hurricane's air.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Denis Bonnelle
> denis.bonne...@normalesup.org
> 
> 
> -Message d'origine-
> De : geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com]
> De la part de dsw_s
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 juin 2009 10:55
> À : geoengineering
> Objet : [geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season
> 
> 
> 
> To have harmful wind speeds, a hurricane needs to have lots of angular
> momentum.  If some of the angular momentum could be dispersed to
> farther from the center of the storm, wind speeds would be lower.  If
> I understand it right, a hurricane has air coming in from the
> periphery at low altitude, rising in the middle, and dispersing at
> higher altitude.  If the storm is remaining steady or strengthening
> (in terms of the total angular momentum of

[geo] Re: Back to Nature

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Eugene‹Your argument about the CO2 bands saturating was, as I
understand it, one of the major two criticisms of Arrhenius when he first
put forward the greenhouse gas hypothesis (the other was that the oceans had
so much carbon there was no way that the atmospheric concentration could be
increased as the ocean would take up virtually all of the emissions‹some
still believe this, but it was firmly proven wrong by Seuss and Revelle in
the late 1950s when evidence made clear that the ocean could not be assumed
to be well-mixed, but had a thin upper layer only slowly coupled to the deep
ocean). It also took some time to get to the bottom of the criticism that
you raise, but that happened and was concluded by the efforts of Manabe and
others in the early 1960s who constructed a multi-layer radiative-convective
model of the atmosphere, which made clear that thinking of the atmosphere as
a single slab was simply wrong (for it to be considered as such, the layer
would have to, for example, radiate upwards and downwards at the same
temperature, and this is clearly not the case. When one constructs a
multilayer model where the layer thickness is some small fraction of
opacity‹so the layers really are like layers and radiate up and down at the
same temperature‹one will find that a strong greenhouse effect emerges and
that as more GHGs are added, the layers become thinner and more numerous and
so back radiation to the surface tends , on average, to come from a lower,
hotter layer and radiation out to space is emitted, on average, from a
higher colder layer‹and this will go on until the system warms until the
higher layer is radiating to space the same net amount of energy coming in
from solar. Just look to Venus to see how hot a planet¹s surface can
get‹and, although closer to the Sun, Venus does this with less incoming
solar due to its high albedo (the reason we can see it so easily).

What is interesting about the history of the climate change issue is that
once these two criticisms were cleared up, the President¹s Science Advisory
Council (PSAC) sent a report to President Johnson outlining the physics of
the problem and the likely implications, and they got things pretty close
(as did Arrhenius‹who solved the multilayer equations algebraically by
hand). PSAC¹s report was in 1965‹our understanding is so much further beyond
your argument that assessments sometimes forget to keep offering the
explanation, but it has proven very sound.

Mike MacCracken




On 6/12/09 10:43 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> Amazingly you ignore the physics. When a black body such as the greenhouse
> layer gets black it achieves a maximum radiative output and feedback to the
> surface independent of how thick or concentrated it is. When the greenhouse
> gases in the atmosphere reach that level, putting in more greenhouse does not
> increase the greenhouse effect. The natural positive feedback of increasing
> CO2 levels saturates and the Earth's surface temperature no longer increases
> as a result of greenhouse effects. In the past the asymptotic average
> temperature has been about 25 C except about 250 million years ago when
> extensive lava flows in the area of Siberia (an asteroid impact near
> Antarctica triggered it) caused additional heating of several degrees and
> virtual extinction of surface life.
> 
> 
> From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: euggor...@comcast.net; John Nissen; agask...@nc.rr.com
> Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Back to Nature
> 
> Of the various views:
>  
> One needs to keep in mind that the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55
> million years ago was effectively an "ALLDEAD" scenario where the release of
> carbon was not having any human help. A natural and an instrumented release of
> carbon totally different.
>  
> It certainly is the greatest risk is that we continue to exhaust all the
> combustible carbon resources with an efficiency that will far exceed any
> natural event in the past that could have simultaneously released the
> fossilised carbon out of highly different geological stratum.
>  
> The instrumented release of CO2 added to the natural positive CO2 feedbacks
> (i.e. such that occurred during the PETM), means the natural releases now
> taking place on top of the anthropogenic, instrumented CO2 release,
> constitutes a possibility of reduced rate of recovery unlike the PETM. There
> were no instrumented releases during PETM to empty CO2 from the rock strata of
> many geological ages at once.  What needs to be understood is what triggered
> the PETM releases and can the human activity to restart this behemoth?
>  
> David Keith's effective half-life of anthropogenic CO2 is many thousands of
> years as the geological system

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

You need to get more creative. Lowell Wood's idea some decades ago was
orbiting mirrors in space that would redirect sunlight on to the storm. The
problem remains, however, storm energy is huge, and it is not at all clear
that such efforts could trigger a change, much less one would want and be
able to predict.

Mike M


On 6/13/09 6:35 PM, "dsw_s"  wrote:

> 
> Does a hurricane live moment-to-moment, running entirely on the power
> it dissipates?  Or does it accumulate energy, and have its ability to
> release energy depend not only on how much it's dissipating but also
> on how much it has accumulated?
> 
> If it depends on accumulated energy, an intervention only has to
> affect an amount of power on the order of the difference between power
> in and power out.  If an intervention can make even a small difference
> in energy accumulation rate, then having it run for a long time would
> make a larger difference in the amount of energy accumulated.
> 
> My latest thought is to warm the top of the hurricane by suspending
> sheets of black plastic in the air.  If we could suspend a square
> kilometer of plastic sheet, the sunshine heating it would be less than
> the power the hurricane dissipates by a factor of something like
> 10**7.  That's still a lot of effect-multiplier needed: brute-force
> alteration of the whole hurricane is out of the question, as always.
> A good choice of where to heat the air might let us decrease the
> efficiency with which the storm turns the dissipated heat into
> mechanical work.  One way to get some multiplier effect might be to
> use a bunch of smaller sheets to nucleate convection cells and turn a
> region of just-barely-stable air into a region of scattered cumulus
> clouds.  Maybe the same thing could be done in the area where
> hurricanes form: instead of having convection cells merge into a
> tropical depression, perhaps they could be managed so that there would
> be enough room for air to sink in between the cells.  Or we could go
> the opposite way, making tropical depressions form at the very
> beginning of the season or at the fringes of the area of hurricane
> formation, so that they grow only into moderate tropical storms
> instead of strong hurricanes, and then the sea surface would be cooler
> when hurricanes pass over it.
> 
> Replacing a few powerful hurricanes with a larger number of weak
> tropical storms could be a part of overall geoengineering: the smaller
> storms might mix less heat down into the ocean, so that less heat is
> transported to the poles.
> 
> On Jun 12, 8:42 am, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>> Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating:
>> 
>> Based on the earlier email on the energy involved in and dissipated by
>> hurricanes, the heat release of a hurricane (on average‹big ones are higher
>> by a good bit) is on order of 5.2 * 10**19 Joules per day. Convert that to
>> calories, assume you want to dissipate 10% of the energy to slow the storm
>> down a bit (and this would really mean increasing the natural dissipation
>> rate by a factor of 40‹which is  lot given that the drag of the surface
>> ocean is now the major sink of drag energy‹that this factor is so large
>> should give you real pause). But any way, to deposit the energy you are
>> talking about as heat in the ocean, your drag devices would have to warm the
>> upper 10 meters of the ocean over an area having a radius of 300 km by
>> roughly 0.3 C‹that is a very great amount (just think how much effort the
>> Sun takes over the seasonal cycle to warm a bit thicker layer by somewhat
>> more). We are talking about huge amounts of energy‹so, on this argument, I
>> am on the side of David saying ³nonsensical.²
>> 
>> Your arguments on CO2 lifetimes, etc. are being addressed by others.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> On 6/12/09 3:24 AM, "Bonnelle Denis"  wrote:
>> 
>>> About this "beyond nonsensical" idea:
>> 
>>> I was just commenting a post which dealt with angular momentum and which
>>> proposed to use kite devices. About this point, I only added the adjective
>>> "strong". About ships, their being submitted to storm winds isn't, indeed,
>>> necessary for my idea: submarines could do the job as well. And they could
>>> more easily move between inside the hurricane's eye - where the surface
>>> winds
>>> are weaker - and outside the whole hurricane - where the crew could safely
>>> join the rest of the world. Reversed propellers and other hydrodynamic
>>> brakes,
>>> in order to exchange angular momentum, could be fitted to submarines as well
>>>

[geo] Re: Just in Time for Hurricane Season

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi John—I certainly agree with you for dealing with storms generally—not
sure you could do for a particular storm, which is what the
question/suggestion related to.


On 6/13/09 11:33 PM, "John Latham"  wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> A further possibility is to attempt to emasculate incipient hurricanes by
> cooling oceanic surface waters in regions where hurricanes spawn. One way of
> doing this would be to seed low-level shallow clouds in appropriate regions so
> as to increase their droplet number concentration and thereby their albedo.
> Exploratory GCM exploration of this idea yields the highly provisional result
> that a cooling of one or two degrees (perhaps more) could possibly be
> achieved: which could be significant vis-a-vis hurricane development..
> 
> Other cooling ideas could prove to be of importance.
> 
> Cheers,  John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Mike MacCracken :
>  
>> >
>> > You need to get more creative. Lowell Wood's idea some decades ago was
>> > orbiting mirrors in space that would redirect sunlight on to the storm. The
>> > problem remains, however, storm energy is huge, and it is not at all clear
>> > that such efforts could trigger a change, much less one would want and be
>> > able to predict.
>> >
>> > Mike M
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/13/09 6:35 PM, "dsw_s"  wrote:
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Does a hurricane live moment-to-moment, running entirely on the power
>>> >> it dissipates?  Or does it accumulate energy, and have its ability to
>>> >> release energy depend not only on how much it's dissipating but also
>>> >> on how much it has accumulated?
>>> >>
>>> >> If it depends on accumulated energy, an intervention only has to
>>> >> affect an amount of power on the order of the difference between power
>>> >> in and power out.  If an intervention can make even a small difference
>>> >> in energy accumulation rate, then having it run for a long time would
>>> >> make a larger difference in the amount of energy accumulated.
>>> >>
>>> >> My latest thought is to warm the top of the hurricane by suspending
>>> >> sheets of black plastic in the air.  If we could suspend a square
>>> >> kilometer of plastic sheet, the sunshine heating it would be less than
>>> >> the power the hurricane dissipates by a factor of something like
>>> >> 10**7.  That's still a lot of effect-multiplier needed: brute-force
>>> >> alteration of the whole hurricane is out of the question, as always.
>>> >> A good choice of where to heat the air might let us decrease the
>>> >> efficiency with which the storm turns the dissipated heat into
>>> >> mechanical work.  One way to get some multiplier effect might be to
>>> >> use a bunch of smaller sheets to nucleate convection cells and turn a
>>> >> region of just-barely-stable air into a region of scattered cumulus
>>> >> clouds.  Maybe the same thing could be done in the area where
>>> >> hurricanes form: instead of having convection cells merge into a
>>> >> tropical depression, perhaps they could be managed so that there would
>>> >> be enough room for air to sink in between the cells.  Or we could go
>>> >> the opposite way, making tropical depressions form at the very
>>> >> beginning of the season or at the fringes of the area of hurricane
>>> >> formation, so that they grow only into moderate tropical storms
>>> >> instead of strong hurricanes, and then the sea surface would be cooler
>>> >> when hurricanes pass over it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Replacing a few powerful hurricanes with a larger number of weak
>>> >> tropical storms could be a part of overall geoengineering: the smaller
>>> >> storms might mix less heat down into the ocean, so that less heat is
>>> >> transported to the poles.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jun 12, 8:42 am, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>>>> >>> Dear Denis‹You really need to do some order of magnitude estimating:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Based on the earlier email on the energy involved in and dissipated by
>>>> >>> hurricanes, the heat release of a hurricane (on average‹big ones are
>>>> higher
>>>> >>> by a good bit) is on order of 5.2 * 10**19 Joules per day. Convert that
to
>&

[geo] World Bank posting

[Mike MacCracken]

You might be interested in the World Bank posting at
https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/

It is an intro and pointer to a background report that reviews many of the
possibilities for geoengineering prepared in support of the major World Bank
report to be issued on Sustainability and Climate Change.

Best, Mike MacCracken



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: World Bank posting

[Mike MacCracken]

mage to the marine food
> web. Alternatively, ocean acidification might be limited in specific areas
> such as the Great Barrier Reef by adding a buffering compound to ocean
> waters.
>   3.. Limiting the warming of the ocean in the regions that contribute to
> intensification of tropical cyclones (i.e., hurricanes, typhoons, etc.).
>   4.. Actively managing the global emissions of sulfur dioxide in order to
> maintain, or even enhance, the global cooling influence of tropospheric
> aerosols.
> Each of these actions, and there may be others worthy of consideration,
> would focus on intervening to moderate a specific impact. There are viable
> technological approaches for each of these activities, and they would be
> readily reversible if unexpected, adverse consequences arose. What is needed
> now is an aggressive research and development effort that determines the
> optimum approach, carries out small scale tests, investigates and compares
> unintended side effects with the impacts of greenhouse gases that are
> alleviated, and puts forth a near-term plan for active consideration at an
> appropriate regional or global forum.
> 
> None of these actions would be a substitute for aggressive global mitigation
> of emissions or alleviate all of the adverse consequences. However, they
> could more evenly spread the burden of global warming and potentially slow
> the onset of at least some of the irreversible consequences. In this way,
> geoengineering could buy a small amount of time for global mitigation to be
> negotiated and take hold. Undertaking research on these impact interventions
> seems important and timely.
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike MacCracken" 
> To: "Geoengineering" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:31 AM
> Subject: [geo] World Bank posting
> 
> 
>> 
>> You might be interested in the World Bank posting at
>> https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/
>> 
>> It is an intro and pointer to a background report that reviews many of the
>> possibilities for geoengineering prepared in support of the major World
>> Bank
>> report to be issued on Sustainability and Climate Change.
>> 
>> Best, Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >> 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Comments on Mike MacCracken article & cloud albedo scheme

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi John‹All good points, and I¹ll add another. SO2 would sort of spread with
the winds and have a diffused influence, whereas your approach would have a
much better controlled distribution of its effects. In that, and this is a
point I made at the NAS meeting, global average temperature is not really
likely to be the most appropriate metric to be using‹for example,
maintaining precipitation patterns or even oscillations, or limiting
extremes, or alleviating drought, etc. may be much more significant for
people¹s livelihoods, then your controlled effects on clouds in particular
areas might be a much finer and more tunable approach that just generally
releasing SO2 broadly (of course, its regional and temporal release could be
controlled a bit as well‹just not as finely). So, indeed, let¹s do the
research and figure out how best we can achieve the goals we set. It is not
technique that is what we are after, but results.

Best, Mike


On 6/17/09 10:25 AM, "John Latham"  wrote:

>   
> 
> Hello Mike,
>   
>  
>   
> I enjoyed reading your wide-ranging and authoritative article.
>   
>  
>   
> I present below a response to a statement you made regarding our cloud albedo
> enhancement scheme, which was: ?I like the approach, but it works only on some
> types of clouds and relatively limited area--SO2 works in more types of clouds
> over broader area and also has effect in clear air.?
>   
>  
>   
> Your statement is, of course, correct, and there are clearly significant
> advantages associated with a scheme which has a much greater areal coverage,
> perhaps particularly because the magnitude of the distortions from existing
> weather patterns are likely to be reduced.
>   
>  
>   
> However, I think it worth pointing out that about 25% of the total oceanic
> surface is covered by clouds suitable for seeding, and fully coupled
> atmosphere/ocean GCM computations indicate that (if various defined scientific
> and technological issues are satisfactorily resolved) the cloud albedo
> technique could produce a globally averaged negative forcing of at least
> -4W/m2, which could, in principle, maintain existing values of polar ice cover
> and globally averaged surface temperature for some decades.
>   
>  
>   
> Also, vis-a-vis this scheme, some useful flexibility exists which might prove
> helpful in reducing adverse changes from existing patterns to acceptable
> levels. Our work demonstrates ? subject to the above-mentioned caveats ? that
> it is not necessary to seed all suitable clouds in order to have a very
> significant impact in compensating for impacts from CO2 forcing. Assuming
> sufficient understanding, it is feasible, in principle, to modify the
> selection of regions, time of year, and amount of seeding to change the
> geographical and temporal distribution of negative forcing. In some
> circumstances, it may also prove possible to obtain beneficial results from
> much more limited-area seeding e.g. it may help with coral reef preservation,
> hurricane emasculation or restoration or maintenance of polar ice cover. It
> may also prove desirable to deploy it in conjunction with other techniques,
> such as stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. One might envisage the latter as
> contributing the primary global cooling and the former providing localised and
> hopefully quantitatively controlled cooling to optimise or rectify the
> conditions obtaining in small and important regions. This idea requires much
> more examination.
>   
>  
>   
> All Best, John.
>   
>  
>  
>  
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Mike MacCracken :
>  
>> >
>> > Hi Alvia--Thanks for comment and making report more accessible.
>> >
>> > I would just note that there is no reason one has to think one would keep
>> > putting out SO2 emissions from power plants--why mix it with dark aerosols?
>> > Emissions could be of pure SO2 (given all the sulfur that has been
>> > scavenged) and does not have to be done where people are--or in conditions
>> > that lead to rainout of large amounts in sensitive areas, etc. And SO2 does
>> > not have to be put out continuously or during times of low or no sunlight.
>> > Balloons holding hoses aloft to a kilometer or so would likely be all that
>> > would be needed in a few places--and like a kite, pull the balloon down
>> when
>> > a storm comes as it does no good to put out SO2 into a rain storm (of
>> > course, choose sites where there are few storms). And I would add we know a
>> > good deal about the effects of SO2 in the atmosphere, though surely not
>> > enough (like what have been the radiative and meteorolo

[geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism

[Mike MacCracken]

Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address
these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique
_of_robinson_etal/

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindz
en/

MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003:
Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.

MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand,
pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship
Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities,
Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX,
287 pp.

And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is
the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It
takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times,
but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response
trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie
Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).

But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that
there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated‹a myth explained
by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe¹s modeling of over 40 years
ago‹but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.

We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting
to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments.
Explain, teach, explain.

Mike



On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
wrote:

> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not  empirical confrontation with experience.
> 
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
> 
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Whaley  wrote:
>> 
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode
>> 
>> The Climate Change Climate Change
>> The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
>> 
>>       By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
>> 
>> Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him
>> on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration
>> proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change
>> legislation.
>> 
>> If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of
>> the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares
>> to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing
>> to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing
>> number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again
>> doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
>> [POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press
>> 
>> Steve Fielding
>> 
>> Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic
>> majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system
>> through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.
>> It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the
>> media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who
>> disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the
>> scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and
>> even, if less reported, the U.S.
>> 
>> In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document
>> challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where
>> President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of
>> the population believes humans play a role. In France, President
>> Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new
>> ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was
>> among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the
>> geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new
>> government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-
>> and-trade program.
>> 
>> The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen.
>> Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the
>> U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate
>> summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to
>> receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement
>> last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her
>> nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical
>> chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made
>> warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar
>> Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physi

[geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Gene‹What I would propose to explain in clear terms is just what is in
the IPCC reports‹and in other major, well-reviewed assessments. I would not
be intending to put forth new views and alternative insights, , except in
very rare cases like sea level rise where there was a lot of authoritative
discussion about the IPCC¹s presentation of the summary results. In my view,
we scientists have our opportunity through the IPCC process to offer their
personal comments, and in explaining to the public, we should be sticking to
the views agreed to in the authoritative assessments‹and very carefully
identify and explain any departures.

Mike


On 6/28/09 10:06 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure? Certainly
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global warming based on
> reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a big number or high
> percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The honest position is that
> everything we think we know about climate science, none of which has been
> subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and is causing some
> of the warming but not all because the strong influence of sunspots has been
> clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and there are thousands
> of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no sunspot data to go with it.
> So the best data and perfect correlation for 4 events we have is sunspots. The
> best qualitative science we have is greenhouse effects, There are other cloud,
> ocean current effects, etc. etc.
>  
> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the deniers. Take
> the position that the science is not well established, it is qualitative, and
> we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However the proxy record of
> 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not too distant future we
> will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC
> CO2 TOMORROW.
>  
> Knee jerk reactions are not useful.
>  
> -gene
> 
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM
> To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley
> Cc: Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
> 
> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address these
> types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:
> 
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique_o
> f_robinson_etal/
> 
> 
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindzen>
/
> 
> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003:
> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the
> American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.
> 
> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand,
> pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship
> Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities,
> Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, 287
> pp.
> 
> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is
> the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It
> takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times, but
> simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response
> trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock
> being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).
> 
> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that
> there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated‹a myth explained by
> Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe¹s modeling of over 40 years
> ago‹but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.
> 
> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting to
> the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments. Explain,
> teach, explain.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
> wrote:
> 
>> That something like this would be published in The  Wall Street Journal
>> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that  it is what you
>> believe that counts, not  empirical confrontation with  experience.
>> 
>> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few  centuries, but is now
>> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
>> 
>> Reality has  become just another special interest group.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 28,  2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan

[geo] Re: Single cloud and remote ships

[Mike MacCracken]

On 8/8/09 6:48 AM, "Stephen Salter"  wrote:

> 
> If we do not like the results of a treatment pattern that replicates el
> Nino then we move the flotilla to the other side of the Pacific to get a
> controlled amount of la Nina. My own view is that a steady state is
> usually better than an oscillation and I would like to position vessels
> to apply a bit of damping.
> 
Dear Stephen--On the question of steady state, for the Pacific region
undergoing El Nino/Southern Oscillation, I would venture to say they depend
on the oscillation, and steady conditions would be a real disaster, over
watering some regions and underwatering others (or are those words
synonyms?)--giving too much precipitation too consistently and too little to
others, also too consistently. Given the size of the region and the amount
of precipitation, the only way to get enough to virtually everyone is for
there to be an oscillation.

Best, Mike



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening & Copenhagen study on Climate Response

[Mike MacCracken]

And exactly where is Mount Meru. Wikipedia offer this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology)  --interesting, but not
very practical help.

Best, Mike


On 8/8/09 10:19 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio"  wrote:

> First of all, congratulations to you Stephen and John getting this excellent
> publicity. 
>  
> "The British team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the
> University of Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of
> Edinburgh, is working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura. The British
> team, led by John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the University of
> Manchester, and Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, is
> working with a Finnish shipping company, Meriaura."
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6742023.ece
> 
>  
>  
> I just would like to draw your attention, whose effort and idea  it was to
> bring Meriaura into the picture and introduce Atmosmare Foundation? I.e. their
> leading geoengineering researchers Risto Isomaki, coordinator Esko Pettay and
> Auramare's Lauri Malkia to John and Steve in this picture. So ... John,
> Stephen and Risto, remember me too and prepare to give me a brush so that I
> can come to brush off the salt from your deck (if the Indianice melts away
> before Clinton finds us sponsors...).
>  
> Risto Isomaki worked for many years in solitary isolation in Finland fostering
> relationships to gain practical support to his geoengineering ideas as a
> handyman-inventor and environmentalist. I really hope all these efforts are
> coming to fruition.
>  
> I suggest as this matter has come hot that the research proposal is presented
> in the Oceanology International that is coming. I am more inklined towards
> this as all the ice related schemes fail because of the ice simply vanisihing
> by melting ever faster.
>  
>  
> Alvia's etc idea should be considered, I think aerosols spreading is quite
> easily doable. 
>  
> I think that the cooling, or, use of cloud-forming aerosols could be first
> tested from high oceanic mountains by piping gas upto the high mountain top
> and then releasing it to the winds (the pumping of gas don't cost fortunes as
> the pipes are not expensive). I was asked to help fund a pipeline to Mount
> Meru to 4,500 metres, you can have a large throughput even through plastic
> pipes.
>  
> There are also almost always a strong upwards windrafts in oceanic mountains
> as the windward sides accummulate stream of rising air, this then continues
> over the top of whichever side the wind blows. Pumping of water so high is
> expensive but sulphur dioxide gas etc does not accummulate very much pressure
> in hoses when pumped uphill few kilometres.
>  
> Balloon tests must continue to get a full geoengineering community support as
> the technology is so readily existing one.
>  
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Albert
> 
>  
> From: agask...@nc.rr.com
> To: chris.gr...@mcgill.ca; kelly.wan...@gmail.com
> CC: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening &
> Copenhagen study on Climate Response
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 05:17:47 -0400
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
> 
>  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide
> _to_Global_Warming
>  e_to_Global_Warming>
>  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
> 
>  
> Lomborg is a de facto denier, cleverly framing his ever changing arguments
> in a way that misleads and misdirects. If he truly believes global warming
> is a serious problem, then how does he reconcile his statements that we
> don't need to reduce CO2 emissions? Those of us in favor of geoengineering
> research and deployment with few exceptions agree it is a stop gap, not an
> alternative to reducing emissions which he refers to as "politically
> correct."
>  
> Economic analyses have a role to play in selecting the technologies to use,
> not just for geoengineering, but also for emissions reduction. Above a
> certain threshold, cost is important, but effectiveness always trumps cost
> and that has to be established first. Then let the econ profs go to work.
> And try not to let Lomborg's specious arguments get in the way. Otherwise,
> Mark the Pie Man may have to make a repeat appearance, with additional pies
> as needed.
>  
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: "Christopher Green, Prof." 
> To: "Kelly Wanser" 
> Cc: "Alvia Gaskill" ; 
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:09 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Today's London Times: Latham-Salter Cloud Brightening &
> Copenhagen study on Climate Response
>  
>  
>  
> Thanks. The panel of expert economists (three of them 

[geo] Re: Home experiment

[Mike MacCracken]

Remember, that crashing waves might well be an important factor to consider
in lifetime of the floating material. The approach has to limit evaporation,
not so much heat transfer, and it is a bit hard to see how one would cover
the waves in any sort of continuous way without a much larger amount than
just to cover smooth water with a thin layer. I might add that, as I
understand it, Kerry Emanuel actually did some experiments on doing this
sort of thing (with an organic fluid) 5-10 years ago, and did not find
success‹it is very likely a lot harder than it might seem.

Mike MacCracken


On 8/14/09 8:48 PM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> After a couple of days all the Special K sank.  I think this is rather neat.
>  It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long
> enough to mess up a hurricane.  Then it can either end up as food for
> bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon.
> 
> I think it could be worth a sea trial.  If anyone lives near a relatively
> secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal,
> it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment.  Perhaps we can attempt to
> calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be
> the best.  Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most
> effectively?
> 
> An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and
> would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and
> is non-porous.  However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem.
> 
> I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea
> actually works.
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter 
>> 
>> Dear Andrew,
>> 
>> If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the
>> water and make it warmer.  What color will the Special K be after a
>> few days if it is eat?  What happens to the (additional) fish near the
>> surface when the hurricane comes?  If not the cooling effect will
>> increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional
>> cooling effect.
>> 
>> Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is
>> higher than the water.  Worth checking this out.
>> 
>> Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign.
>> There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already.  If you
>> add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer.
>> 
>> Good luck,
>> 
>> Oliver Wingenter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
>>> > I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a
>>> > very small experiment.
>>> > I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours.
>>>  I
>>> > tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry.  Both samples remained
>>> > afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment.
>>> >
>>> > I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer
>>> into
>>> > the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms:
>>> > 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar
>>> > heating of the sea
>>> > 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing
>>> > evaporation
>>> > 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet
>>> > surface area
>>> > 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing
>>> > effective surface area.
>>> >
>>> > I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration.  I really hope
>>> > someone can comment on the idea.  It seems pretty cheap and
>>> environmentally
>>> > benign to me.
>>> >
>>> > A
>> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...

[Mike MacCracken]

I am for putting up solar cells on a roof structure over the cars, as is
already being done in some locations. I would think it would be a much more
efficient way to capture the energy and it would shield the cars from the
heat, so reduce their air-conditioning requirement. Now, indeed, that might
not work in potential high wind (i.e., hurricane) regions, but I would think
it would work fine in the West.

I'd also note that hot asphalt is also radiating an awful lot of energy
away--if it really had high conductivity, the surface would stay cooler. So,
the hot layer must be fairly thin and since one gets energy out of a
temperature gradient, one really wants the heat conducting tubes near the
surface, necessitating structural strength. Not to mention that darkening
the surface has meant a lower planetary albedo, by a bit here and there. I
would think it would be much, much more efficient to use the high quality
solar energy directly rather than taking it up after absorption, unless what
you need is a lot of hot water for some industrial process or for supplying
some large facility needing hot water (sport facilities for their showers,
etc.) or heat energy (e.g., when living in a cold environment, but then snow
would cover the ground.

I would note Iceland as an interesting example of using heat energy in
clever ways. The steam and boiling water from geothermal sources is first
used to generate electricity, then piped 40 km or so to Reykjavik to heat
homes and hot water, and then is piped under the roads to melt winter snow
and ice as they really don't want to have to devote people to clearing roads
as opposed to generating income for their country. The US Southwest has the
reverse problem--it would benefit from a pipeline of cold, deep ocean water,
if only the pumping cost were free.

Mike MacCracken




On 8/15/09 9:07 AM, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:

> 
> The GeoBusters are hard at work this morning, what with cereal being used to
> stop hurricanes and my entry into the transformational energy debate, the
> White TARP (so-named to gather immediate grass roots or more likely
> astroturf support from the angry
> teapartybirtherdeathpanelprotesterswhoallseemtobewhitepeople).  The White
> TARP is to be distinguished from that other TARP which cost a lot of money
> and the blue one I bought at Lowes recently.  The White TARP stands for
> Thermal Ambient Reduction Program.  OK, doesn't roll off the tongue like
> Toxic Asset Relief Program, but for now will do.
> 
> Here is my proposition.  Whitening or lightening of parking lot pavement to
> reduce the urban heat island effect will be a generational project both
> domestically and internationally.  Placing heat exchangers under the asphalt
> to recover IR for the purpose of heating water or some other use will be
> very expensive and also a generational length project.
> 
> It is also unclear which one of these would give us the biggest bang for the
> buck near term to use an old military cliche.  Most of the parking lot space
> is not used for parking, but cars go in and out all day, so in effect it is
> used and any alteration has to take that into consideration.  But not all
> parking lots are used all the time.  Schools, churches, government buildings
> and shopping malls during the off peak season (very off peak of late) all
> have parking areas that remain unused during the summer months and weekends.
> Even most commercial businesses are not open on Saturdays and Sundays so
> there are many days in which these gray to black sufaces just soak up the
> rays of the sun and re-emit them, heating the air, the ground and buildings.
> 
> So is it a better idea to give energy tax credits or some other form of
> compensation to groups like the ones mentioned above to cover their unused
> parking spaces with a white plastic sheet during periods of non use than to
> spend money trying to recover this heat energy from under the asphalt?
> Remember the White TARP can be done immediately, so the benefits begin
> today, not decades from now.
> 
> Yes, this isn't as sexy as the proposal in question and Parking Lot Energy
> Corp sounds a lot more official than White TARP, LLC.  And there will
> certainly be those who object, waving their "Leave My Parking Lot Alone"
> signs and angrily confronting their members of congress at the parking lot
> reform town halls.  If 1000 square miles of parking lots are suitable for
> this treatment and the plastic costs $0.03/SF, then the cost of the plastic
> is around $800K per square mile or $300 for a 10,000 SF parking lot.
> 
> Asphalt reading #1 taken at 8:15am under overcast skies showed a surface
> temp of 79F and at 9am with partly sunny skies was already 90F.  I'll be
> taking readings throughout the day and will seek out a suitable parking lot

[geo] Re: Home experiment

[Mike MacCracken]

My apologies, but I do not see how anything like this could possibly work.
The issue is not the transfer of heat energy to the atmosphere by direct
heating‹the warmth of the ocean is what enables evaporation to occur and it
is then the condensation of the water vapor that gives the energy for the
hurricane. So, anything that is wet at the surface can cause evaporation.
With all the wave action and spray there is likely more than enough water
being lofted for there to be enough evaporation even if one does not get
evaporation from the actual water surface that would be covered under this
proposal. The wind generating the waves is being powered also by evaporation
from over a very wide area.

And as for calculating the effect, we already have a sort of analog‹for when
a hurricane passes over land. Indeed it slows down‹which is what is
desired‹but a lot of that, I believe, is from increased surface drag and
from drier air from over land areas being pulled in. And while wind amount
may go down (and that can be important as damage goes by the cube of wind
speed, and there are thresholds to due to building codes), there can be
torrential rains far inland that do a great deal of damage.

As for a rough calculation, hurricanes are likely drawing moisture into the
atmosphere from near a thousand kilometers from the storm center‹they are
huge, and they are moving, and the wind stirs up the waters for very long
distances.

If one really wants to try to make a difference, one has to limit the heat
uptake of the waters over the whole years, which might get temperatures down
a degree or two over a relatively large area. There are ideas for doing
this‹like the Salter and Latham cloud scheme, etc. But trying to do enough
just ahead of a coming storm is a huge task.

Alvia¹s scheme is interesting because it is seeking to prevent the
originating eddy from forming‹and at this point it has yet to begin taking
advantage of condensation of moisture to drive it. In that poleward
transport of energy by tropical cyclones is a significant amount of energy,
that would also have to be replaced somehow, and so it would be interesting
to think about whether we would have hurricanes were it not for the eddy
initiation on Africa. Given that typhoons develop out in the Pacific without
a desert whirlwind to start them, might it be that the TARP would only shift
the origin of hurricanes to another location. Interesting question to study.

Best, Mike


On 8/15/09 7:41 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> To clarify my earlier emails on the mechanisms involved:
> 
> The pale plant materials would increase the albedo of the sea surface for a
> short but critical period, causing a drop in SST.
> The micro-convection near the surface would be impeded by any floating,
> submerged material, so warm water cannot rise to replace water cooled by
> evaporation (more important in poorly mixed waters)
> If non-porous materials were used, such as woody waste, then any chips that
> float high out of the water would be (relatively) dry, thus reducing the area
> available for evaporation.
> Free-running food oils would tend to form short-lived slicks which inhibit
> wave action, reducing surface area.  Such slicks block evaporation completely
> where their surface remains intact.
> 
> As for the costs, an area tracked by a hurricane would have to be covered to
> an extent which would make a difference, but dispersal should not be a major
> issue as the effects need only be short-lived.  You're basically trying to
> cool the waters the hurricane will pass over in the future.  By using
> materials with a small particle size, a large area of coverage can be achieved
> at little cost.  Further, large particles can be made in situ from compact raw
> materials.  Popcorn is quite a good example, as most people are familiar with
> it being made.  A handful of popcorn seed can cover a bathtub-sized section of
> sea to an useful concentration.
> 
> Can anyone reading this attempt the calculations needed to assess the efficacy
> of the idea?  Testing it experimentally is rather complex, as some effects
> rely on cooling of the sea surface by preventing solar heating and others on
> the insulation of the warm sea, preventing evaporation.  Consequently,
> tracking the temperature change of brine in a bucket in my garden does not
> yield meaningful results.  The best I can do is to test each aspect
> individually.
> 
> I will go buy some popcorn and a thermometer soon!
> 
> A
> 
> 
> 2009/8/15 Stuart Strand 
>> Perhaps you should estimate the cost first.  How much straw per ha do you
>> need to insulate enough to get 50% reduction in heat flux?  Or to cover, to
>> make it simpler.  The sea area to be covered would be something on the order
>> of the area of a hurricane.  Purchase and shipping costs for the straw
>> delivered off shore would be something like  $120 /Mg DW CR, 2006 (Strand and
>> Benford 09 minus ballast).  So how cheap is it?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You also need to e

[geo] Re: Hawaii Saved by Shear Luck Again

[Mike MacCracken]

In fact, Kerry Emanuel and students has a hypothesis that increased tropical
cyclone activity (so number and or power and/or duration) and consequent
vertical stirring of low latitude ocean areas is essential to providing the
extra meridional energy flux to explain how the Cretaceous can be so warm in
the polar regions without the tropics being too much warmer.

Mike MacCracken


On 8/16/09 2:38 AM, "global_frozing"  wrote:

> 
> Will it be right to say that hurricane is the process of moving heat
> up and out, so in fact the hurricane mitigation will work for global
> warming, not against it?
> If it so then better try to provoke the typhoons in the right places
> than try to stop them or weaken them.
> 
> Aleksey
> globalfrozing.com
> 
> 
> > 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Friends of the Earth Motion

[Mike MacCracken]

Holding off on SRM until Greenland is rapidly losing mass, methane is
pouring from the thawing permafrost, and Arctic sea ice is only present in
the depths of winter (so much biodiversity is extinct or virtually so) is
likely too late to reverse these effects--so what is the point. No question
we must mitigate all that we can, but holding off on geoengineering until
all is nearly lost is like waiting to help those facing severe climate
impacts until they are malnourished and near death--the intervention must be
much greater and costly (i.e., many of the most vulnerable will already have
died) and may well not even save those who remain (and certainly not their
culture and heritage). The situation is already so serious in some locations
that it seems to me those concerned about the Earth and its people should be
advocating, in addition to very strong mitigation, aggressive research and
even a low-level start to geoengineering in order to stave off getting to
the emergency situation (and, of course, we may only know a situation is an
emergency one well after that point is reached, or at least committed to
once ocean inertia allows the climate to catch up). Indeed, it seems to me
that arguing one waits is saying that the way to get the world to act
strongly enough on mitigation is to give them a taste of the very worst that
can happen and then trying to pull back--so keep working to lift the foot
off the accelerator as the climate is accelerating toward the likely, but
unknown, end of the road, and plan on hitting your brakes so hard that you
will stop even after your front end is over the edge of the precipice (sorry
to mix metaphors).

Tom Wigley's approach was to use geoengineering as a way to minimize overall
costs of mitigation, so slowing mitigation a bit and making it up with
geoengineering. It seems to me that we need to be doing all we practically
can on mitigation (and I know "practically" is the qualifier--I'd say up to
a few % of GDP) and use geoengineering in conjunction with adaptation to
alleviate the large impacts that have started to show or likely lie just
ahead. So, don't make geoengineering subject to what is done on mitigation
(or let mitigation rely on geoengineering), but consider geoengineering a
complement to adaptation, holding off on it until other adaptive efforts are
overwhelmed (as is emerging now as the situation in the Arctic, etc.).

Best, Mike MacCracken

On 9/17/09 11:41 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, a motion passed at conference is NOT a
> policy statement.  However, it is a very good indicator that FoE will
> shortly be bringing forward a strong policy.
> 
> My money is on it saying:
> 
> 1) Geoengineering is not an excuse not to mitigate
> 2) We should engage in atmospheric carbon reduction in the medium term
> 3) We should research SRM geoengineering as a possible last resort
> 4) We should control and regulate field trials
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/9/17 jim woolridge :
>> 
>> Andrew: this is something of a great leap forward--Friends of the
>> Earth UK (as it then was) was very fast out of the traps re Climate
>> Change in the late '80s and has played a major role in bringing the
>> issue to public attention in the UK; it's good to see them move on
>> from the sterility of the emissions reduction alone policy.  That's a
>> problem of being an early adopter--it is easy to get stuck in place
>> with your once-new breakthrough turned old and stale.
>> 
>> I seem to remember you mentioning some months ago that such a motion
>> would be put to the FoE conference so kudos to all those who helped to
>> bring this about; it provides a welcome, & necessary, counterbalance
>> to Lomborg et al!
>> 
>> On Sep 15, 5:21 pm, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
>>> The following motion was passed at Friends of the Earth (England,
>>> Wales and Northern Ireland) conference:
>>> 
>>> A
>>> PS There may have been some minor amendments to the wording - I
>>> apologise if it's not the latest version.
>>> 
>>> Conference notes
>>> 1)      The failure to control emissions of greenhouse gases to date
>>> 2)      The rising global temperature
>>> 3)      The ever worsening risk of breaching the 2C limit
>>> 4)      The commencement of feedback effects such as Arctic shrinkage
>>> and Arctic methane release
>>> 5)      The emerging discipline of Œgeoengineering¹, which seeks to
>>> directly reduce global warming
>>> 6)      The belief held by some scientists that climate change cannot
>>> be safely controlled without geoengineering
>>> 7)      That geoengineering consists of two distinct disciplines:
>>> carbon sequestratio

[geo] Re: One message for Clinton

[Mike MacCracken]

On this issue of the desperation of our situation, as I noted in a paper
last year (see 
http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken-CritReviewSummary-final.pdf ), and
later confirmed using Wigley's MAGICC model, consider the following:

A) If emissions from the developing world went to zero next year and stayed
there, the trajectory of developed nation emissions (even considering a
reasonably low emission IPCC SRES scenario) would take the world to greater
than 2 C warming, only about a decade or two later as compared to at
present. Clearly, the developed nations have to go to virtually zero GHG
emissions over coming decades.

B) If emissions from developed nations went to zero next year and stayed
there, the trajectory of developing nation emissions (again considering a
reasonably low scenario) would also take the world to over 2 C, delayed by a
little bit more. Clearly, the developing nations are going to have to also
get their emissions down toward zero.

For reasons of both practicality and equity, developed nations need to lead
on CO2, showing the world that a modern economy can prosper on low CO2
emissions. But both developed and developing nations can really reduce
near-term forcing (and so warming) by cutting their non-CO2 emissions
(methane, black carbon, ozone generating air pollutants, etc.--and
controlling each of these can improve health and well-being now and/or
improve overall economic efficiency) and by taking steps to improve
efficiency and end deforestation/start reforestation. Roughly speaking, the
21st century warming influence of 21st century emissions of non-CO2
greenhouse gases is nearly as much as the 21st century warming influence of
21st century emissions of CO2 (of course the CO2 effect carries on for
centuries and longer). So, if we want to slow warming, negotiators must work
toward an agreement that limits both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. And the
point is starting to get through to high levels (see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/11/co2-other-cause-
climate-change).

So, while keeping below 2 C will still be hard if we also control non-CO2
greenhouse gases (and the world may still want and need geoengineering to
keep the warming down and deal with special impacts like the Arctic because
cutting CO2 emissions will also cut SO2 emissions and the aerosol cooling
offset we have now), if the negotiating focus is only on CO2 emissions,
we'll all be getting a good bit warmer and the pressure for geoengineering
will be even greater.

Mike MacCracken


On 9/17/09 10:07 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> 
> The clear message is that:
> 1)  Even if we stopped emission completely tomorrow, we'd probably
> still be in deep trouble.  It is abundantly clear that we face not
> one, but several potential major tipping points, as identified by
> Lenton et al.
> 2) Without urgent and significant funding for geoengineering research,
> the technologies will be unlikely to be ready for swift and safe
> deployment when needed.
> 3)  The later we can deploy any necessary geoengineering, the less
> likelihood there is that these technologies will work effectively.
> 
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/9/16 John Nissen :
>> 
>> 
>> Albert is seeing ex-president Clinton next week.  This is an unusual
>> opportunity to a get a message across to somebody with real influence.
>> Is there a single message that could catalyse action?
>> 
>> Seeing the bad news in the Guardian [1], about which Stephen sighed, one
>> should not be "rocking the boat", yet I feel that the people advising
>> Obama must warn him that emissions reductions, however severe, are no
>> guarantee of safety.  Any level of emissions reductions which appear
>> politically acceptable, like 80% reduction by 2050, has little chance of
>> preventing tipping points like Arctic sea ice summer disappearance.
>> 
>> Perhaps Clinton should be told that we actually face a climate
>> emergency, but IPCC have dug themselves collectively into a hole over
>> emissions reductions.  Scientific advisers (like John Holdren) should be
>> asked a straight question: would emissions reductions by themselves
>> guarantee to prevent the kind of climate catastrophe that could follow
>> from loss of Arctic sea ice (methane discharge, sea level rise) - and if
>> not, is there any alternative to geoengineering for significantly
>> reducing the risk?  The answer does not have to be made public, but that
>> is another issue.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> > 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet

[Mike MacCracken]

The situation is hopefully not quite so hopeless. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801
143.html  

On Energy, We're Finally Walking the Walk

By Lester R. Brown
Sunday, September 20, 2009

Mike
***

On 9/20/09 6:58 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:

> E-Mail This 
> 
> 
>  
>  .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=TopRight-EmailThis&sn2=65192d3/561f2559&sn1=d
> cb1d65c/835343f3&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077b_nyt5&ad=Adam_88x31_b_n
> owplaying&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2FAdam>
> 
> 
> This page was sent to you by: pre...@attglobal.net Message from sender:
> more cheerful stuff Peter
> 
> SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT  | September 20, 2009
> No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet
> 
> By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
> As nations gather for a major summit meeting on climate change, none want to
> take the lead in fighting for significant international targets.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisement 
> 
> Amelia  stars two-time Academy Award winner Hilary Swank as Amelia Earhart,
> the legendary aviatrix.  Directed by Mira Nair.
> Click here to view trailer
>  .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/2a
> e70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=htt
> p://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
>  .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/2a
> e70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=htt
> p://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright 2009  
> The New York Times Company   | Privacy Policy
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet

[Mike MacCracken]

No disrespect intended, but I would suggest that, given his career and past
accomplishments and efforts, Lester Brown¹s views (see
http://www.earth-policy.org/) merits a great deal of consideration.

Mike MacCracken

***


On 9/20/09 10:41 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> This is total BS. His last line gives it away. We are not walking anywhere. We
> ride. ³Stabilizing the earth's climate is a complex undertaking and fraught
> with risk. If the United States leads -- and does so boldly -- I believe the
> world will follow.² What value is the author¹s belief; just another blowhard?
> Why should the world follow the U.S.; they got out of that habit some time ago
> because we are no more than big BS artists like the author. In any case they
> do not have the money to follow.
>  
> The current reasons for reduced oil consumption are the economy and cost of
> oil. Longer term we will focus on security and cost of foreign involvement. It
> is politics and it has little to do with good sense. If we could harness the
> hot air coming out of Washington and from authors like this we would have all
> the energy we need.
>  
> His statement about electric vehicles is insanity. The electric power cost for
> an electric car is 3-4 cents per mile. The battery replacement cost for the
> batteries, (limited deep discharge cycles; a cost not associated with other
> motive sources), is 37.5 cents per mile so anyone using an EV is really paying
> 40 cents per mile versus 12 cents per mile (equivalent to gasoline at $1.25 a
> gallon) with a Prius. And if we were really serious we could halve that using
> a hybrid with a gas turbine generator getting 100 mpg. The technology has been
> proven.
>  
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 9:56 AM
> To: Peter Read; Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to
> Meet
>  
> The situation is hopefully not quite so hopeless. See:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR200909180114
> 3.html  
> 
> On Energy, We're Finally Walking the Walk
> 
> By Lester R. Brown
> Sunday, September 20, 2009
> 
> Mike
> ***
> 
> On 9/20/09 6:58 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:
> E-Mail This 
> 
> 
>  <http://www.nytimes.com/>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes
> .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=TopRight-EmailThis&sn2=65192d3/561f2559&sn1=d
> cb1d65c/835343f3&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077b_nyt5&ad=Adam_88x31_b_n
> owplaying&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2FAdam>
> 
> 
> This page was sent to you by: pre...@attglobal.net Message from sender:
> more cheerful stuff Peter
> 
> SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT | September 20, 2009
> No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/science/earth/20nations.html?emc=eta1>
> By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
> As nations gather for a major summit meeting on climate change, none want to
> take the lead in fighting for significant international targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advertisement 
> 
> Amelia stars two-time Academy Award winner Hilary Swank as Amelia Earhart, the
> legendary aviatrix.  Directed by Mira Nair.
> Click here to view trailer
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes
> .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/2a
> e70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=htt
> p://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes
> .com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/2a
> e70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=htt
> p://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright 2009  <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html>
> The New York Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/> | Privacy Policy
> <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear David‹ In addition to not understanding how praising and being
encouraged by a reduction in fossil fuel emissions that has been occurring
and being encouraged about trends for greater production of renewables is
some how ³far left center²--it would seem to make one think that those
disagreeing with him are not only figuratively fossilized‹I do not see how
you can possibly justify the statements in your last paragraph. Just because
the coverage in September was not a new low record does not at all mean that
the ³Arctic ice is on the mend.² And asserting that global temperature and
ocean heat content are ³on a level path² with such a short record is
extremely dubious (see the recent supplement to the AMS¹s Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society called something like Climate
2008)--something constantly pointed out to those of us generally in
agreement with the IPCC synthesis of the science. And making a 7 to 15 year
forecast is even more dubious, much as I hope it will be the case (and for
reasons other than that global emissions of SO2 from tall stacks are again
headed up sharply due to the new coal plants coming on line in Asia, which
would only be temporarily hiding the ultimate warming).

Mike


On 9/20/09 12:32 PM, "David Schnare"  wrote:

> Come on, Mike.  Those of us who have been listening to Lester Brown's views
> for the past 35 years knows that he has always used the "I'm the authority"
> voice regardless as to whether he is any kind of authority.  Les has done no
> better job than anyone else in picking winners over the years and he has
> always picked a far left of center choice. 
>  
> Fact is, the EU wants to follow the Koyto structure and the US does not.  The
> folks attempting to frame the Copenhagen accord are now saying that it is
> going to take until at least 2014 to get the framework together, especially in
> light of the China and India refusals to play fair and Russia claiming that
> the US (and Western Europe) should pay for all carbon reduction in the
> developing world, which apparently is where it now places itself.
>  
> The U.S is not going to do that.
>  
> And then there's the development of Cap and Trade.  This week Reid walked away
> from legislation this year.  He can't get it done next year because it is too
> expensive for an election year.  That means we are looking at a U.S. cap and
> trade bill no sooner than 2011. 
>  
> We will see some kind of energy bill, but not cap and trade. 
>  
> In the mean time, EPA will continue down its regulatory path, and I know
> democratic senators looking for a way to limit the damage EPA will do under
> the Clean Air Act, as it is. 
>  
> The only saving grace is that arctic ice is on the mend and global
> temperatures (more importantly, global heat content) is on a level path and
> probably will remain so for another 7 to 15 years.
>  
> d.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Mike MacCracken 
> wrote:
>> No disrespect intended, but I would suggest that, given his career and past
>> accomplishments and efforts, Lester Brown¹s views (see
>> http://www.earth-policy.org/) merits a great deal of consideration.
>> 
>> Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> *** 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/20/09 10:41 AM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov
>> <http://esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov> " > <http://euggor...@comcast.net> > wrote:
>> 
>>> This is total BS. His last line gives it away. We are not walking anywhere.
>>> We ride. ³Stabilizing the earth's climate is a complex undertaking and
>>> fraught with risk. If the United States leads -- and does so boldly -- I
>>> believe the world will follow.² What value is the author¹s belief; just
>>> another blowhard? Why should the world follow the U.S.; they got out of that
>>> habit some time ago because we are no more than big BS artists like the
>>> author. In any case they do not have the money to follow.
>>>  
>>> The current reasons for reduced oil consumption are the economy and cost of
>>> oil. Longer term we will focus on security and cost of foreign involvement.
>>> It is politics and it has little to do with good sense. If we could harness
>>> the hot air coming out of Washington and from authors like this we would
>>> have all the energy we need.
>>>  
>>> His statement about electric vehicles is insanity. The electric power cost
>>> for an electric car is 3-4 cents per mile. The battery replacement cost for
>>> the batteries, (limited deep discharge cycles; a cost not associated with
>>> other motive sources), is 37.5 cents per mile so anyone using an EV is
>>> reall

[geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet

[Mike MacCracken]

Interesting.

So, 2 C above preindustrial is the official goal by the leaders. We have
warmed by 0.8 C, so that means we have about 1.2 C to go. Convert that by
multiplying by 1.8, and that gives a bit over 2 F to go from present
warming. I guess the larger number makes people think we have a bit more
room available.

Only trouble is, of course, that given present GHG concentrations in absence
of the SO2 cooling offset that would go away virtually immediately if we
stopped emissions from coal-fired plants, we would be at forcing of about
2.7 W/m2 (so 1.6 net that IPCC gives plus 1.1 for aerosol forcing), and if
climate sensitivity is 0.75 C per W/m2 (and it may be higher, or maybe
lower), that gives an equilibrium warming of 2 C (though, of course, if all
emissions stopped, there would be a downward drift‹but if we hold that
forcing constant, we are at 2 C plus or minus.

Best, Mike




On 9/20/09 9:39 PM, "Manu Sharma"  wrote:

> From the NYT article linked below:
> 
>> Fundamentally, although limiting the temperature rise to 2 degrees Fahrenheit
>> is an accepted goal, there is no consensus on how to get there. This 2-degree
>> Fahrenheit rise is the equivalent of the original goal of 2 degrees Celsius
>> above the planet¹s temperature just before the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> ???
> 
> How did this go past the editors at The New York Times?
> 
> - Manu
> 
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM,   wrote:
>>  
>> > s.com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=TopRight-EmailThis&sn2=65192d3/561f2559&sn1
>> =dcb1d65c/835343f3&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077b_nyt5&ad=Adam_88x31_
>> b_nowplaying&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2FAdam>
>> This page was sent to you by:  pre...@attglobal.net Message from sender:
>> more cheerful stuff Peter
>> 
>> SCIENCE / ENVIRONMENT   | September 20, 2009
>> No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet
>> 
>> By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
>> As nations gather for a major summit meeting on climate change, none want to
>> take the lead in fighting for significant international targets.
>>  
>> Advertisement 
>> 
>> Amelia  stars two-time Academy Award winner Hilary Swank as Amelia Earhart,
>> the legendary aviatrix.  Directed by Mira Nair.
>> Click here to view trailer
>> > s.com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/
>> 2ae70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=
>> http://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
>> > s.com/yr/mo/day/science/earth&pos=Center1&sn2=48422044/176b9274&sn1=caf97136/
>> 2ae70fcf&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011077g-nyt5&ad=amelia_g_120x60&goto=
>> http://www.foxsearchlight.com/amelia>
>> 
>> 
>> Copyright 2009  
>>  The New York Times Company   | Privacy Policy
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >> 
>> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: NYTimes.com: No Climate Change Leader as Nations Prepare to Meet

[Mike MacCracken]

Manu--Given that the observed preindustrial global baseline is not all that
well known, 2 F above present (of course, one has to worry how that is
precisely defined as well) may be a more definitive target than 2 C above
the baseline. Of course, one could base the changes all on calculations in
models, but that introduces other complications. And does India us degrees
F‹a bit strange to give them a change they would not understand.

But, I agree, it certainly has the potential to be confusing.

Best, Mike


On 9/21/09 11:43 PM, "Manu Sharma"  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>> 2 C above preindustrial is the official goal by the leaders. We have warmed
>> by 0.8 C, so that means we have about 1.2 C to go. Convert that by
>> multiplying by 1.8, and that gives a bit over 2 F to go from present warming.
> 
> Mike,
> 
> The paragraph I quoted does not contain the phrase "above present temperature"
> when it refers to 2F rise. I now see that this phrase is included further up
> in the article in the second para where it says: 
> 
>> ... the [Indian] government was pilloried at home last summer for accepting
>> the international goal of preventing a global temperature rise of more than 2
>> degrees Fahrenheit above present temperatures by limiting emissions.
> 
> The above implies that the Indian government has accepted the 2F target above
> present when in fact it signed up to limiting temp rise to 2C over
> pre-industrial temperature. 
> 
> While technically, there may be little difference but for accuracy sake and
> for the sake of avoiding needless confusion, I think it's better to stick to
> the facts as they are and in the form they can be best understood. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Manu
> 
> 
> 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Robeson Channel Suitable for Suspension Cabling to Block Prevent Southward Ice Movement

[Mike MacCracken]

What about doing this across Jakobshaven and other fjords that allow ice
streams to flow rapidly?

Mike


On 10/1/09 9:25 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>  
> Please find enclosed a brief satellite animation on the Robeson Channel from
> this summer which suggest that use of bridge-style suspension cabling could
> hold ice in place and prevent it moving into the warm waters further along the
> channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. The link attached below which
> shows the summertime ice movements.
>  
> The shortest suspension cables would be Ellesmere - Hans Island - Greenland
> each stretch about 10 kilometres in length. (The concept is to create ice
> congestion behind barrier that is self-locking jam of pack ice behind cable
> that remains longer in the cold waters.)
>  
> On the negative side, the ice amount south of any successful cable barriers
> will decrease. The impact of cables for boats, whales and perhaps other large
> fish and wild life would also have to be addressed. After melting, the barrier
> cable is lowered to the seafloor when ice is on northward move or there is a
> lack of ice, the barrier is raised up to surface whenever there is ice flow
> moving southward. It is also raised up to surface for the winter freeze.
>  
> In Nunavut, the suspension cabling could help to keep the North West Passage
> clear of thick sea ice floes that damage ships while preserving ice on the
> north side of the channel. This might help justify such a system at least in
> Nunavut. The profile of the Swalbard Islands and Franz Joseph Land could also
> be enlarged by blocking the straights by cables. This would increase the ice
> congestion behind these archipelagoes and decrease some sea ice escape from
> the high Arctic Basin.
>  
> I have not considered blocking of the Fram Staight due to its width, but
> materially the largest amount of sea ice loss through escape will occur there.
> The barriers can slow down ice movement and loss to the south due to decreases
> in ice movements but if ice melts away due to warm weather behind barrier,
> these measures become all but useless.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Albert
>  
> From: janne.bjorkl...@sll.fi
> To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Greenpeace dokumentoi pohjoisen pallonpuoliskon jäätiköiden sulamista
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:18:14 +0300
> 
> http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/fi/mediakeskus/lehdistotiedotteet/greenpeace
> -dokumentoi-pohjoise
>  e-dokumentoi-pohjoise>
> 
>
> 
> View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place - Learn more!
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Open Letter to COP15

[Mike MacCracken]

Two comments;

1. If you can's say it in 5 points or less, I don't think you have a chance
of being convincing. One needs a really tight couple of points you can
convey quickly--as they say, a few elevator points.

2. Given how hectic those meetings are, it seems to me one has to educate
and convince delegates before you go to the meeting when the delegates might
have a chance to listen.

Mike MacCracken


On 10/3/09 7:33 PM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> 
> I had sent this to John yesterday.
> 
> John, I don¹t disagree but you have ignored some important points. Increased
> global warming will drive population toward the poles and to higher
> elevations. Domed villages will emerge and people can stay put especially if
> fusion power comes into being. No doubt global population will have to
> decrease.
> 
> Some countries will prefer increased warming such as Russia and Canada so the
> politics will become fierce and there will be no easy consensus.
> 
> Nevertheless part of the scientific community would agree with your 24 points,
> another part would strongly disagree. The 24 points might prevail but not
> easily. In about 8000 years the Malinkovitch cycle will end and the CO2
> concentration will drop significant (the norm is 180 ppm and it had been at
> 280 ppm due to the Malinkovitch cycle). There will be significant cooling.
> 
> I think you will get some flak from others but not much from this group.
> 
> 
> Eugene I. Gordon
> (908) 233 4677
> euggor...@comcast.net
> www.germgardlighting.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Sam Carana
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 6:25 PM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Open Letter to COP15
> 
> 
> That makes a lot of sense, John.
> In the light of the risks you mentioned, I believe it is our duty to
> make such a call
> and I call upon everyone here to have a look at this.
> 
> I'd support an effort to make this into an open letter to COP15.
> We've got enough clout (pun intended) here to be heard.
> I encourage everyone to add your thoughts and - most importantly - your name,
> and then let's all give wide publicity to this open letter.
> 
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, John Nissen  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Why is funding for geoengineering important?  Who agrees with the argument
>> below?  Is there a consensus for the proposed actions?
>> 
>> My view of the situation is that the Earth system is tipping into a hotter
>> state, and the quicker we try and put it back in balance, the more likely we
>> are to succeed.  I would like to know whether people share this view, or
>> differ from it in significant ways.
>> 
>> So I am interested to know how many of you agree with the following chain of
>> argument.
>> 
>> Considering:
>> 
>> 1.  The average temperature of the planet remains constant while there is a
>> balance of incoming and outgoing radiation.
>> 
>> 2.  The Earth system is showing signs of imbalance of radiative forces
>> resulting in a net warming of the planet (estimated at 1.6 Watts per square
>> metre).
>> 
>> 3.  This imbalance is not unexpected as there is a large excess of the
>> greenhouse gas, CO2, in the atmosphere (currently at about 385 ppm compared
>> to pre-industrial 280 ppm, not much exceeded for the previous 2 million
>> years as far as we know).
>> 
>> 4.  For the past 8000 years or so, the Earth system has been approximately
>> in balance, following at least 2 million years of temperature oscillation
>> (the Ice Ages) - and it has possibly been kept in balance as an inadvertent
>> result of human activities (forest clearance, methane from paddy fields,
>> etc.).
>> 
>> 5.  The result of this balance has been a relatively stable temperature and
>> sea level, as compared with the fluctuations of the previous 2 million
>> years.
>> 
>> 6.   The current imbalance is causing global warming that is amplified and
>> accelerated in polar regions due to positive feedback.
>> 
>> 7.  There is also growing positive feedback as carbon sinks (both oceanic
>> and terrestrial) begin to lose their effectiveness.
>> 
>> 8.  These feedbacks in the Earth's system must cause an underlying
>> acceleration in global warming, which can be considered as a tipping of the
>> whole system towards a hotter state (reached when forces are in balance
>> again).
>> 
>> 9.  There is possibility of parts of the system 

[geo] Re: SciCitizen on Royal Society Report

[Mike MacCracken]

Ken makes some very good points. I would just add that understanding about
geoengineering is spreading, and needs to continue to be nurtured with more
research building even greater understanding of what might and might not be
done, and what it will mean. That geoengineering is getting into
international thinking is its mention in the World Bank¹s World Development
Report (see http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/team/michael-maccracken
for a posting about its consideration‹where you can also find a pointer to
the main report) and in the recent UNEP report on the state of the world
(see report mentioned at upper right at http://www.unep.org/climatechange/).

Mike


On 10/8/09 11:42 AM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I received a few comments to me personally about this post asking why I
> responded as I did to the following question, and asking me to explain my
> position on this group:
> 
> According to you, what should thereof be the place of geoengineering at the
> Copenhagen Climate Conference in December?
> 
> I see no reason for the Solar Radiation Management options to be considered in
> December. 
> 
> I think Copenhagen will be a disaster. I do not see any advantage to
> discussing climate intervention there.
> 
> First of all, in the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, leaders of the largest
> countries were not even able to agree to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels
> -- essentially, subsidies for carbon dioxide emissions. In an attempt to paper
> over this failure, they announced that they intend to phase out these
> subsidies at some unspecified time in the future.  If the leading nations of
> the world cannot even agree in September to stop subsidizing fossil fuel
> emissions, how likely is it that they will agree in December to greatly
> increase the cost of fossil fuel emissions?
> 
> In this context, I think that if you push too hard too early for acceptance of
> climate intervention, there will be a backlash and climate intervention is
> likely to be proscribed. I think this is something we should learn from
> Climos: Pushing too hard too early will produce a backlash from the NGOs that
> governments will find all too easy to assent to. It is easier and much less
> political risky to take the high ground and say: Yes, we are for emissions
> reduction and against climate intervention, and then do nothing, than to say:
> Yes, we are for emissions reduction and considering climate intervention, and
> then do something on both fronts. Given the choice, politicians will go down
> the low road by adopting the rhetorical high road.
> 
> If you push for an international agreement on climate intervention too
> quickly, the likely agreement will be to ban intentional climate intervention.
> I think we need a lot of work before we will be ready for formal international
> agreements on this issue.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ken
> 
> PS. You know things are pathetic, when a failure to agree to cut out fossil
> fuel subsidies gets reported as an environmental success story:
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-g20-climate26-2009sep26,0,5748722.story
> 
> Reporting from Pittsburgh - World leaders at the Group of 20 summit pledged to
> phase out subsidies for fossil fuels in the "medium term" Friday, a nebulous
> goal that the leaders nevertheless said could make a noticeable dent in global
> warming.
> 
>  The pledge is purposely vague,...
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> 
> kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ken Caldeira 
> wrote:
>> I was not expecting my email response to be published verbatim, but here it
>> is:
>> 
>> http://scitizen.com/stories/climate-change/2009/09/Geoengineering-the-climate
>> --science-governance-and-uncertainty/
>> 
>> Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and uncertainty
>> 
>> 23 Sep, 2009 03:17 pm
>> 
>> 
>> Earlier this month, the Royal Society of the UK issued a report entitled
>> "Geoengineering the climate : science, governance and uncertainty". Ken
>> Caldeira, the director of the Caldeira Lab at the Carnegie Institution in the
>> U.S. and a member of the working group involved in producing this report,
>> answers Scitizen's questions.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The report divides geoengineering methods into two basic classes. Can we put
>> Carbon Dioxide Removal methods (which remove CO2 from the atmosphere) on the
>> same level as Solar Radiation Management methods (that reflect a small
>> percentage of the sun's light and heat back into space) yet?
>> 
>> No, Carbon Dioxide Removal methods and Solar Radiation Management methods are
>> two very different kinds of interventions. I was originally arguing that the
>> Carbon Dioxide Removal methods should not eve

[geo] Re: [CCP] Grow trees fast and bury them?

[Mike MacCracken]

Just a note that I believe some of the bills in Congress tend in these
directions. Congressman Van Hollen has a proposal much like the Hansen one
and I understand that a senator has one that gets income from cap and trade
system and then distributes most of money as suggested by Hansen, but holes
back something like a quarter to work on non-CO2 greenhouse gases (just to
note that CO2 only contributes about half of the 21st century warming
influence of 21st century emissions‹of course CO2 warming influence goes
much longer due to long lifetime). At some point, it is going to be
understood that geoengineering is also something to be considered, and I
understand some government sponsored planning activities are underway. Thus,
things have gone a good way beyond Jim Hansen¹s proposal (that is, it has
led to some legislative proposals, and some do keep some back for various
purposes‹some for R&D, some for help to developing nations, some for dealing
with other gases, etc.--and it is for this reason, that is, the dilution of
the signal to the consumer, that Jim has seemed to be holding fast to a 100%
rebate).

Mike


On 10/19/09 11:31 AM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Thanks for this proposal.  It fits neatly with the simple idea to "tax carbon
> out of the ground to put it back".
> 
> Interestingly, Prof Jim Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, has proposed a
> carbon tax on fossil fuels, which would be ramped up over a number of years
> [1].  His objective is to dampen demand, so that, for example, by the time the
> levy reaches $115, it would add $1 to the price of gasoline, and eventually
> the CO2 would fall below a safe level, which he puts at 350 ppm.  To quote:
> 
> "The fee needs to increase gradually and be large enough to affect purchasing
> decisions. By the
> time the fee reaches a level of $115 per ton of CO2 it will add $1 per gallon
> to the price of gasoline.
> Given United States fossil fuel use of 2007, $115 per ton of CO2 would yield
> $670 billion, enough to
> provide a dividend (rebate) for each legal adult resident of almost $3000 per
> year. With half a share per
> child for a maximum of two children per family, the rebate would be $9000 per
> year for a family with two
> or more children. The carbon fee would provide a strong incentive to replace
> inefficient infrastructure. It
> would spur the economy. It would spur innovation."
> 
> I have written to him to suggest that the money from the levy, rather than
> providing a rebate, should be put into "carbon air capture" investment and
> deployment.  The growing of trees would be one of the most effective ways of
> using the money.  If the levy were ramped up at $10-15 per year, it could pay
> for maximum afforestation (according to Sreeman Mishu Barua's plan) while
> reducing CO2 emissions, thus allowing an overall reduction in atmospheric CO2
> level.
> 
> However some of the money must go towards saving the Arctic sea ice, otherwise
> we could lose the Greenland ice sheet (with disastrous consequences on sea
> level) and we could trigger massive discharge of methane from frozen
> structures (with disastrous consequences on global warming).  Unfortunately
> reducing CO2 level alone cannot save the Arctic sea ice, so we have to resort
> to solar radiation management.  The techniques favoured in the Royal Society
> report [2] involve stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening.
> 
> Would you support this idea concerning raising money through a tax on carbon
> out the ground?  If adopted internationally, it would be very equitable among
> nations, since essentially the polluter is paying, and countries would
> automatically become effectively carbon neutral after a time - i.e. when the
> atmospheric CO2 level begins to fall.
> 
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> 
> John
> 
> [1] A post "Strategies to Address Global Warming & Is Sundance Kid a
> Criminal?" is available at:
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf
> 
> 
> [2]  royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Hale, Climate Concern UK wrote:
>>    
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Following may be of interest. A proposal from Bangladesh - seems thought out
>> in some detail.
>> Peter Hale
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "sreeman barua" mailto:sanitarian%40inbox.com> >
>> To: >  >
>> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:00 AM
>> Subject: A Plan on tackling global CO2 rise & Global Carbon Trade;
>> (dissemination, research & Action needed)
>>  
>> Dear Sir,
>> A CO2 reduction plan was envisaged during my M.Sc. in Environmental
>> Technology, as a class-assignment in 1999-2000. It was a low tech plan which
>> could easily be put into practice where the whole world could come to play.
>> The plan offered a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses. The outline
>> was as below-
>>  
>> Fast-growing trees assimil

[geo] Re: . . . (c) MEGS Technology . . .

[Mike MacCracken]

You might want to visit Iceland, where they already take advantage of heat
from lava. Basically, the use steam and boiling water to power turbines for
electricity, then pipe the hot water something like 40 km to Reykjavik
(losing only 1 C on the way) to provide heat to homes (and maybe to heat
water) and then pipe it under their roads to melt ice (they don't have
enough people to have some devoted to snowplow duty--they need them all
working to earn income).

I did visit one person who focuses on such things who in his office had a
lava filled pipe that had occurred after drilling down to lava to provide
heated water (as I recall).

I would also note that there is a rather large geothermal heat industry here
in the US.

In any case, at least start your thinking with the experts.

Mike MacCracken


On 10/25/09 4:49 PM, "Johnnie Buttram"  wrote:

> 
> Dear Mr. Gordon;
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Yes, what you propose could be done within a proper setting.
> However, the factors and variables involved would be of major
> significance.
> 
> On page #2 - although lava forms a thin surface crust  in just a
> few minutes, the flow underneath the crust can take several
> months and years to cool.
> 
> An extreme example is a lava flow that erupted in 1959 and filled
> a pit crater about 280 feet thick. It was drilled in 1988, and there
> was some mushy, not quite solid stuff down at the bottom, 29
> years after it erupted.
> 
> Speaking in relative terms, I personally believe with approximately
> 600 active volcanos on the planet and somewhere between 50
> to 60 erupting each year, this concept has the potential to provide
> a new direction that could be beneficial to our planet.
> 
> Especially, when we consider the lava and water are basically
> a no-charge and the cost of pipe configurations and labor would
> be a small price to pay for limitless BTUs with small carbon foot-
> prints.
> 
> My first primary objective is to hopefully use this concept to provide
> distilled/potable water to the masses. This could be manufactured
> on site and floated to the end users in giant Nordic transport bags.
> 
> The second objective is to manufacture Hydrogen to be used by
> the shipping industry to lower their huge carbon footprints. I haven't
> had the time as yet to pursue this direction.
> 
> Both objectives may be realized with the manufacturing occuring
> from special barges right off the coasts of power source. This way
> the operation can move on anytime with no loss of major
> infrustructure.
> 
> In closing, Eugene, I want to thank you again for your creative input.
> 
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Johnnie  Buttram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 12:52 pm, "Eugene I. Gordon"  wrote:
>> Mr. Bittram.
>> 
>> In any case I am not sure this is the right group but here is a comment.
>> 
>> If the lava gives up its heat to the pipes and cools and is a good
>> insulatorthen it insulates the pipes from the surrounding hot lava. How do
>> you continue to get energy from the lava? My instinct says let surface lava
>> drip into a pool of water and give up its heat to the water to produce
>> superheated steam, which is then pumped to turbine generators to produce
>> electrical power. Lots of technical problems.
>> 
>> Eugene I. Gordon
>> 
>> (908) 233 4677
>> 
>> euggor...@comcast.net
>> 
>> www.germgardlighting.com
>> 
>> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Johnnie Buttram
>> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:19 AM
>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [geo] . . . (c) MEGS Technology . . .
>> 
>> Dear Geo-group;
>> 
>> Please take a look at the attached no-carbon concept
>> 
>> that captures heat from basaltic lava and turns it into
>> 
>> viable energy and potable water for the masses.
>> 
>> I will appreciate any comments or suggestions you
>> 
>> may have.
>> 
>> . . . Thank you for your time and expertise.
>> 
>>                                                          Johnnie Buttram
> 
> > 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: UK Meteorological Office's Forecasts of the Regional Responses for +4C Global Warming

[Mike MacCracken]

I believe their NEW calculation was for what would happen if the rate of
emissions growth continued at the high end of SRES or above, as has been
happening this decade (until last year or so). So, this was a quite high CO2
emissions growth rate without any controls, and we should certainly hope
that is not our future. Problem is that with SO2 emissions going down to
reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions headed strongly up, one gets a very
strong radiative forcing that would last a very long time, so there would be
a lot of warm-up.

Mike

On 10/26/09 10:45 AM, "David Schnare"  wrote:

> Real data are much more useful as the basis for discussion of policy
> alternatives than inaccurate and out of date model outputs.  We ARE NOT
> looking at +4 degree temperatures increases. 
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: UK Meteorological Office's Forecasts of the Regional Responses for +4C Global Warming

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Stephen--Well, they don't show changes over the ocean, and they are
typically less due to heat capacity and evaporative cooling effect, and of
course they are large in area. Of course, the evaporative cooling effect
just leads to more water vapor aloft available to come down in more intense
downpours and tropical cyclones.

Mike


On 10/26/09 11:06 AM, "Stephen Salter"  wrote:

> 
> Hi All
> 
> It looks like a funny sort of average if there are such small areas with
> 4 C or below and such large ones with 5 C or above. What happened to the
> Antarctic?
> 
> It does seem that Scotland is the place to be but most intelligent
> people knew that already.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> School of Engineering and Electronics
> University of Edinburgh
> Mayfield Road
> Edinburgh EH9 3JL
> Scotland
> tel +44 131 650 5704
> fax +44 131 650 5702
> Mobile  07795 203 195
> s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
> http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
> 
> 
> 
> Veli Albert Kallio wrote:
>> Please find enclosed a document detailing UK Meteorological Office's
>> Forecasts of the Regional Responses for +4C Global Warming attaced on
>> MS Word published on Friday.
>> 
>> 
>> New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
>> 
>>> 



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: 350 ppm?

[Mike MacCracken]

CC: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Jamais Cascio-- on the problematic idea of 350

[Mike MacCracken]

If we stopped all emissions, of all GHGs and aerosols, what would be removed
first are the aerosols. The sulfate cooling offset is estimated at 1.1 W/m2
so their loss would lead to a strong warming influence. The black carbon is
estimated by IPCC at about 0.4-0.5 and by Ramanathan and others to be twice
that. Their loss would lead to a less positive forcing, so, if all these
emissions stopped, the net would be a small warming influence. Stopping all
emissions, of course, tropospheric ozone warming influence would also end
over months. And then methane influence would go down over decades. So, one
would tend toward a lessened warming influence. And some, but not a lot of
the CO2 would be taken up. So, stopping all forcing does reduce the warming
influence. 

If you want to see a graph of the effects of ending all GHG emissions (the
tables have information on aerosols), go to a recent proceedings paper I
have posted at http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf, where you
will also see my views about how to utilize the different time scales to
promote an agreement between developed and developing nations at
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/maccracken-proposal-north-south
-framework.html

These notes are all about forcings, as the forcing will determine the
climate that the world heads toward. The ocean slows the transition to
equilibrium. If you want to see what is, in effect, a geoengineering set of
simulations by the modeling groups of the world, look at the graph of the
IPCC projections of temperature. One sees the results for the various SRES
scenarios, but the yellow/orange line shows the results for holding all
concentrations and aerosol loadings constant. Holding CO2, N2O, and
halocarbon concentrations constant requires some very large percentage
reduction in their emissions; for methane the cutback is much less. But
cutting CO2 emissions by 80-90% to keep its concentration constant will
surely lead to a sharp reduction in SO2 emissions, and so a very sharp
reduction in their cooling influence, and perhaps in black carbon and its
somewhat smaller warming influence, meaning that to hold the aerosol burden
constant, there must be substantial emissions of aerosols/aerosol precursors
(just what is being discussed for geoengineering, except in the
troposphere). You can see that about 0.5 C further warming goes on, and this
is the oceans catching up to the land.

Mike MacCracken


On 11/1/09 12:34 PM, "John Gorman"  wrote:

> 
> I think the point is as follows:
> 
> If we fix the CO2 at say 2 times preindustrial then the net forcing will not
> instantly get the global temperatures up to their long term steady state.
> The oceans will lag.
> 
> It sounds as if you are thinking of the net forcing which has resulted in
> the temperature rise for the land has gone away-but it hasn't in the case
> you have quoted. The CO2 level will stay constant for centuries even if all
> emissions stop today.
> 
> There was a very recent post or link on this recently which quoted 3deg for
> doubling of CO2 in the short term but 6deg long term. This link, which I
> cant find just now, used data from some much earlier time when the doubling
> had already resulted in almost completely ice free poles. This is presumably
> what will happen now if we get to doubling and don't do something about it.
> The Arctic is melting now. It isn't going to stop melting just because we
> stop increasing the temperature. So there is a temperature inertia or lag
> due to ocean heat capacity but an even bigger one due to ice cap latent heat
> of melting.
> 
> john gorman
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Nissen" 
> To: 
> Cc: "geoengineering" 
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:56 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Jamais Cascio-- on the problematic idea of 350
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Jamais Cascio is described as an "environmental futurist" and has
>> written a book with the title "Hacking the Earth" [1].  It's great that
>> somebody is pointing out the implication of the 350 ppm target!
>> 
>> But he shares a very common scientific belief which I do not understand:
>> 
>> "(Even more troubling: even if we stopped all anthropogenic carbon
>> sources immediately, we'd still see continued warming for at least
>> decades, possibly longer, simply from the thermal inertia of the
>> oceans. Absent a radical step, we're guaranteed to see at least
>> another degree or two of warming, no matter what we do.)"
>> 
>> 
>> With global warming, the land and atmosphere warm faster than the
>> oceans.  If emissions stopped overnight, the oceans would still be
>> warming up, thus cooling the atmosphere, rather than warming it.

[geo] Re: ERL papers on line

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear John‹A couple of comments:

1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
making the ice thicker).
2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management,
my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I
prepared on geoengineering for the World Sustainability Report I had a
fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which I agree is also essential.
This was not covered in the paper as the paper was long enough as it was and
I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I certainly agree we want to
keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel emissions are heading upward
toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is hard to see how pulling CO2
from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an effect to make a
significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal with CO2
related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from melting is
going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only other
alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to zero
quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my
thoughts on dealing with short-lived GHGs at
http://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf

Mike


On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> 
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> we approach it.  He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> 
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise.  The retreat
> of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> crucial to prevent its summer disappearance.  Do you agree, Mike?
> 
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> 
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> SRM geoengineering.  If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> 
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> 
> John
> 
> ---
> 
> David Keith wrote:
>>
>>  
>> 
>> Folks,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research
>> Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More
>> papers and a editorial will be added later.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> David
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate System
>>  
>> 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045101   doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
>> much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change
>> is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However,
>> the field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
>> potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall,
>> and many aspects remain under-researched.
>>  
>> 
>> This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
>> research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken
>> Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods
>> for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
>> highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
>> arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
>>  
>> 
>> Further reading
>> Focus on Ge

[geo] Re: ERL papers on line

[Mike MacCracken]

My guess would be that there is too little moisture in the cold air to make
much snow--and clouds are generally low. The challenge is really getting
more moisture into the Arctic--now, warming will do this, but then one gets
rain instead of snow. If, as Caldeira and Wood calculations make clear, if
you can reduce sunlight in the region while rest of world is warm, then will
likely get more snowfall.

Mike


On 11/1/09 5:50 PM, "Neil Farbstein"  wrote:

> 
> Hi Mike and everyone else; I have thought of  a possible method of
> keeping the arctic frozen to prevent melting of the ice pack. Cloud
> seeding can increase the size of the snow pack over places where
> methane and gigatons of carbon dioxide would otherwise be released by
> thawing of the permafrost. It is possible to thicken the ice covering
> the permafrost to prevent melting in the spring and lengthen the time
> that ice and snow cover the ground in the spring.  The biggest problem
> will be coming up with funding to do it. Like all other geoengineering
> projects we should think about the consequences and side effects of
> cloud seeding on that scale.
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 5:39 pm, John Nissen  wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> To me, SRM geoengineering is also blindingly obvious, though one has to
>> appreciate the risks in the Arctic, i.e. what we are up against.
>> Both types of geoengineering are blindingly obvious.
>> But you and I are agreed on this, aren't we?
>> Cheers,
>> John
>> ---
>> Peter Read wrote:There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be
>> significantly slowed any time soon.  There's 5 billion people out there that
>> want the lifestyle they see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
>> 
>> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
>> more so as to bring the level down. 
>> 
>> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
>> with a flow of biofuel.
>> 
>> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
>> 
>> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
>> organization.
>> 
>> It's all so blindingly obvious
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> 
>> From:Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> To:John Nissen;David Keith
>> 
>> Cc:Climate Intervention;Geoengineering;Ken Caldeira;Julian Norman
>> 
>> Sent:Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>> 
>> Subject:[geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear John‹A couple of comments:Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping
>> summer sea ice go hand in hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea
>> ice around (what would actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the
>> winter so the heat held by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice
>> and radiated to space, making the ice thicker).On the issue of the paper just
>> dealing with solar radiation management, my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009
>> and the World Bank report that I prepared on geoengineering for the World
>> Sustainability Report I had a fourth category devoted to reducing CO2, which
>> I agree is also essential. This was not covered in the paper as the paper was
>> long enough as it was and I am not as knowledgeable on that area, but I
>> certainly agree we want to keep CO2 down. As long as global fossil fuel
>> emissions are heading upward toward 10 GtC/yr and then higher, however, it is
>> hard to see how pulling CO2 from the atmosphere is going to have enough of an
>> effect to make a significant difference-we have to get emissions down to deal
>> with CO2 related issues such as acidification, and keeping sea ice from
>> melting is going to take geoengineering, at the pace we are going (the only
>> other alternative is really cutting the non-CO2 GHG emissions and soot to
>> zero quickly as their radiative forcing can go down faster than the rise in
>> forcing due to rising CO2, at least for a short time. You can see my thoughts
>> on dealing with short-lived GHGs
>> athttp://www.climate.org/PDF/MacCracken_Erice.pdf
>> Mike
>> On 11/1/09 1:53 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:
>> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
>> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering. If we
>> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how
>> should we approach it.  He considers three problem areas:
>> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
>> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
>> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
>> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
>> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
>> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
>> methane and carbon feedbacks.
>> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to
>> trigger massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global
>> warming) of (3) as well as the potential to trigg

[geo] Re: What we are up against

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi John‹First, I would note that polar amplification is included in the
estimates of the rates of warming (whether 0.2 C/decade or higher to get 4
C). Cooling the Arctic would reduce this effect.

Second, on the cause of faster sea ice reduction than models are projecting,
I know there are a lot of suggestions this is due to soot emissions. My
problem with that explanation is that the observations described in Quinn et
al ( Quinn P K, Shaw G, Andrews E, Dutton E G, Ruohoairola T and Gong S L
,2007: Arctic haze: current trends and knowledge gaps, Tellus B 59 99­114)
indicates that soot deposition in the Arctic has been declining. It is true
that global emissions may be going up (due to China and India, one would
presume), so a pure correlation suggests it might well be soot that is
correlated with the increased decline of sea ice, but studies of Arctic haze
(presented at last December¹s AGU meeting in SF) indicate that the air
trajectories into the Arctic come mainly from Europe (Atlantic to Urals, so
including much of Russia), and black carbon emissions from Europe have come
down due to emissions controls and from Russia and eastern Europe due to
shutdown of the worst power plants due to economic slowdown. Reduced black
carbon into the Arctic would be leading to less uptake of solar, so hard to
see how increasing global black carbon emissions are accelerating the sea
ice retreat (what matters are trajectories into the Arctic and what is
happening in the upwind regions).

The observations also show that sulfate deposition has been going down, for
the same reason, and this would likely increase the solar radiation reaching
the sea ice (clear skies would be cleaner and clouds less bright), so, as
noted in my ERL article, my supposition is that it is reduced sulfate that
is leading to the acceleration of sea ice melting. This all needs to get
confirmed by checking out the data on light levels reaching the surface
through the year, which Dutton and NOAA may well have. If this sulfate
hypothesis is correct, then we have thus performed something like a reverse
geoengineering experiment. And we can estimate roughly what the flux change
was. And so, as the article suggests, we might well be able to reverse the
warming by increasing tropospheric sulfate (which I favor instead of
stratospheric sulfate‹see article for reasoning) during the sunlit season in
the Arctic, and so for a lot less SO2 emissions than we have had in the past
(so we can see what ecological and other effects were). As I say, a good bit
of supposition, but a lot that could quite readily be investigated over
several years.

On issue of uncertainties and surprises, I think it is quite possible that
trying to push back toward conditions of recent past via tropospheric
sulfate might well, after a relatively short and focused research and
development effort, be better understood and have less likelihood of
surprises than proceeding along with greater and greater GHG concentrations
and warming.

Cooling the Arctic would have the advantage of giving back the amplification
effect‹so help keep midlatitudes from warming so much and might well slow
the rate of rise of sea level, even perhaps helping to stabilize the polar
ice sheets. There are indeed questions to be looked at (e.g., would SO2
become sulfate in the Arctic, would geoengineering in the Arctic shift the
ITCZ and could that be balanced by some sulfate injection over the Southern
Ocean, etc.), and these topics seem to me to be well within our research
capacity because the sulfate loading likely needed is, at least in the
Arctic, within our experience.

I am all for reducing black carbon emissions further to help the sulfate
effort along and Tim Lenton may be right that ridding the Arctic of all soot
deposition would allow sea ice to return‹another question that could readily
be looked at. But I think the changing and geoengineering role of sulfate
may well be more critical.

I also agree that time is critical. The Arctic is already in what might be
called dangerous decline. I don¹t think waiting to use geoengineering at
some distant future point is the way to go for then any application would
have to be very strong to induce the desired result, if it is possible at
all. One normally tries to put out fires when they are small or localized
than when the whole building is aflame.

Best, Mike MacCracken


On 11/1/09 5:26 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> Hi Mike, and others,
> 
> What would happen if we could halt all CO2 emissions overnight?
> 
> As you say, Mike, we have to add up all the climate forcings.  If CO2
> emissions were halted overnight by closing coal-fired power stations, then
> we'd have:
> 1) much of the CO2 positive forcing (currently around 1.6 W/m-2) continuing
> for centuries;
> 2) the almost immediate removal of sulphate from troposphere and thus loss of
> its cooling effect (resulting in increased net positive forcing);
>

[geo] Re: Sea ice: beware of hype, uncertainty cut's both ways

[Mike MacCracken]

Also please see 
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/10/30/panic-at-2-am-the-search-for
-multiyear-arctic-ice/

Ice cover is not the only issue--ice thickness also matters for it takes an
extensive, pretty solid (i.e., very small or no leads) ice cover about a
meter thick or more (with a bit of snow on top) to insulate the winter
atmosphere from the ocean and allow ice surface temperatures to drop down to
-40 or lower so that the really cold winter air masses that create the
winter weather that we have depended on can form.

Best, Mike


On 11/2/09 10:08 AM, "David Keith"  wrote:

> A couple of points on sea ice:
>  
> 1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently that
> confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer sea ice.
> There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting interannual
> variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it was the July 2009
> compilation of forecasts every single one of which overestimated the actual
> sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with the 2009 data added as an
> annotation. See the following for the original report:
>  
> http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/g
> raphs/JulyReport_JuneData_Chart.pdf
>  
> I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
> unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time traveling
> on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that uncertainty
> cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise as
> signal when it goes the way they expect.
>  
> 2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if it is
> not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the central reasons
> for the polar amplification of predicted global warming and has been in models
> in various forms since the early 70s. In recent years the big focus has been
> improving dynamic (including ocean currents) sea ice models. Among the things
> typically not included are the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost
> on methane emissions, this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to
> have methane emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing
> over half-century timescales.
>  
> 3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of large-scale
> loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
> (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html
> <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html> ) on the topic and our
> compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows that
> IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
>  
> 4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be particularly
> appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that climate change
> impacts and responses are largest there, and because by increasing
> reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the albedo feedback
> that decreases reflectivity.
>  
> -David
>  
> 
> 
> From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
> Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: David Keith
> Cc: climateintervent...@googlegroups.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken
> Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
>  
> 
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> 
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.  If we
> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> we approach it.  He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> 
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise.  The retreat
> of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> crucial to prevent its summer disappearance.  Do you agree, Mike?
> 
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> 
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addr

Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)

[Mike MacCracken]

that one could completely decarbonized the US electric power
>>> system in a few decades.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I am still optimistic that we will see real commitment to emissions cuts in
>>> the rich world, and soon. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't claim any
>>> special ability to judge political outcomes.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> It is very destructive when people from the technical community confuse
>>> technical facts with judgments about values and politics.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> When someone like Peter Read (see below) says ³there is no way increasing
>>> CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any time soon² I think he really
>>> means is that his political judgment is that the commitment to doing so will
>>> not be made.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> However when people and the political community hear technical people say
>>> can't be done they assume we mean that technically can't be done and that is
>>> untrue and destructive.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> It's destructive because it hides the central moral choice: we could cut
>>> emissions if we want to, we could have started decades ago when the
>>> scientific warnings about climate change were first raised, but we decided
>>> not to. It was a choice, implicit or not. A choice that, in effect, we cared
>>> more about current consumption than we did about preserving our
>>> grandchildren's chances to enjoy a climate like the one in which our
>>> civilization developed.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I think we need to develop the capability to geoengineer to manage the risk
>>> of dangerous climate change posed by CO2 already in the air. That risk grows
>>> with every added kilogram of carbon, and it cannot be eliminated by
>>> emissions cuts even if we cut emissions to zero today.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -David
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
>>> Sent: November 1, 2009 3:23 PM
>>> To: mmacc...@comcast.net; John Nissen; David Keith
>>> Cc: Climate Intervention; Geoengineering; Ken Caldeira; Julian Norman
>>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There's no way that increasing CO2 emissions can be significantly slowed any
>>> time soon.  There's 5 billion people out there that want the lifestyle they
>>> see 2 billion Westerners enjoying on TV
>>> 
>>> So the answer has to be to get 10 GtC / yr out of the atmosphere, and a bit
>>> more so as to bring the level down. 
>>> 
>>> Do that and you can progressively replace the current flow of fossil fuel
>>> with a flow of biofuel.
>>> 
>>> A welcome prospect to those who worry about 'peak oil'.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't need rocket science, just sensible policy and a bit of
>>> organization.
>>> 
>>> It's all so blindingly obvious
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>>> 
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> 
>>>> From: Mike MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
>>>> 
>>>> To: John Nissen <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>  ; David Keith
>>>> <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>
>>>> 
>>>> Cc: Climate Intervention <mailto:climateintervent...@googlegroups.com>  ;
>>>> Geoengineering <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  ; Ken Caldeira
>>>> <mailto:kcalde...@stanford.edu>  ; Julian Norman
>>>> <mailto:julian.nor...@iop.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:50 AM
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: [geo] Re: ERL papers on line
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Dear John‹A couple of comments:
>>>> 1. Indeed, keeping the Arctic cold and keeping summer sea ice go hand in
>>>> hand. So, yes, I certainly want to keep summer sea ice around (what would
>>>> actually be helpful is to have thin sea ice in the winter so the heat held
>>>> by the ocean could be conducted through the sea ice and radiated to space,
>>>> making the ice thicker).
>>>> 2. On the issue of the paper just dealing with solar radiation management,
>>>> my talk in Copenhagen in March 2009 and the World Bank report that I
>>>> prepared on

Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL thread plus Ken's bet)

[Mike MacCracken]

First, in US, cutting methane is not expensive, and can pretty readily make
money in some situations‹which is why a lot is getting done. We just need
more stimulus. 

More stimulus would start with a price on carbon‹even with the 100-year GWP
of methane being something like 22 (or higher if Shindell et al findings are
included). Given how important methane is for this century, one might even
use the 20 year GWP of 75, although we really also need to get CO2 emissions
down, so maybe one trades it off versus the non-CO2 shorter-lived GHGs (so
ozone precursors) and soot. And then add severe penalties for any new
methane emissions‹that is require a methane offset times 5 or something.

Mike


On 11/14/09 5:10 PM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> Very insightful and this is all very interesting; but there are a few minor
> issues;  who is WE, who decides and approves, and where does the funding to do
> these necessary things come from? -gene
>  
> 
> From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: Andrew Lockley; dwschn...@gmail.com
> Cc: Geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [clim] On the difficulty of cutting emissions (ERL
> thread plus Ken's bet)
>  
> On methane limitation, remember that human sources have elevated the methane
> concentration to near 1800 ppb from its preindustrial value of about 1000 ppb
> less, so there is potentially a lot that can be done to bring the elevated
> methane concentration back down, and it would have a very large climatic
> influence. As far as human sources, in the US the EPA inventory gives, as I
> recall, roughly the following source categories:
> 1. About 25-30% from fossil fuels‹and if we are going to phase these out, we
> should be able to get this down a good deal;
> 2. Another 25-30% from landfills and sewage treatment, etc.--and we know how
> to reduce these emissions
> 3. Something like 30-35% from agriculture‹and these can be partly controlled.
> In fact there are already efforts underway to suck in and separate the methane
> out in cattle feeding lots in California (and this can be done in barns as
> well) and use the methane for power (right now through combustion engines that
> emit NOx which troubles air pollution district officials) but perhaps soon
> into fuel cells. 
> 
> Other nations have different mixes, but also a lot of opportunities to reduce
> methane and we should do all that we can‹and whatever we can do will help keep
> temperatures down so help to slow the increase in emissions from thawing
> permafrost.
> 
> Related to this, we also need to aggressively reduce emissions of black carbon
> and precursors to tropospheric ozone because those as well will bring down
> atmospheric concentrations forcing noticeably and quickly. In fact, the 21st
> century emissions of CO2 provide only about half of the 21st century warming
> influence of the emissions of all GHGs (i.e., methane and tropospheric ozone
> are the other most critical ones‹then halocarbons and N2O), so we simply must
> go after all GHGs aggressively.
> 
> Limiting Arctic warming would help keep natural emissions from going up, but
> with humans causing an increase of about 1000 ppb, there is plenty of
> potential to do better.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 11/14/09 9:33 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:
> David,
> 
> I have to take issue with your comments. The most worrying sources of methane
> are distributed, natural sources, such as permafrost and clathrates. These
> cannot be effectively controlled at present, and their role in AGW is likely
> to increase as feedback effects kick in.
> 
> Whilst recovering and remediating methane from sources such as landfill, etc,
> is perfectly sensible, it can't hope to solve the problem of methane in the
> long run. We need to address the presence of methane in the atmosphere, the
> sources which create it and the potential failure of hydroxyl 'cleaning'
> mechanisms - all at the same time. Complacency on methane could be our
> undoing. I compare the situation to fighting off a dog whilst ignoring a
> charging lion running straight for us.
> 
> A
> 
> 2009/11/2 David Schnare 
> Actually, it looks to me like it would be far more cost-effective to reduce
> methane first. It not only is a more potent greenhouse gas, but it has
> significant energy potential that can help pay for emissions reductions. Why
> not start there, even world wide, to include developing countries. About the
> only sources that cannot be captured and reused are from cows and the like and
> rice crops.
> 
> David Schnare
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM, David Keith  wrote:
> It's not so blindingly obvious to me. Pretending that we c

Re: [geo] House Science and Technology Committee streaming video

[Mike MacCracken]

One part of my answer would have been to describe how the warming of the
Arctic is changing the air masses and weather being experienced in Nebraska.
Without a frozen Arctic, no Siberian Express weather types. That may sound
good, but it is the outflow from the Arctic of very cold air masses that
keeps the moist tropical air down near the Gulf coast instead of causing
2-foot December snows in North Dakota, a January tornado in Wisconsin (and
basically allowing a northward shift of the tornado belt), and heavier
precipitation in the northern Great Plains where the river channels can¹t
handle it and so flood. And with the continent not really chilling in the
winter, it warms faster in the spring, and dries out faster (and the summer
cold fronts don¹t make it very far into the US, so are less able to trigger
the needed precipitation from summer thunderstorms over the coastal plain
east of the Appalachians.

And then there is what climate change is going to do to the Mississippi
Delta‹eating it away, and more often requiring shutdown of the river barge
traffic that takes the grain the farmer in Nebraska grows to markets around
the world.

Quite clearly, climate change is going to have big effects on Nebraska. So,
limiting or reversing climate change generally, or even just re-icing the
Arctic or moderating hurricane intensification, would have a beneficial
effect for the farmer in Nebraska.

Best, Mike


On 11/15/09 8:43 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Folks, 
> 
> I've been waiting for the transcript of the Nov 5 House Science and Technology
> Committee's hearing on geoengineering to come out, so I could re-enact just
> the questions with my class as either a civics lesson or an example of
> self-parody. Unfortunately, the transcript is apparently still not available.
> 
> Although I would imagine it would be somewhat painful to watch, for those who
> cannot wait for a transcript, there is streaming video of the hearing
> available at:  http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech09/110509.wvx
> 
> I think the most interesting line of questioning was (to paraphrase): "Why
> should a cattle rancher in Nebraska care about this?"
> 
> At the time it seemed like self-parody, but the more I think about it the more
> I realize it is a quite sensible question. If we cannot clearly and
> compellingly explain why the average citizen should want to invest tax dollars
> in researching climate intervention options, we will not be performing our
> public communication roles adequately. (I think the second time I tried to
> answer this question, I was closer to the mark.)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ken
> 
> PS. Interested persons who are not gluttons for punishment might better wait
> for the transcript.
> 
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> 
> kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  
> 
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
> 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that
when injected there is no decay over this period‹so it might as well be a
second of time one takes‹so virtually instantaneous. And I¹ll assume
linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.

So, for methane, humans have caused an increase of roughly 1000 ppb which
converts to about 3 GtCH4, and this causes a forcing of about 0.5 W/m**2 (at
the tropopause) per IPCC.

For CO2, we know that a doubling (so we¹ll say from 300 to 600 ppm so we are
in the range of interest) causes a forcing of about 3.6 W/m**2 (at the
tropopause). So, 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 600 GtC or 2200
GtCO2 (and global warming potential is done for CO2, I believe.

So, if we take the ratio of forcing to mass for CH4 divided by the ratio of
forcing to mass for CO2, we get a rough estimate of the instantaneous GWP,
so

[0.5/3]/[3.6/2200] equals roughly 100

for the ratio at t=0 (so allowing for no decay) of the radiative forcing
caused by a unit mass of CH4 added to the atmosphere to a unit mass of CO2
added to the atmosphere.

Not exact, but plausible.

Mike




On 11/16/09 3:42 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:

> John, Andrew
> Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane?"
> Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is that warming is a
> rate process measured in W/m^2
> So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an incorrect concept
> Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years, for whatever, no
> warming takes place.
> So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2
> It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on top of Greenland's
> ice that decides how much gets melted each year to fall down crevasses and
> lubricate the eventual collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans.
> Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level curve is what
> matters [multiplied by the warming potential over that period]  when it comes
> to measuring threats of Greenland's collapse
> So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse gas levels last
> and how to get them down.
> Think that's right
> Peter
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  John Nissen 
>>  
>> To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
>>  
>> Cc: geoengineering 
>>  
>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18  PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a  simple argument for SRM geoengineering
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>> 
>> You say:  "I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity
>> of the  problem is far from conclusive."  I disagree.
>> 
>> The methane presents  a very real risk - because of the uncertainty on timing
>> combined with the  potential size of methane discharge - perhaps even enough
>> to cause thermal  runaway due to positive feedback, as is thought to have
>> happened in the past  [1].  Risk management involves identifying events and
>> assessing them in  terms of their likelihood and magnitude of impact [2].
>> Thus something  with a small likelihood (such as rapid massive methane
>> excursion) can have a  high risk, if the magnitude of impact is sufficiently
>> large (and you can't get  much larger than thermal runaway).
>> 
>> It is possible that much or most of  the methane trapped in frozen structures
>> has built up over hundreds of  thousands of years.  There is little sign of
>> massive methane discharge in  the ice record. In fact methane seems to track
>> the temperature even better  than CO2 [3].
>> 
>> But of course methane discharge is not the only high risk  event - there is
>> also the Greenland ice sheet disintegration.
>> 
>> BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane,  as
>> opposed to the 20 year value (72), 100 years (25) or 500 years (7.6)?   The
>> lifetime is only 12 +/- 3 years.  See  [4].
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
>> 
>> [2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_risk_management
>> 
>> [3] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329215018AAxqYFk
>> 
>> [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>> At present the likely methane excursion is far from clear.   Further, it is
>>> also unclear how quickly the total excursion will  occur.  The excursion
>>> rate is highly significant due to the short life  of methane in the
>>> atmosphere.  The methane ends up as CO2, in itself a  major issue.  However,
>>> the CO2's likely effect is nothing compared to  the devastating temperature
>>> spike which may result from a sudden methane  excursion.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I don't oppose John's argument, but the evidence on the severity of the
>>> problem is far from conclusive.  We need much more research into:
>>>  
>>> 1)  The methane reservoir in clathrates and permafrost
>>>  
>>> 2) The size of potential methane sources curr

Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

First, I should have noted that the recent Shindell et al paper makes clear
that methane has roles in addition to its own GH effect, so my estimate does
not include that.

On the CO2 question, GWP is over a time period. Indeed, as the time is
stretched out, the GWPs for other species drop because the lifetime of the
CO2 perturbation is so long‹so CO2 certainly has to be controlled.

Over the 21st century only, however, the warming influence of emissions of
CO2 (ignoring the SO2 cooling influence with which it is associated) and of
the non-CO2 gases (plus black carbon) are about equal. I should note that
there is also the carryover effect of CO2 perturbation from emissions prior
to 2000, but if you want to slow near-term warming, the non-CO2 gases simply
have to be addressed (not doing so aggressively is why the temperature rise
curves for various stabilization scenarios do not start showing an effect
for a several decades). Sharply cutting black carbon, ozone precursor and
methane emissions, all of which need to be cut for other reasons‹and
developed nations have shown it is possible-- can have a quite rapid effect
in reducing radiative forcing  (just as volcanic eruptions limiting solar
shows there can be a quite strong near-term effect‹on forcing and
temperature).

But certainly, we also have to reduce CO2 emissions.

Best, Mike


On 11/16/09 3:22 PM, "Greg Rau"  wrote:

> In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere,
> I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not instantaneous) GWP
> estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence GWP's of other gases (esp
> short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have been overestimated.  E.g., Eby et al.,
> 2009:
> http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCL
> I2554.1
> show that 20-30% of excess emissions of CO2 and 60-70% of the subsequent
> CO2-caused surface air temp anomally exists 10,000 years after emission.
> Isn't this (or is this?) a far larger total time-integrated GW effect than a
> mass equivalent emission of CH4? Experts please set me straight.
> Thanks,
> Greg  
> 
>> Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that
>> when injected there is no decay over this period-so it might as well be a
>> second of time one takes-so virtually instantaneous. And I'll assume
>> linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.
>> 
>> So, for methane, humans have caused an increase of roughly 1000 ppb which
>> converts to about 3 GtCH4, and this causes a forcing of about 0.5 W/m**2 (at
>> the tropopause) per IPCC.
>> 
>> For CO2, we know that a doubling (so we'll say from 300 to 600 ppm so we are
>> in the range of interest) causes a forcing of about 3.6 W/m**2 (at the
>> tropopause). So, 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 600 GtC or 2200
>> GtCO2 (and global warming potential is done for CO2, I believe.
>> 
>> So, if we take the ratio of forcing to mass for CH4 divided by the ratio of
>> forcing to mass for CO2, we get a rough estimate of the instantaneous GWP, so
>> 
>> [0.5/3]/[3.6/2200] equals roughly 100
>> 
>> for the ratio at t=0 (so allowing for no decay) of the radiative forcing
>> caused by a unit mass of CH4 added to the atmosphere to a unit mass of CO2
>> added to the atmosphere.
>> 
>> Not exact, but plausible.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/16/09 3:42 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:
>>> John, Andrew
>>> Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane?"
>>> Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is that warming is a
>>> rate process measured in W/m^2
>>> So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an incorrect concept
>>> Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years, for whatever, no
>>> warming takes place.
>>> So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2
>>> It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on top of Greenland's
>>> ice that decides how much gets melted each year to fall down crevasses and
>>> lubricate the eventual collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans.
>>> Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level curve is what
>>> matters [multiplied by the warming potential over that period]  when it
>>> comes to measuring threats of Greenland's collapse
>>> So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse gas levels last
>>> and how to get them down.
>>> Think that's right
>>> Peter
 
 - Original Message -
  
 From:  John Nissen 
 >   
  
 To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
  
 Cc: geoengineering  >
  
 Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:18  PM
  
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a  simple argument for SRM geoengineering
  
 
 
 Hi Andrew,
 
 You say:  "I don't oppose John's argument, but the ev

Re: [geo] Greenland ice sheet - tipping in progress

[Mike MacCracken]

I am pretty sure the term is already included in models, and I don¹t know of
any reason to think that it is increasing‹certainly not in comparison to the
increased heat from the surface due to warming and the meltwater that in
flowing down into the ice sheet is carrying heat (i.e., meltwater) well down
into the ice and likely all the way to the base.

Best, Mike MacCracken


On 11/18/09 7:12 AM, "Raymond Law"  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>  
> Why has no one mentioned one possible causes of the melting/sliding of the
> major and thick  Greenland's ice sheet could be due to the minute temperature
> changes (primarily, warming up) of the earth/ground beneath  ?  Or have I
> missed out on this  ?
>  
> Comments and advices, please ! 
>  
> Raymond Law
> 
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:04 PM, John Nissen  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Professor Mike Hulme gave a talk at the RGS yesterday evening [1], in which
>> the Greenland ice sheet was shown as a tipping point, along with a dozen
>> others on a map of the world [2].
>> 
>> The BBC article below shows how positive feedbacks are building up in the
>> Arctic.  What is not discussed is whether the whole sections of ice sheet
>> could become unstable and slip off into the sea, causing a massive step
>> change in sea level, as shown to have happened from time to time in the
>> geological record of the Ice Ages [3].  If we are to avoid a complete tipping
>> of this system, sooner or later giving us 7 metres of sea level rise, there
>> seems to be no alternative to geoengineering to cool the Arctic.  And the
>> sooner we start the geoengineering, the more likely we are to succeed in
>> halting the tipping process.
>> 
>> From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8357537.stm
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> The Greenland ice sheet is losing its mass faster than in previous years and
>> making an increasing contribution to sea level rise, a study has confirmed.
>> 
>> Published in the journal Science, it has also given scientists a clearer view
>> of why the sheet is shrinking.
>> 
>> The team used weather data, satellite readings and models of ice sheet
>> behaviour to analyse the annual loss of 273 thousand million tonnes of ice.
>> 
>> Melting of the entire sheet would raise sea levels globally by about 7m
>> (20ft). 
>> 
>> For the period 2000-2008, melting Greenland ice raised sea levels by an
>> average of about 0.46mm per year.
>> 
>>  If you multiply these numbers up it puts us well beyond the IPCC estimates
>> for 2100 
>> Professor Roger Barry
>> Since 2006, that has increased to 0.75mm per year.
>> 
>> "Since 2000, there's clearly been an accelerating loss of mass [from the ice
>> sheet]," said lead researcher Michiel van den Broeke from Utrecht University
>> in the Netherlands.
>> 
>> "But we've had three very warm summers, and that's enhanced the melt
>> considerably. 
>> 
>> "If this is going to continue, I cannot tell - but we do of course expect the
>> climate to become warmer in the future."
>> 
>> In total, sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year, principally because
>> seawater is expanding as it warms.
>> 
>> Sea change
>> 
>> Changes to the Greenland sheet and its much larger counterpart in Antarctica
>> are subjects commanding a lot of interest within the scientific community
>> because of the potential they have to raise sea levels to an extent that
>> would flood many of the world's major cities.
>> 
>> CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
>> Select a term from the dropdown:  Glossary Adaptation Annex I countries Annex
>> II countries Anthropogenic climate change Atmospheric aerosols Bali action
>> plan Bali roadmap Baseline for cuts Black carbon Boxer-Kerry bill Business as
>> usual Cap and trade Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Carbon dioxide (CO2)
>> Carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent Carbon intensity Carbon leakage Carbon
>> neutral Carbon offsetting Carbon sequestration Certified Emission Reduction
>> (CER) Clean Coal Technology Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Climate change
>> CFC CO2 COP15 Dangerous climate change Deforestation Emission Trading Scheme
>> (ETS) EU Burden-sharing agreement Fossil_fuels Geological sequestration
>> Global average temperature Global energy budget Global dimming Global warming
>> Greenhouse gases (GHGs) Greenhouse effect IPCC Joint implementation Kyoto
>> Protocol Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Methane Mitigation
>> Natural greenhouse effect Non-annex I countries Per-capita emissions
>&

Re: [geo] you got that right

[Mike MacCracken]

Actually, my calculations some years ago indicated that the ratio for one
year was roughly 1--what gives the high ratio is the long persistence of the
CO2 perturbation.

Mike


On 11/19/09 6:08 PM, "Ron Larson"  wrote:

> Dave (cc Ken and list):
> 
> Thanks to Dave.
> 
>1.  Since I doubt very much that the computation shown included
> anything on CO2 effects,   I hope Ken can weigh in on this, per the
> discussion last week re:
> http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Warming-burning-091018.p
> df
> 
> 2.  The answer might be 100,000 times larger - but that might
> exhaust the supply of glaciers.
> 
> 3.Would Exxon today say that one day's worth of melting was
> calculated properly.  That we are only talking of an insignificant
> addition of only about 75/365  (only about another 20%,  assuming we
> don't worry about whether today's energy consumption is impacting any
> glacier tomorrow.)  (Ken had a factor of 75 for 1 year).
> 
>  4.   I haven't had any luck logging on to to leave a comment at the
> Grist site, so hope someone will.  One chap has shown a multiplicative
> factor of 65 - which looks like he has calculated for a year.
> 
>
> Ron
> 
> Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>> Ad in Life magazine 1962.
>> http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-18-oil-enough-energy-to-melt-glaciers/
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.707 / Virus Database: 270.14.73/2513 - Release Date: 11/19/09
>> 00:51:00
>> 
>>   
> 
> --
> 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.
> 
> 


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

The other problem with 100-year GWPs is that they tend to hide all that can
be done with the short-lived species (black carbon, methane, ozone
precursors), so what we really need to do is to use both 20 and 500+ year
GWPs. Use of 100-year GWPs covers up both of the important tails.

Mike


On 11/20/09 2:49 PM, "Greg Rau"  wrote:

> Thanks, David.  I agree. Failure to appreciate long term effects and ocean
> acidification impacts, together with questionable/opaque discounting schemes
> has I believe resulted in CO2 mitigation being greatly undervalued by the
> economists and this is significantly undermining policy and political will.
> Regards,
> Greg  
> 
>> Greg
>>  
>> GWP's by design ignore all climate impacts beyond 100 years.
>>  
>> This has real consequences as it makes methane look relatively more important
>> that it should be, and it also overweight's the beneficial impacts of biomass
>> sequestration in some calculations.
>>  
>> While some traditional economists may assume that discounting allows them to
>> ignore any impact beyond 100 years, this GWP formula has long been a point of
>> contention as most of us do value the future of the planet beyond 100 years.
>>  
>> Adopting a 100 year analysis horizon, as the IPCC generally does, takes our
>> eye off the long term consequences of dumping fossil carbon in the
>> atmosphere. The risk of sea level rise look much less serious if one only
>> looks a century out.
>>  
>> Scientific understanding about the long term impacts of fossil emissions is
>> decades old (see Jim Kasting's old papers for example), popular realization
>> of these facts is long overdue.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: Greg Rau [mailto:r...@llnl.gov]
>> Sent: November 16, 2009 1:23 PM
>> To: mmacc...@comcast.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering
>>  
>> In light of recent modeling results on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere,
>> I am concerned that the current time-integrated (not instantaneous) GWP
>> estimate for CO2 has been underestimated and hence GWP's of other gases (esp
>> short-lived gases) relative to CO2 have been overestimated.  E.g., Eby et
>> al., 2009:
>> http://*ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008J
>> CLI2554.1
>> show that 20-30% of excess emissions of CO2 and 60-70% of the subsequent
>> CO2-caused surface air temp anomally exists 10,000 years after emission.
>> Isn't this (or is this?) a far larger total time-integrated GW effect than a
>> mass equivalent emission of CH4?  Experts please set me straight.
>> Thanks,
>> Greg 
>>  
>>> Agreed, one has to consider a time period, so assume one takes a day that
>>> when injected there is no decay over this period-so it might as well be a
>>> second of time one takes-so virtually instantaneous. And I'll assume
>>> linearity on methane absorption and logarithmic for CO2.
>>> 
>>> So, for methane, humans have caused an increase of roughly 1000 ppb which
>>> converts to about 3 GtCH4, and this causes a forcing of about 0.5 W/m**2 (at
>>> the tropopause) per IPCC.
>>> 
>>> For CO2, we know that a doubling (so we'll say from 300 to 600 ppm so we are
>>> in the range of interest) causes a forcing of about 3.6 W/m**2 (at the
>>> tropopause). So, 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 600 GtC or 2200
>>> GtCO2 (and global warming potential is done for CO2, I believe.
>>> 
>>> So, if we take the ratio of forcing to mass for CH4 divided by the ratio of
>>> forcing to mass for CO2, we get a rough estimate of the instantaneous GWP,
>>> so
>>> 
>>> [0.5/3]/[3.6/2200] equals roughly 100
>>> 
>>> for the ratio at t=0 (so allowing for no decay) of the radiative forcing
>>> caused by a unit mass of CH4 added to the atmosphere to a unit mass of CO2
>>> added to the atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> Not exact, but plausible.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/16/09 3:42 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:
>>> John, Andrew
>>> Re "BTW, does anybody know the _immediate_ warming potential of methane?"
>>> Someone will correct me no doubt but my understanding is that warming is a
>>> rate process measured in W/m^2
>>> So "instantaneous" [[== "immediate"?]] warming is an incorrect concept
>>> Unless it continues for a second, a week, a year, 25 years, for whatever, no
>>> warming takes place.
>>> So it is necessary to multiply by a duration to get joules/m^2
>>> It's how many joules get into the low albedo meltwater on top of Greenland's
>>> ice that decides how much gets melted each year to fall down crevasses and
>>> lubricate the eventual collapse of large areas of ice into the oceans.
>>> Meaning that the integral [[roughly]] under the CO2 level curve is what
>>> matters [multiplied by the warming potential over that period]  when it
>>> comes to measuring threats of Greenland's collapse
>>> So the key issue is duration - how long elevated greenhouse gas levels last
>>> and how to get them down.
>>> Think that's rig

Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right?

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Peter‹Problem with your analysis is that biosphere also gives off
something like 60 GtC as well. Preindustrial with steady CO2, as much was
being taken up and given off. The net uptake, driven by the gradient created
by emissions is now something like 1 GtC/yr and would equilibrate well
before all of the perturbation is removed for this net uptake is occurring
mainly as the new emissions are distributed among the fast reservoirs
(atmosphere something like 50%, upper ocean that is well mixed 20-25% (and
this includes the maybe 1 GtC/yr or less headed to the deep ocean), and
terrestrial biosphere something like 25-30%. My upper ocean and terrestrial
biosphere numbers may be off a bit, but close.

You are counting the gross flux‹sort of like saying how much cash is going
into the stock market by only counting the dollars used to buy the stocks
without subtracting off the money coming out due to sales.

Mike


On 11/21/09 3:20 AM, "Peter Read"  wrote:

> I must be off the map somewhere I guess, but in my view you guys have got it
> wrong
>  
> This is because the calculations pertain exclusively to atmospheric
> physics/chemistry.
>  
> In fact the biosphere fixes about 60 Gt C annually plus another 20 including
> oceanic photosynthesis
>  
> So with less than 800 GT in the atmosphere, incremental CO2 stays in the
> atmosphere for around 10 years, not 10,000
>  
> Of course, if natural and anthropogenic fixation is exactly balanced by decay
> for 10,000 years then the physical-chemical processes are all that matters.
> But is that likely?? An increment of CO2 will cause an increment of CO2
> fertilization, allowing for which would lead to a smaller lifetime I suspect
> [can anyone do the sum please?].  But an increment of CO2 will cause
> incremental warming and incrementally hasten decay, possibly lengthening the
> 10,000 years .  
>  
> However, I am much more concerned with the presentational aspect of the 10,000
> years number.  This lends credence to the overwhelming importance of reducing
> emissions [[unless, that is, you happen to think that shorter term climatic
> impacts, like the risk of Greenland collapsing, are important]].
>  
> I believe the science should be stated in a way that emphasizes the carbon
> cyle as a whole, and the ease of getting CO2 out of the atmosphere, not the
> very difficult (costly) problem of stopping it being emitted.
>  
> Peter
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  Marty  Hoffert 
>>  
>> To: ke...@ucalgary.ca ; r...@llnl.gov ; mmacc...@comcast.net ;
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>  
>> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:00  PM
>>  
>> Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Rejected - a  simple argument for SRM geoengineering
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> David et al:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> True, Jim Kasting's work on the long-term carbon cycle as impacted by  human
>> fossil fuel CO2 emissions is decades old. But brilliant though Jim is,  he
>> was not the first. See, e.g., the attached paper published in 1974 when it
>> first dawned on me and others at NASA/GISS that we might be on to something
>> important with the fossil fuel O2 greenhouse-climate issue. Who would have
>> thought that Steve Schneider, Richard Sommerville, Jim Hansen and yours truly
>> would be pounding the table in 2009 for the world to act to limit  emissions?
>> (Remember, the planetary climate was still cooling in  the '70s.)  My '74
>> Atmos Env. paper admittedly has (minor in the overall  scheme of things)
>> errors. Not too surprising for an early probes into  the far horizons of
>> humankind's future. (Still, Dave Keeling liked it.)  Finding those conceptual
>> errors might be fun exercise for a carbon cycle savvy  reader 35 years later.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> But mostly, I think, I was right about the longevity of the impacts of  the
>> fuel era of human history through persistent elevated CO2 levels. Nobody
>> much listened at the time and the paper was buried in in the resting place of
>> specialized academic journals, though I was able to resurrect it with the
>> help  of the Internet.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> But Hey: Is anyone listening now? Will they care in Copenhagen?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Marty Hoffert
>> Professor Emeritus of  Physics
>> Andre and Bella Meyer  Hall of Physics
>> 4 Washington  Place
>> New York  University
>> New York, NY  10003-6621
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Ken  Caldeira 
>>  
>> To: Ron Larson 
>>  
>> Cc: dhawk...@nrdc.org ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>  
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:08 PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [geo] you got that right
>>  
>> 
>> 1 digit calculations just for orders of magnitude:
>> 
>> If we  assume a doubling of CO2 is 4 W / m2 and the earth is 5 x 10^14 m2, a
>> doubling  of CO2 traps about 2 x 10^15 W.
>> 
>> If we assume 2 GtC / ppm, and think it  takes say 300 ppm to double CO2, that
>> 

Re: [geo] Re: Rejected - a simple argument for SRM geoengineering AND did you get that right?

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Peter‹Agreed, the residence time of a particular CO2 molecule in the
atmosphere is a few years. And this number was confirmed in the 1950s/60s
following the atmospheric nuclear testing as the excess C-14 molecules were
taken up by the ocean and biosphere.

But what matters for climate is the lifetime of the perturbed concentration,
and that depends on net fluxes‹first the redistribution among the
fast-exchanging reservoirs (atmosphere, upper ocean, terrestrial biosphere)
and then as the amount gets transferred (very slowly) into the long term
reservoirs (the deep ocean, etc. and eventually the sediments‹and similar
chains for the long-term terrestrial and geological reservoirs). It was this
cycle that Solomon et al. and others have been referring.

I¹ll agree that the language is often sloppy, saying the CO2 lifetime in the
atmosphere instead of the lifetime (or persistence time) of the CO2
perturbation, so there has been confusion on this.

Mike


On 11/22/09 12:32 PM, "Peter Read"  wrote:

> Hi Mike
>  
> Don't think so.  Rereading my message I see that I did not omit to mention
> both the deposit and withdrawl mechanisms for the "biosphere carbon bank" i.e.
> photosynthesis for deposit into the biosphere 'bank' and decay for withdrawl
> from it.  The gross flows of about 110 Gt each into ocean and terrestrial
> biosphere are netted off in the numbers I quoted, with about 50Gt respired
> immediately by plant life and about as much released by warm oceans as is
> absorbed in cold ocean regions (more exact numbers at Fig 4 [3?] of the RS
> geo-engineering report that I don't have to hand).
>  
> The 60 and 20 for land and ocean photosynthetic fixing that I mentioned are
> the amounts taken out of the atmosphere each year.  These  were balanced by an
> equal amount released by decay processes when the biosphere was in
> pre-industrial equilibrium.  With only about 800 Gt in the atmosphere, this
> means the average CO2 molecule in atmosphere can expect to get fixed (and
> later released) about once every ten years
>  
> The time constants in the Bern model relate, I believe, to quick adjustment
> with the oceans, slower adjustment with the biosphere and long term adjustment
> with the very limited benthic and lithosphere quasi-final resting places.
> These time constants slowly adapt to shifts from the pre-industrial numbers as
> enhanced CO2 levels impact on the rate at which CO2 is fixed (CO2
> fertilisation - a phenomena that finally resolved the IPCC second assessment
> report's mystery sink problem) and the rate it decays (Peter Cox's work on the
> impact of warmer climate on the biosphere sink).
>  
> So the lifetime of an incremental CO2 molecule depends on the scenario - in a
> rapidly warming world an increment of CO2 will provoke further warming and
> intensify decay processes and possibly leave several CO2 molecules in the
> atmosphere in 1 years.  In a slowly warming world it will provoke further
> CO2 fertilization and possibly be removed in a few decades.
>  
> From the scientific perspective the point I am making is that the atmospheric
> chemisty-physics effect of a CO2 increment cannot be separated from the
> biological effects, which may well be much more important over a meaningful
> policy horizon.. 
>  
> But my main concern is the policy implication of giving the 1 year figure
> prominence since it tends to give the impression that reducing emissions is
> the overwhelmingly important thing to do.  If on the other hand policy makers
> can be brought to realize that a molecule of CO2 revisits the biosphere every
> ten years or so then they can maybe be brought to realize that this gives 1000
> opportunities to do something about the problem before 1 years are up.  It
> is a simple matter, over a few decades, to manage the earths landscape so that
> 63 Gt are photosynthesized annually and only 57 Gt allowed to decay to CO2,
> yet that does as much good as reducing fossil fuel emissioins to zero, which
> nobody believes is feasible this side of 2100
>  
> Cheers
> Peter
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  Mike  MacCracken <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>
>>  
>> To: Peter Read <mailto:pre...@attglobal.net>  ; Martin  Hoffert
>> <mailto:marty.hoff...@nyu.edu>  ; David  Keith <mailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca>  ;
>> Greg Rau <mailto:r...@llnl.gov>  ;  Geoengineering
>> <mailto:Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  ; John Nissen
>> <mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk>  ;  Ron  Larson
>> <mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>  ; David  Hawkins
>> <mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>
>>  
>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:56  AM
>>  
>> Subject: R

geoengineering@googlegroups.com

[Mike MacCracken]

erhaps to not give comfort to opponents.  But
> scientists should not do this. Anyone can make a mistake. Maybe the Wall
> Street Journal can be easily fooled. But Mother Nature will not be fooled.
> 
> Space based solar is a good idea mainly because satellites in GEO can beam the
> energy 24/7 and get 7 times more solar flux per unit area than the long-time
> flux at earth's surface, and the massive storage needed for major market
> penetration of terrestrial solar is destined to be a major issue. The way to
> go now is beaming the power by laser which can also penetrate the atmosphere,
> but has 100,000 times shorter wavelength than microwaves.  At least do this in
> parallel with testing microwaves, as the Japanese Space Agency is doing.
> Lasers permit a demonstration of order a few hundred kilowatts in space with a
> mass to orbit of a few metric tons, similar to hundreds of communication
> satellites already in GEO. And even before this a series of demonstrations
> from the ISS can be done.  A laser system can also grow in a modular way and
> will not encounter electromagnetic frequency allocation problems like a
> microwave system will.
> 
> A bonus is that space-based solar requires far less real estate in space to
> power the earth than the  sun shields or solar parasols proposed by some
> geoengineers to compensate for global warming from the fossil fuel greenhouse.
> The reason is that the radiative forcing from CO2 doubling, about 4 watts per
> square meter, is fifty times less than humankind's energy use per unit surface
> area of the earth. It's why we have to worry about global warming with it
> physics amplification from the fossil fuel greenhouse long before we have to
> worry about heating the planet from the second law heat dump from our energy
> use. It's too bad this stuff is not understood.
> 
> Against my better judgement, I may write a paper on with my #1 son Eric for
> submission to Science or Nature. Unfortunately, there are so many wonderful
> distractions going on at the same time and who knows if they will even take
> it? Maybe I'll ask Mike MacCracken if I can present these ideas at his
> Geoengineering meeting next year in Monterey. Mike, are you listening?
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving to all, including any native American descendants who
> survived the bacteriological holocaust of European settlers in the 17th, 18th
> and 19th centuries.
> 
> Marty Hoffert
> Professor Emeritus of Physics
> Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics
> 4 Washington Place
> New York University
> New York, NY 10003-6621
>  
> NYU Phone: 212-998-3747
> NYU Fax: 212-995-4016
> Home Phone: 516-466-9418
> Home Fax:516-487-0734
> Cellphone: 516-972-4779
> Email:   marty.hoff...@nyu.edu
> Web page: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 8:07 PM -0800 11/25/09, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>> Joe,
>> 
>> I would talk to Marty Hoffert about this: "Marty Hoffert"
>> 
>> 
>> Something weird must be going on.
>> My understanding is that this makes no sense from a technological point of
>> view -- and that comes from space solar advocates
>> 
>> It would be interesting to find out what is behind this and what their game
>> is.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Ken
>> 
>> 
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: None 
>> Date: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM
>> Subject: California regulators have recommended approving Solaren's long-term
>> SSP contract with PG&E.
>> To: alternative energy action 
>> 
>> 
>>   California regulators have recommended approving Solaren's long-
>> term SSP contract with PG&E that would beam 200 megawatts of SSP to
>> California. Long ways to go, but we are moving.
>> 
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091120-713779.html
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "alternative energy action" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> alternative_energy_act...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:alternative_energy_act...@googlegroups.com> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> alternative_energy_action+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:alternative_energy_action%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alternative_energy_action?hl=en
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alternative_energy_action?hl=en> .
> 
> 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Fwd: IGBP Climate Change Index

[Mike MacCracken]

It would be helpful if the IGBP (or some other group like Alan's, which has
more capability to generate such an index better than most) also had a
variability index that included volcanic eruption effects and El Nino/La
Nina effects on at least global average temperature (in that we essentially
can estimate these, or at least can get a good sense of them by correlation
and fancier analyses of past observations); of course, a problem is that the
two may not be completely independent. [I'd add in solar variations if I
thought we understand them well enough to do, but in any case best estimate
is that they are smaller--or at least smoother.]

And if one were clever, one might even do a short-term variation chart for
the CO2 concentration (volcanic eruptions, by scattering light, are thought
to temporarily enhance carbon uptake; ENSO can also have an effect, as can
variations in fires), and they even might have a variability index for how
volcanic eruptions and ENSO affect sea level (or ocean heat content).

Finally, it is a bit surprising to me (and will be misleading later) that
IGBP uses minimum summer sea ice cover as an index--when this goes to zero,
it presumably will imply that there is no more change going on in the this
component of the Earth system, which will be wrong. It seems to me they need
to figure out some composite cryosphere index. The sea ice component might
be the average annual fractional coverage of sea ice or sea ice
volume--though that too could go to zero change in the future, but more
distantly. Then add in mountain glacier and ice sheet components, with some
weighting--or maybe make it total ice loss per year from Arctic sea ice,
mountain glaciers, the ice sheets, and even permafrost. This would be
equivalent to the energy going into melting all the ice, so one of the terms
in the global energy balance (along with ocean heat uptake).

Mike


On 12/9/09 9:22 AM, "Alan Robock"  wrote:

> Dear Ken,
> 
> No.
> 
> First, there was no eruption in 1996 that affected climate.  And how can
> you cherry-pick and choose the same year for El Chichón, whose effects
> were largely masked by the huge El Niño that year, and choose the year
> after the eruption for Pinatubo?  Which is it?  So your theory that
> these data show beneficial effects from eruptions is wrong.
> 
> Second, volcanic eruptions cause drought, ozone depletion, and loss of
> direct solar power.  So you have to take the good with the bad and
> carefully evaluate all the effects.
> 
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Professor II
>Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
>Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> Rutgers University  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> 
>> The IGBP has developed a "Climate Change Index":
>> 
>> *The index gives an annual snapshot of how the planet?s complex systems ?
>> the ice, the oceans, the land surface and the atmosphere - are responding to
>> the changing climate.
>> *...*
>> **The index dips in just three years, 1982, 1992 and 1996 and looks
>> effective at capturing major natural events that affect climate, and their
>> knock-on effect on the planet. The dip in the curve in 1992 may have been
>> caused by the massive Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1991.
>> The eruption was large enough to affect temperature and sea level on a
>> planetary scale. The other falls coincide with the El Chichon volcanic
>> eruption in Mexico in 1982 and the volcanic eruption on the Caribbean island
>> of Montserrat in 1996.*
>> 
>> If the IGBP's "Climate Change Index" only shows improvements after large
>> volcanoes, is the IGBP telling us something about the potential for
>> intentional intervention in the climate system?
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>> 
>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> 
>> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Virginie Le Saout 
>> Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:30 PM
>> Subject: IGBP Climate Change Index
>> To:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *IGBP Climate-Change Index *
>> 
>> * *
>> 
>> *EMBARGO: 9 December 09:00 CET (08:00 GMT, 03:00 EST, US)*
>> 
>> * *
>> 
>> * *
>> 
>> *Press conference: UNFCCC - COP15,* *Asger Jorn Room, Hall H, Bella Center,
>> Copenhagen.*
>> 
>> * *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Some people still question whether Earth?s climate is changing as rapidly
>> and profoundly as the majority of climate scientists suggest. But, what if
>> the complexity of the Earth?s climate were distilled down to one number, in
>> t

Re: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering?

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi David--I have run the MAGICC model of Wigley turning off all emissions
(all GHGs, all aerosols)--so an impossibly aggressive limiting case. The
black carbon and sulfate effects go away virtually immediately, tropospheric
ozone almost as fast, methane over 1-2 decades, and then one is left with
the slowly decreasing forcing of the long-lived species--CO2, N2O and
halocarbons (with no cooling offset). This leads to several decades of
forcing not unlike net forcing today, so one would get continued ocean
warming.

You can also look at the IPCC Fourth Assessment and their case of constant
forcing (that goldish curve). They kept all concentrations and aerosol
loadings the same--which is actually not self-consistent as to keep the CO2
concentration constant, emissions would have to drop by 80% or maybe more,
and so SO2 emissions would be expected to drop equivalently, reducing the
cooling offset by 80% or so. Of course, so would the black carbon warming
influence, which may almost offset the sulfate loss. As the IPCC temperature
result shows, one would get about a half degree of further warming.

One would thus expect the Arctic to warm more and likely mean there would be
virtually no summer sea ice, and this would lead to quite thin winter sea
ice that would melt earlier in the spring, and so more solar absorption,
etc.--so warming in Arctic would be greater than global average (as is now
the case).

Now, I happen to think (see my ERL paper) that the reduction in sulfate
loading in the Arctic (the cleaning up of Arctic haze) as a result of
reduced SO2 emissions from Europe and Russia (at least springtime air into
the Arctic typically passes over these regions) is likely contributing to
the accelerated melting of the Arctic as compared to models (which don't
typically treat this effect, especially as global SO2 emissions are likely
headed back up). Thus, in my view we have an analog for a reverse
geoengineering experiment--I admit this is a hypothesis, but given all the
data that has been taken over the last few decades in cleaning up Arctic
haze, there is likely an observational data base for exploring this
possibility. While I know some attribute the accelerated melting to soot,
Quinn et al in Tellus show, at least for some months, that soot deposition
has been going down along with the sulfate decline. What needs to be looked
at are data for changes in sunlight and downward IR onto the sea ice as a
function of season--and NOAA and others may at least have some data on this.
Less springtime sulfate may well lead to earlier melting of surface snow
cover, lowering the albedo and then increasing the loss.

If all of this is the case, then, indeed, we might want to put the sulfate
back over the Arctic--in the troposphere where during summer lifetime might
be up to 2 weeks or so [Alan Robock's lower Arctic stratosphere injection
had a lifetime of 2 months--far below the global average 2 year versus one
week ratio for stratospheric (volcanic) to tropospheric sulfate.] Injection
could be done from a few mountain locations on days when winds are headed
into the Arctic and need only occur for a the few sunlit months starting
when the snow cover albedo drops, so geoengineering injection would likely
be a small fraction of recent surface emissions and we thus likely could
estimate impacts on sea ice, ecosystems, etc. from past records as well as
from models. And, done cleverly, it is not at all clear that just cooling
the summertime Arctic would lead to summertime cooling of the surrounding
continental areas and suppress the monsoon.

What we need to get at all of this is a solid research program where efforts
are made to refine and develop ideas, seeing if adjustments can overcome the
worst of the side effects (injections on one or the other side of the
Arctic, at various times during the sunlit season, injections at additional
locations, and so on) rather than just assertions like mine and model
simulations that aren't directly representing the proposed intervention.

Best, Mike

On 12/10/09 7:12 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> Curiously, I can't find you any references.  But it's rather obvious if
> you think about the relative timescale - and I've challenged many top
> climate scientists to dispute it, and nobody has managed!  The Arctic
> sea ice is indeed the "Elephant in the room", that nobody chooses to
> notice, because the prospect of having to deploy geoengineering  is so
> uncomfortable for them.
> 
> Perhaps it's cowardice.  But it's potentially tragic because
> geoengineering could be left too late.
> 
> John
> 
> --
> 
> Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> In your note you say,  "The undisputed fact that emissions reduction cannot
>> save the Arctic sea ice, at its current rate of retreat..."
>> Can you provide a reference or two that reaches this conclusion?
>> (I'm not asking to dispute what you say but would like to see what you have
>> in mind as support for the proposition.)
>> Thanks
>> David
>> 

Re: [geo] ocean albedo modification author

[Mike MacCracken]

You can email him at russellse...@gmail.com

Mike MacCracken


On 12/14/09 5:33 AM, "p.j.irvine"  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I read the article by Michael MacCracken and he repeatedly mentions an
> article that is not published yet:
> 
> Seitz R 2009 Hydrosols and albedo: Microbubbles, water
> conservation and climate change Clim. Change submitted
> 
> I tried to find R Seitz to get in contact about the idea, does anyone
> know the full name of this author? or their institution?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> peter Irvine
> 
> --
> 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> 
> 


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Re: cloud seeding - need for research

[Mike MacCracken]

With one exception, I agree with John. The exception is that I think it has
been demonstrated that one can clear an ice fog with seeding, and this has
been done to open airports, etc.--not to generate precipitation (in any
form).

I would add that the water vapor content of air and clouds above Greenland
is likely so low that one could not be likely to get a significant buildup
of snow. Whether one could seed storms or change sea surface temperatures in
surrounding areas in a way that would lead to greater likelihood of storms
depositing snow on Greenland (or Antarctica, etc.) has not, to my knowledge,
been looked at at all.

Mike


On 12/16/09 4:00 AM, "John Latham"  wrote:

> Hello Neil, Andrew et al.
> 
> Cloud seeding (principally to make rain) has had a long and highly chequered
> history in the 60 years since Vonnegut, Schaefer & Langmuir did their
> pioneering work. Many studies since then were contaminated by commercial
> interests. There is no essentially no consensus as to whether and under what
> circumstances it will work. This is especially true for clouds that contain
> ice. Whether seeding will enhance, reduce or have negligible effect on such
> clouds depends on: atmospheric stability, cloud-base temperature, updraught
> speed, presence or absence of conditions in which natural secondary can
> function, level and location etc etc. I think there is good reason to feel
> sceptical of studies reporting quantitative estimates of changes induced by
> seeding. My view is that - as with several geoengineering schemes - what is
> urgently required is well-controlled , comprehensive field experiments. Only
> then will it be possible to establish whether cloud seeding might, on a
> regional scale, be important vis-a-vis climate change.
> 
> Cheers,   John.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Quoting Neil Farbstein :
>  
>> > I'm glad we agree. Small cloud seeding experiments over Greenland
>> > should be practical.  We should give this some thought and modeling.
>> > Can you do that at your lab? Google satellite pictures and weather
>> > satellites can locate clouds that are likely targets to seed; The
>> > bigger clouds in the places that are most strategic.
>> > An international organization or groups of industrialized nations can
>> > pay the local residents or the greenland government subsidies for
>> > participating in the cloud seeding program.
>> >
>> > On Dec 15, 8:27 pm, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
>>> >> For clarity, the main reason my for suggesting cloud seeding is that it
>>> can
>>> >> be used to build up greenland to a height where the air temperature is
>>> low
>>> >> enough to sustain the ice sheet.  The could potentially reverse the
>>> >> catastrophic Greenland tipping point - which will unleash several metres
of
>>> >> sea level rise over a few hundred years.  Game over for London, Venice,
>>> >> Florida, New York, etc. if that happens.   Worth a bit of jet fuel or a
>>> few
>>> >> rockets to prevent that, I'd argue.
>>> >>
>>> >> A
>>> >>
>>> >> 2009/12/15 Neil Farbstein 
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
 >> > I suggested the same cloud seeding strategy a month ago. Somebody
 >> > authoritative said that the biggest snowfall  recorded over the
 >> > alaskan arctic caused the biggest melt water recorded during the
 >> > spring. That's anecdotal evidence but I dropped the idea of working on
 >> > that anyway.
>>> >>
 >> > There wont be a melt water problem if clouds are seeded over large
 >> > parts of the gulfstream to cool it and the winds that blow off it.
>>> >>
 >> > On Dec 15, 5:47 am, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> >> > > I note the use of cloud seeding by the Chinese, and its
>>> >> unexpected effect
 >> > in
> >> > > causing huge snowfalls in Beijing.  It seems that there may be
>>> >> two useful
> >> > > geoengineering approaches with this technique, and I'd be
> interested in
> >> > > hearing comments.
>>> >>
> >> > > 1) Rebuild ice - by inducing snowfalls over Greenland,
>>> >> Antarctica and the
> >> > > Arctic, it would perhaps be possible to maintain ice.  In
> Greenland,
 >> > where
> >> > > the height of the ice cap is critical, this would seem a
> particularly
> >> > > appealing prospect.
> >> > > 2) Albedo modification - Fresh snow is whiter than old snow,
> especially
 >> > in
> >> > > polluted areas.  Is the albedo change worth pursuing?  My guess is
not.
> >> > >  HOWEVER, I suspect that triggering significant autumn and spring
 >> > snowfalls
> >> > > in permafrost regions, we could potentially significantly modify
> albedo.
>>> >>
> >> > > I invite comments.
>>> >>
> >> > > A
>>> >>
 >> > --
>>> >>
 >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
 >> > "geoengineering" group.
 >> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
 >> > To unsubscribe from t

Re: [geo] new proposal?

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Andrew‹I recently heard a presentation by Sean Gallagher, a
photojournalist on China¹s programs to reverse desertification in China. He
did not mention all the various approaches in the article you mention, but
they have, for example, actually built a city that is trying to help reverse
the trend. You can see his material at
http://pulitzercenter.org/openitemdropcol.cfm?id=1583

Best, Mike MacCracken


On 12/20/09 11:34 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> I came across this on Wikipedia.  I imagine that it's been uploaded by one of
> the originators.  Has anyone heard of this idea before?  Is it taken
> seriously?  Does anyone know of any references to journal papers which
> consider the idea, or variants thereof?  I've proposed it for deletion from WP
> as there appears to be no 3rd party literature which supports the idea.
> 
> Nevertheless, it may have some merit, so I've posted it here.
> 
> Pasted below for comment.
> 
> A
> 
> he Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System (ADRECS) is a
> proposal designed to counter and reverse desertification
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification>  in any arid
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arid>  area but in particular the Gobi Desert
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi_Desert>  and other deserts
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert>  in central China
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China> . The rapidly-growing Chinese deserts are
> having an extremely serious effect on world food production
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_production>  and the environment
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)> , due to
> increasing agricultural land <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land>
>  loss from overgrazing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrazing>  and water
> shortages <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_shortage> . This phenomenon,
> along with China's growing appetite for red meat
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat>  is causing it to import its food from
> other countries, such as the Amazon rain forest
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rain_forest> , to grow soya
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean>  ascattle
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle>  feed, putting pressure on food
> resources and environment world wide.
> China is planning several "mega river" diversion schemes[1]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#cite_note-0>  from the South to the arid
> North, but these are merely "Robbing Peter to pay Paul"--no fresh water
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water>  is created. The ADRECS proposal
> envisages similar levels of pumping but creates new fresh water.
> Calculations show that using existing fleets of cargo aircraft
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_aircraft> , this grid could be laid in
> only years arresting the vast sand storms
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_storm>  and dune
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune>  movements. Reforesting
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforestation>  the deserts and arid areas,
> would of itself create and recycle moisture.
> Contents
>  [hide  ]
> * 1 The ADRECS proposal
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#The_ADRECS_proposal>
>> * 1.1 Basic concept <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Basic_concept>
>> * 1.2 Hygroscopic nature of car tyres
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Hygroscopic_nature_of_car_tyres>
>> * 1.3 Hygroscopic nature of sewage sludge
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Hygroscopic_nature_of_sewage_sludge>
>> * 1.4 Self excavating wind turbine bases--Grand Slam
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Self_excavating_wind_turbine_bases--Gran
>> d_Slam> 
> * 2 Concentrating Solar Power Plant
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Concentrating_Solar_Power_Plant>
> * 3 Area of wind turbines required
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Area_of_wind_turbines_required>
> * 4 Wind retarding effects of turbines and cables
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Wind_retarding_effects_of_turbines_and_ca
> bles> 
> * 5 Precedents: Great Plains Shelterbelt
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Precedents:_Great_Plains_Shelterbelt>
> * 6 Seawater Green house
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#Seawater_Green_house>
> * 7 See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#See_also>
> * 8 References <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADRECS#References>
> [edit 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aerially_Delivered_Re-forestation_a
> nd_Erosion_Control_System&action=edit§ion=1> ]The ADRECS proposal
> ADRECS[2] <

Re: [geo] Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

Just a note that while pumping heat down into the ocean can lead to local
cooling, storing heat in the ocean is adding and retaining energy, so will
eventually emerge as warming. And, of course, it will contribute to sea
level rise. Thus, while a local effort of this type to help limit hurricane
intensification may be a good trade, it is not likely to be a global cure
for the system (unless one can really pull the GHG concentrations down in
other ways so heat from the ocean would moderate the rate of cooling‹as it
does now during winter).

Mike MacCracken


On 12/28/09 1:34 AM, "arcolo...@aol.com"  wrote:

> Hello, I'm new here and I expect to make a few blunders until I am better
> acquainted with previous discussions.  I am a retired physicist and have some
> leadership role in the Sierra Club.
>  
> The Salter Sink is an excellent concept for raising cold water to the surface.
> the area that needs design attention is the injection system at the bottom of
> the tube.  With careful design, it will raise probably ten times as much cold
> water as is pumped down.  This design work is quite easy.
>  
> Next, I had never considered the advantage of the wave-driven pump as a way to
> cool the ocean, rather as a way to raise nutrients to the surface to increase
> biological production.  Most of the ocean surface world-wide is limited in
> production by inadequate nitrate and phosphate rather than iron.  Some good
> places for hurricane control are also good for placement of "ocean farms" fed
> by wave pumps.  For example, the North Atlantic Gyre region, also known as the
> Sargasso Sea.
>  
> I believe if somebody will check the economic potential of pump-fed sea farms
> in some areas such as the horse latitudes, it will be found that the Salter
> pumps will pay for themselves and return a handsome profit.
>  
> My thought-- it isn't necessary to remove the pump structures before they
> encounter storms--if they are lowered below the surface by about 100 meters,
> then they are completely sheltered from the storm above.
>  
> I can imagine a Salter pump connected to a lattice structure that spreads over
> an area of sea around the pump.  Kelp or other suitable plants are anchored to
> the lattice.  The "farm" provides a sea pasture in which farm animals are
> grown and harvested for market.
>  
> Ernie Rogers
> Pleasant Grove, Utah
> Phone 801-368-4902
>  
> In a message dated 12/27/2009 6:02:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> rongretlar...@comcast.net writes:
>> John and  list:
>> 
>> I agree that this was an important interview for  advancing
>> geoengineering (Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite
>> writers/analysts/interviewers).  My main objection was that Fareed or
>> his show producers seemed to not be aware of the limitations of SRM.   By
>> this  I mean that the fundamental causation agent - excess CO2 -  was
>> ignored, not mentioned once.  Greg Lau's message to the list just
>> earlier on the need to protect against ocean acidification was never
>> hinted at.  (More tomorrow on that.)
>> 
>>The end of  the twenty minutes was on Myrhvold's firms focus on
>> investing in  inventions - which he says only his new firm is doing
>> (emphasizing  this is not the same as venture capital - which he also
>> claimed has  revolutionized modern American (world?) business).
>> 
>> I  wish I knew whether Myrhvold himself was working on CO2 removal as
>> well as  his SO2 approach.   The site also has quite a bit on the Salton
>> Sink concept (see
>> http://www.intvenlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Salter-Sink-white-paper-3
>> 00dpi1.pdf).   
>> Also see http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=338 for added material on
>> geoengineering.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> John Nissen wrote:
>>> > Hi  all
>>> >
>>> > Have you seen this?  Best case for SRM in Arctic I've  seen!
>>> >
>>> > Inventor Nathan Myhrvold describes "space hose" for  getting aerosols
>>> > into stratosphere - and he's done the modelling to  show it could be used
>>> > at the Arctic, to cool whole hemisphere,  without disrupting weather (see
>>> > about 9 minutes in).  "Cooling  the Arctic shuts of a whole lot of
>>> > tipping points."  It shows  incredible promise, but governments aren't
>>> > running to him - so  far.
>>> >
>>> >  
>>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.
>>> podcast.12.20.cnn
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Suppressing the only technology t

Re: [geo] Nathan's blunt honesty: emission cuts cannot cool Arctic and avoid tipping points

[Mike MacCracken]

Rather than challenge the honesty of researchers, what would be much more
informative, productive, and appropriate (not to mention respectful) would
be to focus on the assumptions or shortcomings in the calculations and
analyses. In earlier runs with the UKMO model, it took a few thousand years
to lead to loss of most of the Greenland ice sheet, quite possibly so long
because the model had no representation of ice dynamics, a term that models
have generally not yet included and an omission that led to the IPCC AR4 ice
loss projections being apparently a good deal less than present observations
suggest to be likely if trends continue to accelerate.

As to the quote you give, note that is from the reporter and not the
authors, who seem to me to be saying something different than the reporter's
sentence and that is obviously true--the more you spend on mitigation, the
less you will need to spend on SRM. At least in what is quoted from the
authors, they did not seem to say that this would lead to lowest cost
overall or least (or acceptable) impacts.

So, let's have discussion focus on the physics without innuendo about
motives.

Best, Mike


On 12/28/09 6:26 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> We had blunt honesty from Nathan Myhrvold.  But what about this?
> 
> http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245
> 
> What do you think of this research, when the scientists are being plain
> dishonest, by suggesting that reducing emissions could cool the Arctic
> in time to save the Greenland ice sheet?  To quote:
> 
> "Irvine and his colleagues stress that reducing carbon dioxide emissions
> now is likely to be an easier and cheaper option [than SRM geoengineering]."
> 
> Isn't honesty and truth important in science - and in getting
> appropriate solutions to problems?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> --
> 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> 
> 


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS BY UK AIR FORCE CREATE CLOUDS ABOVE BRITAIN

[Mike MacCracken]

The physics that lead to the conclusions that high (cirrus) clouds exert an
overall warming influence is pretty clear. Overall, in the solar, they are
not very reflective‹a lot of light passes through them (and, of course, this
effect only operates when the Sun is up). Throughout the day, the cirrus
clouds radiate in the IR, and they do this pretty well. So, looking from
space, the radiation coming out is from the cold cirrus instead of from
lower, warmer layers (so tending to warm the globe). And this is also clear
looking up at them from below, for downward radiation comes from the cirrus
instead of from, for example outer space, the latter being far colder than
the cirrus. Thus, the cirrus effectively block outgoing IR and reradiate
energy back down toward the Earth that would, without them head out into
space. So, let¹s not enhance cirrus (and, by the way, there was a special
report on aircraft effects on climate done by the IPCC (go to
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#2
and it is the sixth of the special reports).

By contrast, low clouds tend to be brighter, so reflect more solar to space,
and because they are lower and so warmer, they do not so much cut down the
IR out to space. They do, however, because they are warm intercept and
reradiate back to the surface a lot of energy in the IR, keeping the surface
from cooling off so much on cloudy nights.

Sulfate particles, on the other hand, tend to be reflective of solar
radiation (they are not very efficient at back scattering, most of their
effect being to scatter the direct beam forward), but they are not important
in the IR, to they tend to cool in the clear sky. And if they interact with
cloud water, they can enhance cloud reflectivity, so reflect more energy.

Mike MacCracken

On 1/10/10 6:10 AM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> The met office considered cirrus clouds, and my understanding of the research
> is that their results show an increase in warming in response to cloud seeding
> by jets.  It is unlikely to be viable to get jets to fly so low as to seed
> other types of cloud, as the effect on fuel consumption would be huge.
>  Therefore, 'stacking' the contrails may actually be more beneficial.  It may
> be that the methods have to be tweaked according to the weather conditions.
>  For example, in December, when the Northern hemisphere is losing heat into
> space, carefully stacking the clouds may be beneficial, and in high summer,
> when it's heating up, spreading them out may help reflect heat.  I don't have
> access to the 'tweaked' models which would help answer that question in
> detail.
> 
> I'm not sure that in any event it's practical to get aircraft to follow each
> others' trails in either a stacked or unstacked format, due to the drift of
> these clouds as weather systems move.  Air traffic control would be a
> nightmare if the routes were bending all over the place in real-time.
> 
> Maybe someone with full journal access can post the original research (subject
> to copyright).
> 
> I know that various additives have been proposed to jet fuel to enhance
> contrail effects.  However, I'm not sure that the modellers fully understand
> their implications, as little experimentation has been done.  Even this
> experiment was considered groundbreaking, and that only included unmodified
> jet fuel.  
> 
> Coincidentally, I've taken my own advice and tried to engage some
> anti-geoengineers in constructive dialogue.  It has been a waste of time.
>  This lot, who are connected to the blog post I recently sent to the list, are
> convinced that the US military have been secretly spraying
> aluminium-containing materials and possibly other substances for years to
> manipulate the Californian climate.  I've tried to explain the basics of
> evidence collection, controlled studies, and peer review to them, but sadly
> the mere suggestion that this theory is a complete load of tosh without any
> direct evidence is enough to provoke ad-hominem attacks (which quite amuse
> me).  I though it was particularly funny that during these exchanges the met
> office data came to light, suggesting a completely different modus operandi
> for the experiments, and the openness with which they are conducted.  Rather
> cruelly, I suggested that the only possible conspiracy was that the plane was
> piloted by Elvis, whose actions were controlled by a brain chip implanted by
> the CIA.  They're still asleep, so I've yet to see how they respond to my
> shameless trolling.
> 
> A
> 
> 2010/1/10 Oliver Wingenter 
>> Dear Andrew,
>> 
>> A holding pattern that does not result in overlapping contrails would result
>> in more reflected sunlight but depends on temp (altitude) and the fuel
&g

Re: [geo] Re: [clim] Open letter on Asilomar Geoengineering Conference

[Mike MacCracken]

Actually, Alvia, Diana/ETC. was invited, including a follow-up inquiry, and
Diana told me they chose not to be represented. And there are at least
several more than two dozen female scientists/experts coming as
participants. [In any case, it was/is a great movie.]

Mike MacCracken, Chair of the Scientific Organizing Committee


On 3/4/10 9:04 PM, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:

>  
> 
>  
> They're having a meeting on geoengineering and
> we weren't invited! Damn those almost exclusively
> white male scientists from industrialized countries!
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>>  
>> From:  Diana  Bronson <mailto:dianabron...@gmail.com>
>>  
>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  ; climateintervent...@googlegroups.com
>>  
>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:20  PM
>>  
>> Subject: [clim] Open letter on Asilomar  Geoengineering Conference
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 4  March 2010
>>  
>>  
>> Dr.  Margaret Leinen,
>>  
>> Climate  Response Fund
>>  
>> 71  Stevenson Street, Suite 400
>>  
>> San  Francisco, CA 94105
>>  
>>  
>> Dr.  Michael MacCracken,
>>  
>> Head  of the Scientific Organizing Committee
>>  
>> Climate  Institute
>>  
>> 900 17th  Street, NW, Suite
>>  
>> 
Washington,  DC 20006
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Open  Letter to the Climate Response Fund and the Scientific Organizing
>>  
>> Committee  
>>  
>>  
>> RE:  Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention  Technologies
>>  
>>  
>> March  22-26 2010
>>  
>>  
>> As  civil society organizations and social movements working to find
>> constructive  solutions to climate change, we want to express our deep
>> concerns with the  upcoming privately organized meeting on geoengineering in
>> Asilomar,  California. Its stated aim, which is to «develop a set of
>> voluntary  guidelines, or best practices, for the least harmful and lowest
>> risk conduct  of research and testing of proposed climate intervention and
>> geoengineering  technologies,» is moving us down the wrong road too soon and
>> without any  speed limit.
>>  
>>  
>> Geoengineering  refers to the large-scale technological manipulation of the
>> climate and  related systems through techniques such as putting sulphate
>> aerosols in the  stratosphere, fertilizing the ocean, and whitening the
>> clouds. The priority at  this time is not to sort out the conditions under
>> which this experimentation  might take place but, rather, whether or not the
>> community of nations and  peoples believes that geoengineering is
>> technically, legally, socially,  environmentally and economically acceptable.
>>  
>>  
>> Without  any international consensus as to whether geoengineering is an
>> acceptable  intervention in natural systems, the Climate Response Fund and
>> its Scientific  Organizing Committee’s discussion about «voluntary
>> guidelines» is  nonsensical. The Conference organizers -- almost exclusively
>> white male  scientists from industrialized countries -- are presuming that
>> they have the  experience, wisdom and legitimacy to determine who should or
>> should not be  invited into this conversation.
>>  
>>  
>> There  are many scenarios where geoengineering experiments with cross-border
>> impacts  would violate existing treaties (the 1978 Environmental Modification
>> Convention or ENMOD Treaty, amongst others).  The establishment of
>> «voluntary  guidelines» by an informal group meeting in Asilomar could
>> undermine local,  national, or international laws, as well as compromise
>> strategies for  mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, the history of voluntary
>> guidelines is  that companies simply do not follow them. Not only will the
>> scientists  involved in this enterprise be giving their blessing to dangerous
>> geoengineering technologies, they have no authority to force corporations or
>> governments to comply.
>>  
>>  
>> The  issue of large-scale geoengineering experimentation and its impact is
>> not  about technical peer-review. It is about no less than rights,
>> responsibilities  and the future of the planet. This public debate must, at
>> the very least,  include the peoples and countries that are most vulnerable
>> and likely to be  affected by geoengineering, not only those who stand to
>> gain. Such a  discussion cannot happen without the participation of the full
>> membership of  the United Nations. Determining guidelin

Re: [geo] Methane - time for realism

[Mike MacCracken]

While I wholeheartedly agree that methane is a critical issue, it would sure
be nice if they got the facts right.

Consider this paragraph: ³Dr. Shakhova said that undersea methane ordinarily
undergoes oxidation as it rises to the surface, where it is released as
carbon dioxide. But because water over the shelf is at most about 50 meters
deep, she said, the gas bubbles to the surface there as methane. As a
result, she said, atmospheric levels of methane over the Arctic are 1.85
parts per million, almost three times as high as the global average of 0.6
or 0.7 parts per million. Concentrations over the shelf are 2 parts per
million or higher.²

It is simply not the case that the concentration over much of the globe is
currently 0.6 or 0.7 parts per million. That may well have been the
preindustrial concentration that was being referred to, and if that is the
case, that correction is needed. Alternatively, they should report the
global average concentration as roughly 1.6 to 1.7 parts per million, as is
clearly shown in the global observations (see
http://instaar.colorado.edu/sil/images/ch4rug_490px.jpg ).

Mike


On 3/5/10 5:11 PM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011011.html
> 
> Methane Melt: The Most Important Story You Don't Follow
> 
> Alex Steffen  , 5 Mar 10
> 
> We've written before about the danger that climate change will lead to the
> thawing and release of methane frozen on the ocean floor, and indeed the
> worrisome news that some scientists were observing patches of Arctic sea
> foaming with gas bubbles from "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor
>  .
> 
> Now, researchers in Alaska have found a similar process underway
>  :
>> 
>> Natalia Shakhova, a scientist at the university and a leader of the study,
>> said it was too soon to say whether the findings suggest that a dangerous
>> release of methane looms. In a telephone news conference, she said
>> researchers were only beginning to track the movement of this methane into
>> the atmosphere as the undersea permafrost that traps it degrades.
>>  
>> But climate experts familiar with the new research reported in Friday¹s issue
>> of the journal Science that even though it does not suggest imminent climate
>> catastrophe, it is important because of methane¹s role as a greenhouse gas.
>> Although carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the
>> atmosphere, ton for ton atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much
>> heat. 
>>  
>> Until recently, undersea permafrost has been little studied, but work so far
>> shows it is already sending surprising amounts of methane into the
>> atmosphere, Dr. Shakhova and other researchers are finding.
>>  
>> Last year, scientists from Britain and Germany reported that they had
>> detected plumes of methane rising from the Arctic seabed in the West
>> Spitsbergen area, north of Scandinavia. At the time, they said they had begun
>> their work hoping to gain data to predict future emissions and had not
>> expected to find evidence that the process was under way.
>>  
>> It is ³indispensable² to keep track of methane in the region, Martin Heimann
>> of the Max Planck Institute in Germany said in a commentary accompanying the
>> Science report. So far, Dr. Heimann wrote, methane contributions from Arctic
>> permafrost have been ³negligible.² He added: ³But will this persist into the
>> future under sustained warming trends? We do not know.²
>>  
>> In an e-mail message, Euan G. Nisbet of the University of London, an expert
>> on atmospheric methane, said the situation ³needs to be watched carefully.²
>>  
>> Atmospheric concentrations of methane have more than doubled since
>> pre-industrial times, Dr. Heimann wrote. Most of it comes from human
>> activities including energy production, cattle raising and the cultivation of
>> rice. But about 40 percent is natural, including the decomposition of organic
>> materials in wetlands and frozen wetlands like permafrost.
>>  
>> Dr. Shakhova said that permafrost in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, peat
>> land that flooded as sea levels rose after the last ice age, is degrading in
>> part because runoff from rivers that feed the Arctic Ocean is warmer than in
>> the past. 
>>  
>> She estimated that annual methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic
>> Shelf total about seven teragrams. (A teragram is 1.1 million tons.) By some
>> estimates, global methane emissions total about 500 teragrams a year.
>>  
>> Dr. Shakhova said that undersea methane ordinarily undergoes oxidation as it
>> rises to the surface, where it is released as carbon dioxide. But because
>> water over the shelf is at most about 50 meters deep, she said, the gas
>> bubbles to the surface there as methane. As a result, she said, atmospheric
>> levels of methane over the Arctic are 1.

Re: [geo] Arctic Council Strategy

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Alan et al‹Just a note that the Asilomar Conference was focused on
issues relating to guidelines for research, not to issues that need
investigation through research, as does the question of how much of an
influence in one region it might take to have a significant effect in
another region.

Mike MacCracken


On 4/15/10 8:28 PM, "Alan Robock"  wrote:

> Dear Josh,
> 
> You forget one thing.  The Arctic Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over
> global climate.  And you cannot confine geoengineering to the Arctic.  These
> were clear conclusions from the Asilomar Conference.  You are jumping the gun.
> 
> The Icelandic volcano so far has put out very little SO2, and will have no
> climatic impact.  Yet it shut down air traffic over Europe.
> Alan
> 
> Alan Robock, Professor II
>   Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
>   Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> Department of Environmental SciencesPhone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> Rutgers University  Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road   E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
> 
> On 4/15/2010 6:37 PM, Josh wrote:
>>  
>> Is anyone aware of organized efforts to place geoengineering on the
>> agenda of the Arctic Council?  Several commentators have raised this
>> possibility, but I am unaware of any systematic effort to accomplish
>> this.  Focusing on the Arctic Council offers a number of advantages:
>> 
>> - The Arctic Council is much less politicized than bodies like
>> UNFCCC.  Indeed, the AC is unknown to the general public.  The AC
>> would provide a forum that is less heated, less confrontational, and
>> less burdened by the weight of history.
>> 
>> - Membership in the AC is relatively small and manageable.  It is
>> composed of relatively developed countries with the resources to
>> pursue geoengineering.  Most of those countries that have indicated
>> some degree of openness to intervention belong to the AC.
>> 
>> - Given that the Arctic is disproportionately affected by climate
>> change, the AC and its member states would be more likely to consider
>> climate interventions.  In the Arctic, climate is changing and people
>> know it.  Native peoples may be supportive of geoengineering.
>> 
>> - Arctic climate change is an urgent issue, so geoengineering in the
>> Arctic is a logical place to begin.  A limited geographic focus would
>> diminish opposition and give the science a chance to prove itself.
>> 
>> For these and other reasons, the AC offers a promising venue for field
>> tests and possible deployment.  Nature has also provided us with a
>> potential public relations coup - the current Iceland volcano.  If
>> this eruption could be shown to result in reduced temperatures,
>> thicker sea ice, more polar bear cubs, etc., the argument for
>> stratospheric injections would look much more compelling.
>> 
>> Josh Horton
>> 
>>   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Iceland volcano images

[Mike MacCracken]

Just to note that coal-fired emissions of SO2 are in the range of several
tens of millions of tons per year, so something like four orders of
magnitude greater than has come out of the volcano.

And if the sulfur output is 3-4 kt and the volcano has been putting out
roughly 750 tons/second for near a week, total emissions of ash are
something like 100,000 times the sulfur output.

If I have done the calculations right, the global emissions right now are
the equivalent to 1/1000 the rate of the volcanic eruption as pure sulfur
extending over a year. And injection to the stratosphere would likely need
to be less than 1/10 of that rate. And having a sea ice-restoring effect in
the Arctic would likely be that or less.

What we are seeing is about 99.999% ash--so not really anything like an
analog of geoengineering with sulfate. The question instead should be if it
might have a warming influence due to the dark ash and that it will discolor
the surface for longer than its atmospheric lifetime, but over a lesser
area.

Mike MacCracken


On 4/19/10 5:21 PM, "Jim Fleming"  wrote:

> Thanks for the images.  It better not be an analog, however, since
> geoengineers never proposed tropospheric aerosol injections and would not
> want to mess up aviation.
> 
> Last week Alan Robock reported only 3-4 kt (0.003-0.004 Mt) of SO2 from the
> Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption in Iceland as compared to 5 Mt from
> Katmai in 1912 and 20 Mt from Pinatubo. Furthermore, it only went into the
> troposphere, with a lifetime of a week or so.  So he expects "absolutely no
> climatic effect based on emissions so far."  In other words, a much larger
> injection for a period of years (essentially a geoengineering implementation
> scenario) would be needed to detect a climate response.
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/19/10 3:58 PM, "Ning Zeng"  wrote:
> 
>> All: Below is a link to a series of MODIS images of the Iceland
>> volcanic eruption beginning in March. Depending on how it goes, it
>> could be a natural analog to targeted Arctic geoengineering. -Ning
>> Zeng
>> 
>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/event.php?id=43253
> 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] FW: FYI: Please pass this around. seeking out-of-box input on the oil well leak as real-time 'grand engineering challenge'

[Mike MacCracken]

Forwarded by Mike MacCracken

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Andrew Revkin
> Subject: please pass this around. seeking out-of-box input on the oil well
> leak as realtime 'grand engineering challenge'
> 
>  
> Please pass this around and/or reply or post a comment. Particularly
> interested in folks familiar with hydraulics/geology/engineering nexus.
> 
> For those in engineering and science community considering "grand challenges,"
> there's one out there in realtime right now: the damaged well. Conventional
> approach will take months.
>  
> I just posted this callout for Feynman-style ideas:
> 
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/a-dumb-question-about-stanching-d
> eep-oil/

See below.
>  
> 
> A very smart petrophysicist sent the following reaction, which implies that
> it's not out of the question to consider controlled explosions as a way to
> stanch the oil flow. I'm seeking to stimulate some creative thinking among
> engineers and others not wedded to 'in box' solutions like months-long effort
> to drill a parallel relief well.
>  
> One response to my post:
> 
>  It's all about regaining control of the well, not preserving it. As you may
> have allready discovered in your resarch, control means harnessing high
> pressure oil and gas to flow at a regulated rate or to be shut off completely.
>   All wells must be controlled from their conception and through their
> productive life until they are plugged and abandoned (P&A).
>  Control is maintained at the wellhead, a sophisticated valve assembly, which
> in the case of the Deepwater Horizon is stuck open and inoperable (loss of
> control).
>   Regaining control can be accomplished either by restoring functionality to
> the existing wellhead or by drilling a relief well to penetrate the existing
> well, then plugging the well.
>  With that said, an explosion would have to be of sufficient depth and
> magnitude to cause the well to cave in sufficiently to plug itself and stay
> plugged, or stay plugged long enough to drill the relief well.
>   It will be intesting to see if the DOD thinks they can do that.
>  As the crisis deepens, I have to believe that BP is open to all suggestions
> which will stop their growing economic loss.
>  My apologies if you allready have all this information.
>  
>  Regards,
>  Rob
> 
> -- 
> ANDREW C. REVKIN
> Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times
> http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
>  Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
> Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax/voicemail: 509-357-0965
> Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin
>  


**
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/a-dumb-question-about-stanching
-deep-oil/

May 1, 2010, 10:33 AM
A Dumb Question About Stanching Deep Oil
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/>
 <http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/05/01/us/01engineering_graphic.html
?ref=us> Three efforts to stop the flow of oil.
I¹ve been catching up on my reading on deep-ocean drilling in trying to
assess efforts to stanch what could be a months-long flow of oil from the
pinprick in the Gulf of Mexico seafloor. The Economist has a superb history
of deep-sea drilling
<http://www.economist.com/science-technology/technology-quarterly/displaysto
ry.cfm?story_id=15582301>  (written before the drilling disaster) and Henry
Fountain has written an excellent overview of  the work aimed at capping the
well <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01engineering.html>  that was
uncorked by the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon
<http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C17.html?LayoutID=17>
rig.
One naive, even dumb, question keeps coming to mind.
Is it possible to seal such wells using unconventional means ‹ specifically
controlled explosions? While covering the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks,
I wrote about some pretty exotic uses of explosives
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/international/03WEAP.html>  to attack
buried targets. The Pentagon has all manner of powerful, but precise,
munitions at its disposal, not to mention some of the brightest minds on the
planet for gauging challenges involving hydraulics, geology and metallurgy.
Given that President Obama has called on the Pentagon to help, I¹m just
wondering about ways to approach this deep-ocean leak by considering the
basics,  Feynman style
<http://biocurious.com/2008/05/28/the-real-feynman-algorithm> .
There are hundreds of talented oil-industry experts and government overseers
working around the clock on this problem. Still, if the solution is left up
to the industry, presumably it¹ll be hard to avoid a bias toward
conventional

[geo] BLUEBIRD

[Mike MacCracken]

Let's keep the BLUEBIRD discussions to the climateintervention blog and not
have the note on the geoengineering blog (or both).

Mike MacCracken


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Re: Can solar radiation management be tested?

[Mike MacCracken]

I would also reiterate that the underlying change due to GHGs is the key
threat, with SRM and other approaches seeking to moderate this. Expecting a
perfect understanding of the intervention options seems to me a bit like
doing inspection upon re-inspection of the uniforms of firemen as the house
burns down. We have to make sure they will not make the overall situation
worse and that is tested in test burns, etc., but expecting to hold back
responding to the fire until everything is perfectly understood, rather than
making the effort in an adaptive manner, learning as one goes along, seems
to me a more appropriate approach.

Mike MacCracken

On 9/28/10 9:03 AM, "Dan Whaley"  wrote:

> Statements that essentially say we will never be able to precisely mimic
> through testing the effects of full-blown SRM without doing full-blown SRM are
> obviously tautological-- as Ken has observed.
> 
> But clearly we can get useful knowledge from models, from proxies (chasing
> down new explosions), from history and the paleo record-- and yes, perhaps
> also from time series experiments in the real world which are small enough to
> be "safe" but large enough to still be "useful".  This is what folks that have
> and will in the future test OIF are doing.  And yes, the ocean is a chaotic
> system with innumerable externalities-- but the tests are still incredibly
> useful, even if only at 10,000km. 
> 
> Hopefully we can get some benefit from these tests and from appropriate tests
> of SRM before someone 5, 10 or 20 years from now (or next year) pushes for
> full deployment.
> 
> Imagine full blown wildfires here in the US 2x or 3x worse than we've seen
> them before, floods 2x or 3x worse than we've seen them.  Temperature records
> continuing to be broken, with all the stress on electricity grids and chaos in
> developed nations that this will create. Pine bark beetles that finally kill
> the last tree-- instead of just (!) 75-80% of them.  The science tells us
> these things are likely coming, and quite soon.
> 
> Some politician (probably here in the states) will finally stand up, sweating
> profusely at some conference much like Medvedev did this summer during the
> wildfires there, and say "do it."  Create a Pinatubo--because we don't know
> what all the ramifications will be, but a Pinatubo has got to be better than
> this.
> 
> Can we not see this very plausible scenario happening?  We've all talked about
> it numerous times.
> 
> Is the alternative really better?  Namely that we don't do any meaningful
> tests at all, or only do them in models, where we get less useful information
> (i.e. no observations) and people are less likely to believe the results? 
> What if we actually end up "needing" these tools, and we haven't done the
> engineering work necessary to deploy them?  Is this so unbelievable?
> 
> Those who argue against appropriate, limited, regulated field trials of these
> techniques seem to have already made up their mind that they cannot provide
> any benefit.  Because if they could, then isn't the "moral" imperative (since
> we've been talking about morals recently) not to stand in the way of a full
> scientific vetting of them?  Isn't this just as bad (or worse actually) as
> those who are accused of being "advocates" for geoengineering (research).
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Oliver Morton 
> wrote:
>> Further to Alan, presumably perturbing 10,000km^2 is meant top affect
>> a larger area: if cloud seeding only cools the areas where the clouds
>> are seeded, without advective transport cooling other places, it's
>> going to be of very limited use to people who aren'#t sailors
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 4:52 am, Alan Robock  wrote:
>>> > Dear John,
>>> >
>>> > If you only do it for a few days, how will you detect a signal?  And how
>>> do you know that perturbing 10,000 km2 will not affect a larger area?
>>> >
>>> > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
>>> > Department of Environmental Sciences
>>> > Rutgers University
>>> > 14 College Farm Road
>>> > New Brunswick, NJ  08901
>>> >
>>> > rob...@envsci.rutgers.eduhttp://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock/
>>> <http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock/>
>>> > Sent from my iPhone. +1-732-881-1610
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:44 PM, John Latham 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>>> > > Hello Alan and colleagues,
>>>> > > I agree with you, Alan, that mounting a comprehensive field s

Re: [geo] Re: Can solar radiation management be tested?

[Mike MacCracken]

Yesterday I got to visit the NOAA lab in Boulder and, among other things,
get to see the simulations being done by their 15 km resolution icosahedral
grid simulation model with a finite volume numerical scheme. Other physics
is from the plug-in packages that are available and used in other GCMs. They
are running 10 day forecasts twice a day, and the results certainly look
quite good--better resolution really does help make things appear, at least
with respect to viewing of satellite movies of how the real world is
looking. And they are now getting to explore addition of the smaller scale
aspects not now represented in GCMs (at some point, the heat emissions from
energy use will become important for urban regions; reasonable up slope and
down slope flows; etc.)

With respect to the proposed experiments, it is true that the weather is
chaotic (that is, changing the least significant bits in the initialization
of the model does over a couple of weeks lead to randomly correlated
weather), and that is what Alan is talking about for the weather time scales
(for climate scales, that requires longer simulations and experiments). But,
at the high resolutions that will soon be available (they are aiming in 1-2
years for 4 km non-hydrostatic model, depending on timing of next generation
of graphical processors), my guess is that it is going to be possible to
explore the types of changes in weather that might result as a consequence
of the early cloud brightening field experiments. It will likely require an
ensemble set of simulations (things already being explored in simulations
with and without aerosols, etc.).

As these models get more and more refined and seem to simulate more and more
phenomena that have previously been considered part of the variability [we
should really be saying unexplained instead of natural (even chaotic)
variability until we really get to better models], there will be more and
more capabilities to determine the significance of the changes in models,
and by thoughtful planning of the experiments, in the observations.

Mike


On 9/29/10 5:16 AM, "Stephen Salter"  wrote:

>   Hi All
> 
> Alan says that climate signals will be drowned out by chaotic climate
> variations.  Both the papers that I pointed to in my email of 24
> September were about picking up small signals from large, random
> variations.   The second paper suggests that a 20 year run of the
> pseudo-random stimulus idea might be able to detect changes which are
> one or two percent of the root mean square of the  natural variation. I
> am still hoping for suggestions.
> 
> If I knew a bit more about chaos I would like to argue whether or not
> the climate is chaotic or we are just ignorant about climate.  The best
> scientists and philosophers used to think that planetary motions, the
> behaviour of chemical elements and the incidence of infectious illnesses
> were chaotic.  Believing that something is chaotic is an excellent way
> of never discovering useful things about it.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> Institute for Energy Systems
> School of Engineering
> Mayfield Road
> University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
> Scotland
> Tel +44 131 650 5704
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
> 
> 
> On 28/09/2010 20:44, Douglas MacMynowski wrote:
>> Alan - I doubt there's any real disagreement here, but just a
>> clarification; climate variability/noise is irrelevant to the question
>> of whether some form of SRM can be tested, but of course critical to
>> the question of how long it would take to detect a signal.  If the
>> goal is to estimate changes on a global scale, that will take decades
>> and significant forcing levels (we have a paper under review on this
>> subject that puts numbers on that trade-off).  Other than the moral
>> hazard, I see no basic difference between testing this, and any other
>> experiment in any other field of engineering or science.  Clearly with
>> one Earth, I agree with learning everything we can with computer
>> testing first, but if we ever did want to do this in full-scale, I'd
>> rather start small and learn something rather than just turning it on
>> and hoping for the best.
>> 
>> doug
>> 
>> On Sep 27, 11:44 am, Alan Robock  wrote:
>>>Dear Ken,
>>> 
>>> I think you are being rather picky with words.  In any case, I never
>>> said it cannot be tested.  I said it cannot be fully tested in a
>>> real-world in situ experiment without full-scale implementation, because
>>> the climate signal will be drowned out by chaotic climate variations and
>>> because injecting into a pristine stratosphere cannot test injecting
>>> into an existing cloud.  Of course computers can be used for testing.
>>> That is what I do, and I advocate much more of it.  The statement below
>>> refers to in situ experimentation.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor)
>>> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program

Re: [geo] Re: Can solar radiation management be tested?

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Jim--With respect to the set of available global tests, it seems to me
your perspective is a bit narrow. Aside from the fact that the GHG emissions
are a test (though of a different sort in some ways), we have quite a good
test with halocarbon emissions and then their control (this is mainly a
chemistry test, but is a global test). Discovery of the ozone hole showed
that understanding was limited (failure to treat heterogeneous chemistry),
so that process was researched and included, and our understanding keeps
improving so that we seem now to be doing fairly well (still some ways to go
on carbon tetrachloride, as I understand it).

And on this issue of a test needing to be fully global, it seems to me there
is some confusion. IPCC counts some regional forcings as global (think
sulfates)--and indeed there must be some adjustment between hemispheres as
the Earth¹s energy balance adjusts. There has also been an interesting
Œexperiment¹ as emissions in the North Atlantic basin have gone up and then
down, and now emissions are rising in the southeastern and southern Asia
region (China, India, etc.). I am not sure we have yet had much learning
from that, but a lot of potential. And we can also get at the question of
whether and by how much regional forcings affect the global environment, so
we can determine if regional and/or seasonally varying interventions make
any sense to consider. As for the SO2 emission changes being a test, the
same argument might be made with respect to biomass emissions, changes in
albedo due to land cover change, and more‹it seems to me we have quite a few
types of changes to look at, admittedly many not done originally as a test
of geoengineering.

I also think that what is not being adequately considered in this discussion
and in the formulation of your arguments and position is that the
geoengineering activities being proposed now are to try to keep the climate
near to what it is, versus the proposals a half century ago that were to
change the environment to a new state that some elite thought would be
better (that is where the true hubris issue deservedly arose). Right now, it
is our ongoing GHG emissions that are changing the world to a state that
will be different (likely  in surprising ways, where thresholds and
nonlinearities are much more likely, etc.) than for interventions trying to
keep the climate state as it is, etc. Not one of us is arguing that we would
pursue these interventions absent the threat (or actual dramatic changes)
resulting from global warming. It just seems to me that the climate going
more and more away from the baseline climate we have been accustomed to is
likely to involve a lot more adverse and surprising consequences than
undertaking some of the interventions in ways that keep the climate near
where it is. Not that there can¹t be problems, but hopefully research can
help us to minimize these. In my view, we should be much more worried about
our ongoing changes in the climate due to GHGs and the limits to adaptation
that exist, than about the sorts of geoengineering interventions being
considered‹research can help indicate if this is a reasonable presumption or
is seriously flawed, but I just don¹t understand the position of starting
out in the reverse ordering.

Best, Mike


On 9/29/10 8:42 PM, "Jim Fleming"  wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> Is global climate engineering untested?  -- Yes, with the exception of the
> historical example I provided, which was US and Soviet nuclear devices
> detonated in the magnetosphere between 1958 and 1962 as a form of
> sabre-rattling during the Cold War.  These tests led to the Limited Test Ban
> Treaty.
> 
> Is global climate engineering untestable?  -- Yes, since a global ³test² would
> be an implementation.  The key word is global.  OIF patch experiments are not
> global, nor are they justification for SRM tests that ³pump it up and spew it
> out.²
> 
> Do I support research in climate engineering?  Yes, but keep it indoors and
> please, please include the humanists and social scientists and take their work
> seriously.  Remember, climate engineering is not to be left to the
> technocrats.  We need research by ethicists, sociologists, psychologists,
> historians, etc.,
> 
> Do I support Ken's  3-phase program that escalates from computer modeling and
> lab tests to ³development of a deployable system?²  No, this outlines a
> slippery slope greased with conditional statements.  Caldeira and Keith use 31
> ³coulds² and 9 ³mights² in the short Issues in S&T article.  Yet, we do not
> disagree on Phase I, except I would argue for more funds going to atmospheric
> science in general, not earmaked for geoengineers.
> 
> Now, I have to leave for a meeting about military efforts to control the Van
> Allen Belts during the Cold War.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On 9/29/10 7:01 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:
> 
>> Robock et al (Science, 2010):  "We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested
>> without full-scale implementation."
>> Fleming 

Re: [geo] Geoengineering in "Plan B"

[Mike MacCracken]

I think we need to stop having climate engineering thought of as a Plan B‹it
is not an alternative to emissions control nor to adaptation nor to both of
them together. Without emissions control, neither CDR not SRM is likely to
be able to keep up with emissions and warming influences, and while
emissions control and climate engineering might reduce the needed degree of
adaptation, the need for adaptation will not go away and there might well be
different types of adaptation needed.

While some don¹t like my burning house analogy, calling the firemen is not
an alternative to turning off the torches that set off the fire (and should
not slow that effort)--especially as it¹s not yet clear how effective the
firemen¹s techniques might be. Turning off the torches and calling the
firemen are needed, as well as dealing with the situation.

Mike


On 10/1/10 4:06 AM, "John Nissen"  wrote:

> 
> http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53021
> 
> Geoengineering May Represent Earth's Best "Plan B"
> By Matthew O. Berger
>  
> WASHINGTON, Sep 30, 2010 (IPS) - Beyond Copenhagen and Cancún, a different
> climate debate has been brewing. The outcome of this debate, however, will
> affect far more than the climate, and that is precisely why it is so
> contentious.
> 
> As many countries continue to refuse to cap their greenhouse gas emissions and
> climate change-induced emergencies become increasing likely ­ or frequent ­
> some researchers are saying it is time to seriously look in to developing a
> plan B for stopping climate change. This plan B would consist of
> "geoengineering" whereby carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, the
> amount of solar radiation heating the planet is reduced, or both.
> 
> There are several proposals that fit into these broad categories, and they
> vary greatly both in terms of their acceptance and in the likely feasibility
> that they can be done on a large enough scale. For now, though, the plans are
> still largely thin on specifics and relegated to the outskirts of climate
> discussions. 
> 
> That is especially true for the category of geoengineering called solar
> radiation management, or SRM. This category includes, in decreasing order of
> likely feasibility at a large scale, according to researcher David Keith,
> spraying aerosols high in the atmosphere, whitening marine clouds, placing
> satellites with mirrors in space, and whitening the surface of the oceans.
> 
> The other category of geoengineering fixes, carbon dioxide removal (CRM),
> includes such accepted measures as planting forests to serve as carbon sinks
> or burning biomass in place of fossil fuels like coal. More novel CRM
> approaches would include growing large amounts of algae from which a biofuel
> can then be derived and, most controversially, sprinkling minerals like iron
> or limestone over parts of the ocean.
> 
> Researchers like Keith, an environmental scientist at the University of
> Calgary and leading geoengineering thinker, are quick to note that these
> technical solutions to climate change should not be thought of as substitutes
> for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> They also note that most of these technologies are not close to ready for
> deployment and that more than anything further research is needed to determine
> both what adverse consequences such technical solutions might have and whether
> these solutions even work ­ that is, whether they can really be thought of as
> a plan B. 
> 
> For now, many fears remain over the possible ecological implications of
> engineering the planet's climate. And these scientific issues, as well as
> political and legal issues, will need to be sorted out if research in the
> field is going to advance much further.
> 
> Brad Allenby, a professor of engineering and ethics at Arizona State
> University, is concerned that a single-minded focus on solving climate change
> might overlook possible spill-over effects of those solutions on other
> phenomena, such as weather patterns or the nitrogen cycle.
> 
> "These are important technologies but we need to understand a lot more,
> particularly about scaleŠWhen do I put enough material into the stratosphere
> that I change monsoon patterns?" Allenby said at a conference here Monday.
> 
> He says we need to stop thinking of geoengineering measures as solely
> "climate-change technologies".
> 
> "Climate change is part of the sweep of issues that need to be dealt with.
> These issues are not going to decouple just because we don't think we're smart
> enough to understand the coupling," he said.
> 
> Beyond these conceptual and ecological problems, this potential technology
> also poses thorny questions for international law and governance.
> 
> Jason Blackstock, an international governance fellow at the Vienna-based
> International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, thinks that the
> deployment of geoengineering technologies might ultimately come down to
> political narratives and unilateral action. A dev

[geo] Release of Conference Report for Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies

[Mike MacCracken]

Release of the Asilomar Report

The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into
Climate Engineering Techniques

March 22 to 26, 2010
Asilomar Conference Center
Pacific Grove, California
 
The Scientific Organizing Committee for the Asilomar Conference on Climate
Engineering Technologies that was held last March is pleased to provide the
Conference Report. More than 165 experts from 15 countries participated,
bringing a wide diversity of perspectives and backgrounds, including natural
science, engineering, social science, humanities, law, and other fields.
Participants reaffirmed that the risks posed by ongoing climate change
require a strong commitment to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions,
adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and development of low-carbon
energy sources, independent of whether climate intervention methods
ultimately prove to be safe and feasible.
 
Presentations summarized the two major categories of climate engineering:
(a) remediation technologies, such as afforestation, carbon removal, and
ocean fertilization, that attempt to reduce the causes of climate change,
and so represent an extension of mitigation, and (b) intervention
technologies, such as solar radiation management, that attempt to moderate
the results of having altered atmospheric composition, and so represent an
extension of adaptation to climate change. Discussions explored a wide range
of issues related to ensuring that research into proposed climate
intervention methods will be responsibly and transparently conducted and
that potential consequences are thoroughly investigated.
 
Adoption of five principles was recommended (they are more completely stated
in the report): 
(1) climate engineering research should be aimed at promoting the collective
benefit of humankind and the environment;
(2) governments must clarify responsibilities for, and, when necessary,
create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of large-scale
climate engineering research activities;
(3) climate-engineering research should be conducted openly and
cooperatively, preferably within a framework that has broad international
support; 
(4) iterative, independent technical assessments of research progress will
be required to inform the public and policymakers; and
(5) public participation and consultation in research planning and
oversight, assessments, and development of decision-making mechanisms and
processes must be provided.
The conferees also favored expanding and continuing the discussion with an
even broader set of participants.
 
The Climate Institute, which assembled the Scientific Organizing Committee
(SOC), is pleased to make the Conference Report available in pdf form. The
report is downloadable by going either to http://climate.org or to
http://climateresponsefund.org. Many of the presentations at the Conference
can be accessed at the Web site of the Climate Response Fund, which
sponsored the Conference (see http://www.climateresponsefund.org/). For
further information or questions about the report, please contact Michael
MacCracken, chair of the SOC and Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
at the Climate Institute (mmaccrac...@climate.org).



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Invitation for Submissions to Geoengineering Symposium at IUGG-Melbourne

[Mike MacCracken]

Please consider submitting papers to the following symposium:

XXV IUGG General Assembly
Earth on the Edge: Science for a Sustainable Planet

28 June - 7 July 2011

Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre
Melbourne, Australia
 
Symposium: J-M01: Geoengineering: Can it limit climate change and its
impacts?
Abstracts due: January 17, 2011
Abstract submission: http://www.iugg2011.com/program-abstracts.asp
 
Organising Associations: International Association of Meteorology and
Atmospheric Sciences/International Commission on Climate (IAMAS/ICCL), and
International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth¹s
Interior (IAVCEI)
Lead Convenors: Michael MacCracken (United States of America), Alan Robock
(United States of America)
 
Scope: With the pace of climate change increasing and the array and
magnitude of climate impacts intensifying, increasing attention is being
paid to the potential for limiting the effects of anthropogenic climate
change through large-scale technical means, often called geoengineering.
Possible approaches include deliberately altering the Earth's radiation
balance, and intervening in the carbon cycle or other biogeochemical cycles,
for example via carbon scrubbing and sequestration. Although specific
approaches have been proposed, relatively little is known about their
potential effectiveness for moderating climate change 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 climate modification, including enhancement of terrestrial
and oceanic carbon sinks. Possible examples include modeling studies of the
climatic impacts of proposed schemes for altering the absorption of solar
radiation; studies of unintended environmental consequences; and evaluations
of technological feasibility issues. Papers on historical, ethical, and
governance issues are also welcome.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts

[Mike MacCracken]

While evaluating the status of the technical issues is likely best tackled
separately, it seems to me there are a number of policy and governance
issues that are common‹most important perhaps the public perception that
ties all such ideas together. The Asilomar Conference
presentations/discussion raised a number of others, as have other meetings
on governance and other matters.

I also think that IPCC is likely to need to have an even broader scope on
what is covered. For example, see
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343470/Have-scientists-disco
vered-create-downpours-desert.html  describes what many people perceive as
affecting the climate, or at least the impacts that climate change is or
might cause. Granted, it is only over a quite limited domain, but such
approaches (not that I agree they work) could be done in many locations.
Thus, SRM might be too narrowly conceived‹it might need to be expanded to
include additional ways to alter the energy balance (vertically mixing the
ocean to potentially moderate tropical being another example‹and there are
other such ideas).

Mike MacCracken




On 1/3/11 12:31 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Yes, I agree. I think it makes little sense to combine an SRM meeting with a
> CDR meeting and have made this point of view known to the IPCC Technical
> Support Units.
> 
> It is too late to change this. I am now arguing that, at a minimum, there be
> at least two separate streams that run in parallel through the meeting so it
> is more like 2 (or 3) meetings held simultaneously.
> 
> I would suggest that distributed CDR methods, especially those that involve
> biological processes, have few issues in common with centralized CDR methods
> that deploy chemical engineering approaches, and that therefore this meeting
> should have three streams running largely in parallel, coming together largely
> to report progress and discuss the few cross-cutting issues that do exist
> across these very different approaches.
> 
> 1. SRM
> 2. CDR - distributed (or biological approaches)
> 3. CDR - centralized (or chemical approaches)
> 
> The odd ducks out in these things are typically
> 
> (a) spreading alkaline materials around on land (distributed, but chemical)
> and 
> 
> (b) ocean fertilization (distributed, biological) and spreading alkaline
> materials in the ocean (distributed, chemical) because these impinge on a
> global commons and therefore have some issues in common with SRM.
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM,   wrote:
>> David and list:
>> 
>>    I have read the short description of the Peru meeting at
>>  http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/EMs/index.html#6
>> and the proposal at
>>     
>> http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/meetings/expert-meetings-and-workshops/files/doc05-p32
>> -proposal-EM-on-geoengineering.pdf
>> 
>>   I mostly can endorse the need for and value of this meeting.  However,  I
>> do not see an indication that SRM and CDR will be analyzed differently
>> (better two meetings?), or is this still to be determined? 
>> 
>>   As a proponent of Biochar, I am concerned that none of the (proposed, still
>> 40?) experts at the Peru meeting will have been active in Biochar analysis -
>> which may be the newest CDR approach, but possibly the most active, and seems
>> to be the only one with out-year and non-climate benefits. 
>> 
>>     How can one find who the invited biochar experts will be,  if any?   Have
>> the 25 (?) monitors from developing countries been selected yet?.
>> 
>>    Thanks in advance for any more information now available.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "David Keith" 
>> To: kcalde...@gmail.com, em...@lewis-brown.net
>> Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2011 6:33:11 AM
>> Subject: RE: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the
>> Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts
>> 
>> I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on
>> geoengineering in Peru this summer.
>>  
>> The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some length
>> at that meeting.
>>  
>> My views are pretty well aligned with Ken's here. There are lots of summary
>> reports written in more in the works, what is lacking is sufficient serious
>> analysis of t

[geo] FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization

[Mike MacCracken]

From: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization
ANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate):
Dear friends,
A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization, commissioned
by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and prepared
with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), is
now available through online and in print. The Summary considers the
practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with large-scale ocean
fertilization. 
The Summary for Policymakers is available for download at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190674e.pdf
To request a print copy please contact Kathy Tedesco at IOC-UNESCO
(k.tede...@unesco.org) or Emily Breviere at SOLAS (ebrevi...@ifm-geomar.de).
 
Best regards,   Henrik EnevoldsenIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
of UNESCO



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

<>

Re: [geo] Geoengineering and U.S. Environmental Laws

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Tracy--

I look forward to reading the article. My first thought is that it would
certainly be nice if all US environmental laws also applied to the decision
not to take dramatic action to limit greenhouse-induced climate change
through mitigation. Massachusetts vs. EPA is a start (as are a couple of
other lawsuit victories) as it has prompted the EPA Endangerment Finding
(see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html), and the lawsuit
against the Am-Ex Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation did
lead to a requirement for NEPA, but it is interesting that it might require
much more legal consideration for taking action to keep the climate near to
what it is than to decide not to take and let the climate keep changing
without control. Indeed, starting to try to make sense of all this sounds
appropriate.

Mike MacCracken

On 2/7/11 4:48 PM, "Tracy"  wrote:

> I've lurked in this group for quite a while, but I'm now stepping into
> the light to provide a working paper for your consideration.
> 
> While this group has usually focused on technical and policy issues,
> you might have an interest in some of the potential legal battles that
> could affect climate engineering projects.  This working paper
> discusses how existing U.S. environmental laws can be used to
> challenge geoengineering research or field tests.  U.S. environmental
> laws have often served as the first line of legal resistance to new
> technologies (GMOs, nanomaterials), so it struck me as a likely
> scenario for geoengineering as well.
> 
> You can access the working paper at tinyurl.com/6e7ejtf .  I'd welcome
> any comments or suggestions.  Thanks!
> 
> 
> **
> Tracy Hester
> Director, Environment, Energy & Natural Resource Center
> Assistant Professor
> University of Houston Law Center
> 100 Law Center
> Houston, Texas   77204
> 713-743-1152 (office)
> tdhes...@central.uh.edu
> web bio:  www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] MERGING 'climateIntervention' AND 'geoengineering' GOOGLE GROUPS BACK INTO

[Mike MacCracken]

Just to note, that even if there were no fossil-fuel CO2 emissions from the
5.5 or so billion people in the developing world, continued emissions at the
level of emissions of the 1+B or so in the developed world, climate change
would be a pending risk‹to keep the CO2 concentration from changing,
emissions need to drop by 80+% or so. Thus, it is really our choices that
are critical‹a small number of people could also cause a significant impacts
(CFC use being another example). So, let¹s not try blaming others‹developed
nations made an unfortunate choice (and that this was the case was
recognized quite a few decades ago‹so, even if necessary at the start, the
level of emissions could have been a good bit lower) and developing nations
are just following our unfortunate example‹and now we all need to change
where our energy comes from. Developed nations need to demonstrate that a
modern economy can prosper with low fossil fuel emissions‹until committed to
that, preaching to others is rather hypocritical.

Mike MacCracken


On 3/14/11 3:02 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> The world may well be a better place with an order-or-magnitude fewer people,
> and this would markedly diminish environmental problems.
> 
> However, in the next decades the increase in emissions tied to population
> growth is likely to be substantially less than 50% (i.e., a factor of 1.5),
> whereas per-capita development at 3% per year sustained for a century is
> approximately a factor of 20.
> 
> So, population growth without development might increase emissions by a factor
> of 1.5. Development without population growth might increase emissions by a
> factor of 20. Together, they would increase emissions by a factor of 30. If we
> want to knock that 30 down to a factor of 0.5 or 0.1 or 0.01, we will need to
> depend heavily on technological innovation. Population measures just don't
> give us all that much leverage.
> 
> So, it is important to recognize the role of population, but we should not
> neglect the other processes driving increased resource use and pollution
> creation.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ken
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM,   wrote:
>> Many thanks for all Ken, Mike, Andrew, John Latham, John Gorman and other
>> colleagues are doing to protect biodiversity from massive extinction and
>> preserve Earth's ecology from irreversible degradation. 
>>  
>> I hope it is all right for me to post now here a presentation on the issue of
>> population, that appears to have everything to do with climate change.
>>  
>> As humanity's most luminous beacon of truth, science provides us with a last
>> best hope for the survival of life as we know it on  Earth. We must make
>> certain that scientific evidence is never downplayed, distorted and denied by
>> religious dogma, politics or ideological idiocy.
>>  
>> Let us not fail for another year to acknowledge extant research of human
>> population dynamics.  The willful refusal of many too many experts to assume
>> their responsibilities to science and perform their duties to humanity could
>> be one of the most colossal mistakes in human history.  Such woefully
>> inadequate behavior, as is evident in an incredible conspiracy of silence
>> among experts, will soon enough be replaced with truthful expressions by
>> those in possession of clear vision, adequate foresight, intellectual honesty
>> and moral courage.  
>>  
>> Hopefully leading thinkers and researchers will not continue supressing
>> scientific evidence of human population dynamics and instead heed the words
>> of Nobel Laureate Sir John Sulston regarding the emerging and converging,
>> human-driven global challenges that loom ominously before humankind in our
>> time, ³we¹ve got to make sure that population is recognized as a
>> multiplier of many others. We¹ve got to make sure that population really does
>> peak out when we hope it will.²
>>  
>> Sir John goes on, ³what we want to do is to see the issue of population in
>> the open, dispassionately discussed and then we¹ll see where it goes.²
>>  
>> In what is admittedly a feeble effort to help John Sulston fulfill his charge
>> to examine all available scientific evidence regarding human population
>> dynamics, please give careful consideration to the following presentation and
>> then take time to rigorously scrutinize the not yet overth

Re: [geo] Re: paper on altitude dependence of climate forcing and response from black carbon aerosols

[Mike MacCracken]

One of the potential dissertation topics suggested to me in late 1965 or
early 1966 by Dr. Edward Teller, who had been a leader in forming the
Department of Applied Science of the University of California Davis where I
was a graduate student, was to explore the potential for dispersing Los
Angeles smog by depositing stripes of black carbon from airplanes at just
the right interval to excite waves in the boundary of the mixed layer and
the inversion layer. I chose not to pursue this, but in doing a bit of
research on the idea, I read a fascinating paper by UCLA meteorology
professor Morris Neiburger in Science in 1957 (see Neiburger, M, 1957,
³Weather Modification and Smog,² Science, Vol. 126, No. 3275 4 October 1957,
pages 637-645‹file was too large to attach ) that was written to discount a
number of other hypotheses for getting rid of LA smog. The LA leaders had
several years earlier decided not to provide several million dollars to Dr.
Irving Krick who claimed he had a secret approach for doing this that he
would not, and I think never did, reveal. (Krick was a professor at CalTech,
as I recall, known best for asserting that he could make long range weather
forecasts based on sunspot and related solar cycles, a technique
demonstrated, as I understand it, by his weather prediction on D-Day.) In
any case, there were quite a number of ideas for regional scale
modifications of the environment back in those days. In the end, success has
come from reducing emissions.

[Incidentally, for my dissertation project, I chose another of Teller¹s
suggestions, namely to convert the first global, moist, atmospheric GCM
(constructed by Dr. Chuck Leith) into a latitude-vertical (so 2-D) global
climate model to evaluate proposed hypotheses for explaining glacial
cycling. At the time, Hayes and colleagues had not published their paper
finding Milankovitch-driven variations in ocean sediments, so quite a number
of other hypotheses were being discussed, including Ewing and Donn¹s Arctic
cycling hypothesis (published in Science in the 1950s), which was the main
one I tested, and discounted.]

Mike MacCracken

**

On 4/14/11 12:17 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Thanks to Oliver Morton for pointing out the attached paper from 1976, which
> may be of historical interest to readers of this group.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Ken Caldeira
>  wrote:
>> Dependence of climate forcing and response on the altitude of black carbon
>> aerosols  
>> 
>> George A. Ban-Weiss1 , Long Cao1, G. Bala2 and Ken Caldeira1
>> Abstract  
>> 
>> Black carbon aerosols absorb solar radiation and decrease planetary albedo,
>> and thus can contribute to climate warming. In this paper, the dependence of
>> equilibrium climate response on the altitude of black carbon is explored
>> using an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed layer ocean
>> model. The simulations model aerosol direct and semi-direct effects, but not
>> indirect effects. Aerosol concentrations are prescribed and not interactive.
>> It is shown that climate response of black carbon is highly dependent on the
>> altitude of the aerosol. As the altitude of black carbon increases, surface
>> temperatures decrease; black carbon near the surface causes surface warming,
>> whereas black carbon near the tropopause and in the stratosphere causes
>> surface cooling. This cooling occurs despite increasing planetary absorption
>> of sunlight (i.e. decreasing planetary albedo). We find that the trend in
>> surface air temperature response versus the altitude of black carbon is
>> consistent with our calculations of radiative forcing after the troposphere,
>> stratosphere, and land surface have undergone rapid adjustment, calculated as
>> ³regressed² radiative forcing. The variation in climate response from black
>> carbon at different altitudes occurs largely from different fast climate
>> responses; temperature dependent feedbacks are not statistically
>> distinguishable. Impacts of black carbon at various altitudes on the
>> hydrological cycle are also discussed; black carbon in the lowest atmospheric
>> layer increases precipitation despite reductions in solar radiation reaching
>> the surface, whereas black carbon at higher altitudes decreases
>> precipitation. 
>> 
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/98480557727889h8/
>> 
>> Ban-Weiss, G., et al, Climate Dynamics, 20011
>> 
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>> 
>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212 
>> kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
> 

-- 
You received this mes

Re: [geo] Re: paper on altitude dependence of climate forcing and response from black carbon aerosols

[Mike MacCracken]

David--

Not graduating high school in NJ until 1960, I can only speak from a
perspective that is a bit later in time (i.e., when I was working on air
pollution modeling and air quality improvement in the SF Bay Area). First,
recall that an adage back in the 1940s and 1950s (and for some
pollutants/polluters it likely persists to the present) seems to have been
ŒThe solution to pollution is dilution¹ and so, for power plants, there was
an effort to build tall stacks and just get more widely spread the pollution
rather than reduce the emissions. Power plants not the main problem in
LA‹mainly it was the industry and population growth during WWII that was
seen as the cause. My understanding is that conditions were so bad in the LA
Basin (in part at the time due to still allowing open burning, etc.), with
sources very dispersed, that there was a need for rapid and significant
improvement which would be more rapid than could be accomplished by limiting
emissions. So, while they did stop open burning, they were left with a very
serious ongoing problem (getting rid of the smoke also possibly let more
light through to increase ozone formation). At that point, a lot of rather
fanciful ideas got suggested, and it is those ideas that Neiburger discusses
and dismisses.

By the time of the Bay Area modeling work I was doing in the early/mid
1970s, when the new EPA threatened sanctions for not improving air quality,
those in the Bay Area, with guidance from our models, started a major effort
to limit hydrocarbon emissions and thus change the chemical mix along a path
that would considerably more rapidly reduce ozone levels than cutting both
HC and NOx emissions proportionately (as EPA was encouraging). It started
working and so the process of cutting HC emissions continued, and so the Bay
Area largely or completely avoided sanctions. In Los Angeles, the air there
was so far above standards that meeting the deadline would have required
draconian cuts in emissions (so not being able to drive several days a week,
etc.), and so they basically (and I paraphrase liberally and politely) that
EPA had better send in the military to enforce what would be required for
those in charge there were not going to approve the level of cutbacks that
EPA and science suggested. After a bit of a standoff, the outcome was that
Congress allowed more time (a couple of times?).

So, it was not a view that emissions controls would never work, but that
they would not work nearly fast enough, given what was possible
technologically and politically. Hence, creative sorts tried to come up with
other solutions, hoping to reduce health consequences in LA (so good intent,
but unworkable schemes). In the end, it was suffer the health and welfare
consequences until technology could come through decades later.

Mike 


On 4/14/11 1:18 PM, "David Hawkins"  wrote:

> Fascinating, Mike.
> Do you recall whether the advocates for these approaches in the late 50s
> rationalized them as needed because of a view that society would never pursue
> serious mitigation?
> 
> David
>  
> From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 01:00 PM
> To: Geoengineering 
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: paper on altitude dependence of climate forcing and
> response from black carbon aerosols
>  
> One of the potential dissertation topics suggested to me in late 1965 or early
> 1966 by Dr. Edward Teller, who had been a leader in forming the Department of
> Applied Science of the University of California Davis where I was a graduate
> student, was to explore the potential for dispersing Los Angeles smog by
> depositing stripes of black carbon from airplanes at just the right interval
> to excite waves in the boundary of the mixed layer and the inversion layer. I
> chose not to pursue this, but in doing a bit of research on the idea, I read a
> fascinating paper by UCLA meteorology professor Morris Neiburger in Science in
> 1957 (see Neiburger, M, 1957,  ³Weather Modification and Smog,² Science, Vol.
> 126, No. 3275 4 October 1957, pages 637-645‹file was too large to attach )
> that was written to discount a number of other hypotheses for getting rid of
> LA smog. The LA leaders had several years earlier decided not to provide
> several million dollars to Dr. Irving Krick who claimed he had a secret
> approach for doing this that he would not, and I think never did, reveal.
> (Krick was a professor at CalTech, as I recall, known best for asserting that
> he could make long range weather forecasts based on sunspot and related solar
> cycles, a technique demonstrated, as I understand it, by his weather
> prediction on D-Day.) In any case, there were quite a number of ideas for
> regional scale modifications of the environment back in those days. In the
> end, success has come from reducing emissions.
> 
> [Incidentally, for my disserta

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Andrew‹On your objection about the biology of bright water, I¹d like to
better understand your concern. How do you think the effect of the bubbles
on a clear day would compare to the effects of a thick cloud cover?
Countering a pretty significant increase in CO2 warming would require, if it
could be done, only a several percent increase in cloud cover [our roughly
50% cloud cover contributes to reflection of 25% of solar radiation; if what
we need to do is get a 1.8% reduction in the solar constant where we have a
30% albedo, which is the same as reducing absorbed radiation by about 4
W/m2, then what we need is the equivalent of an increase in cloud cover from
50% to a bit less than 53%, or something like that]. Are you suggesting that
an increase in cloud cover from 50 to 53% would have a devastating effect on
marine ecosystems?

Let me try the calculation another rough, idealized way: If the 50% of clear
sky is responsible for increasing the global albedo from 25% to 30%, then,
allowing for say 10% atmospheric absorption of solar radiation going each
way (forget compounding effect), and two-thirds of this takes place over the
1/3 of area that is land and ice (so average albedo of land is 4 times that
of ocean), then average ocean albedo is 6%. To then increase the global
average outgoing solar radiation, I calculate that the average ocean albedo
has to go from about 6% to a bit over 10%, which would reduce the available
radiation in the water from 94% to 90% of incoming solar radiation
(accounting only for the effect in clear sky region).

While I realize that BrightWater envisions making the albedo a good bit
higher, this would mean that I would need to do less elsewhere. Given there
are large areas of the ocean where there is little biological activity due
to low nutrient levels, perhaps I could concentrate the water brightening in
those areas. So, let¹s hypothesize that I aim to raise the ocean albedo from
6% to 15% over the half of the ocean area with the lowest biological
activity (and I think the low biological activity areas are larger than the
marine stratus areas so the pattern of flux change would be less sharp than
for the Salter-Latham approach that can get a global counter-balancing. With
bubble lives limited, unlikely it would be a problem of bubbles drifting
into biologically active areas.

Now, let¹s think about combining the BrightWater and the Salter-Latham
approaches, giving us more even coverage‹with the boats shooting up sea salt
sprays when below marine stratus and injecting bubbles when in clear skies,
so maybe half of the albedo effect proposed is needed by each approach. So,
maybe the amount of solar reaching the ocean goes down a couple of percent.
Are you really suggesting that this would devastate marine ecosystems‹and
indeed be worse than reflecting a similar amount of radiation using a global
stratospheric aerosol layer? It is true that the combined approaches would
be concentrating their influence over the oceans as opposed to the global
stratospheric layer that spreads the effect over the globe, but the sulfate
aerosols are such inefficient backscatterers that one ends up with a quite
high proportion of forward scattered radiation.

I am not saying there will not be effects‹we¹ll need a good bit of research
to get a sense of things‹but, assuming that I have things properly estimated
(and I do agree accounting for Sun angle might well require another
adjustment), I do not see how one can rule out the Brightwater approach (on
its own or coupled with Salter-Latham) thinking that the impact on marine
ecosystems would be large and could not be minimized by choosing carefully
where one used the approach.

Best, Mike MacCracken

***



So, given these


On 4/16/11 9:41 PM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> Russell,
> 
> My comments below relate to your 'brightwater' proposal.  Out of courtesy,
> I've removed the thread - so I'm not re-posting your comments without consent.
> 
> If bubble residency times are high, induced densities can be low. If residency
> times are low, you'll have to greatly increase local concentrations to cause a
> globally significant, persistent effect.  I quote: "Seitz admitted that
> scaling it to cover an entire ocean would be technically difficult, not
> because of the energy <http://www.physorg.com/news189059955.html>
>  requirement, which he said would be equivalent to about 1000 windmills, but
> because of the fact that the bubbles may not last long enough to effectively
> spread over large areas."  The risk is, therefore, that very much greater
> local effects may be induced than is desirable, in order to create the
> necessary global cover.  Not only might this affect primary productivity, but
> also more subtle biological events such as migration, navigation, feeding and
> breeding.  Bioluminescence is likely to be a notable casualty.  

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

[Mike MacCracken]

nuing
>> literature - both theoretical and experimental- albeit not for albedo
>> modification.   We will not be starting at ground zero to answer the good
>> questions being raised about "Bright Water".
>> 
>>     3.  Three other so far unstated aspects of starting R&D soon:      First,
>> almost everyone reading this could find a place to do something useful at
>> moderate cost on this technology.   A square meter is probably mot enough,
>> but no-one needs a hectare.
>>         Second, we don't need to cover the whole globe to have a sizeable
>> effect in the location most urgently needing attention - the Arctic.  A
>> "Bright Water" covering in the Arctic will have a profoundly different impact
>> than the same covered area near the equator.
>>      Lastly, if we concentrate on the Arctic (being the most likely place to
>> see a tipping point soon),  we only need to cover the open-water (which is
>> not much at this time of the year), and we need only be concerned for the
>> summer months.  As Dr. McCracken points out , this perhaps can be coupled
>> with summertime cloud formation in the Arctic - not worldwide (providing
>> further analysis deems that a worthy gamble in the Arctic).  If it works out,
>> the next logical location is probably the Antarctic.
>> 
>>    4. If we were in a proper "war-time" mood,  any developed country could
>> probably get an answer in a year about proceeding to a first full scale
>> effort.  Maybe at worse, two years.  But we are not in such a mood.  The only
>> hope I can see is that one of the few countries with a significant annual
>> budget surplus (China?.  Brazil?  Norway?) can jump in.  I have zero hope for
>> the USA doing anything in the next few years.  However, one enlightened
>> billionaire might hear about how small the dollar need is right now - for the
>> only SRM approach I see that can give us the needed (Arctic) breathing room. 
>>      I am not saying "Bright Water" is a sure bet.  Only that I agree with
>> Andrew:  ".. It's the most exciting new geoeng idea for a long time..". 
>>    
>> 
>> Thanks to Andrew and Mike  for keeping this important dialog alive.  If the
>> Arctic ice loss solution is not "Bright Water", what is?
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Mike MacCracken 
>>> Date: April 16, 2011 8:37:24 PM MDT
>>> To: Geoengineering 
>>> Cc: "Russell Seitz (2)" 
>>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie
>>> Reply-To:  <mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net> mmacc...@comcast.net
>>> 
>>> Hi Andrew‹On your objection about the biology of bright water, I¹d like to
>>> better understand your concern. How do you think the effect of the bubbles
>>> on a clear day would compare to the effects of a thick cloud cover?
>>> Countering a pretty significant increase in CO2 warming would require, if it
>>> could be done, only a several percent increase in cloud cover [our roughly
>>> 50% cloud cover contributes to reflection of 25% of solar radiation; if what
>>> we need to do is get a 1.8% reduction in the solar constant where we have a
>>> 30% albedo, which is the same as reducing absorbed radiation by about 4
>>> W/m2, then what we need is the equivalent of an increase in cloud cover from
>>> 50% to a bit less than 53%, or something like that]. Are you suggesting that
>>> an increase in cloud cover from 50 to 53% would have a devastating effect on
>>> marine ecosystems?
>>> 
>>> Let me try the calculation another rough, idealized way: If the 50% of clear
>>> sky is responsible for increasing the global albedo from 25% to 30%, then,
>>> allowing for say 10% atmospheric absorption of solar radiation going each
>>> way (forget compounding effect), and two-thirds of this takes place over the
>>> 1/3 of area that is land and ice (so average albedo of land is 4 times that
>>> of ocean), then average ocean albedo is 6%. To then increase the global
>>> average outgoing solar radiation, I calculate that the average ocean albedo
>>> has to go from about 6% to a bit over 10%, which would reduce the available
>>> radiation in the water from 94% to 90% of incoming solar radiation
>>> (accounting only for the effect in clear sky region).
>>> 
>>> While I realize that BrightWater envisions making the albedo a good bit
>>> higher, this would mean that I would need to do less elsewhere. Given there
>>> are larg

Re: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Mike MacCracken]

While a tether may be a useful way to do stratospheric aerosol injection, it
is not at all clear to me that that is the next step to be taking with a
limited amount of research funding. Instead, as I indicated in my earlier
message, I think there are a number of impacts than global average warming
to determine if we can limit in starting out using techniques in the
troposphere or surface. So, it seems to me the first thing to be done is to
figure out our objective and why rather than to focus on a tool that may not
be useful in dealing with the problem to be addressed. On deciding what the
objective should be, it seems to be a more broadly based group than JASON is
needed‹unless what they are going to do is put forth several options of what
the physics (and chemistry and biology) could be worked to accomplish, and
then the broader group decides among options.

Mike MacCracken


On 4/19/11 2:22 PM, "voglerl...@gmail.com"  wrote:

> The mission statement which started this thread, 'maximize the amount of
> climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10" is deceptively simple. It
> does not ask how to build a consensus. It does not ask how to build a
> foundation for the field of GE. It does not ask how to support multiple
> approaches to climate risk reduction. Nor does it ask how the effort should be
> organized and who should do the work. It simply seeks to "maximize" risk
> reduction with a $10m yearly budget.
> 
> My read on that mission statement (and the possible back story prompting it)
> is that this may be an effort to cut through the tangled Gordian Knot this
> issue has become. All of the responses offered in this thread have admiral
> merit and will need to be addressed.. eventually! The question at hand,
> however, is not that broad. It simply asks "How" and "Why".
> 
> To maximize such a small budget will require extreme focus and leveraging the
> investment in creative ways. The JASON Advisory Group is an example of such an
> effort (big bang for little bucks). If you are not familiar with it's history,
> I highly recommend a quick Google search. We may not have the luxury of time
> to sort out all that can be done or should be done. We may be lucky just to
> have the time to choose the most likely method of climate intervention and get
> a system prepared and tested for eventual deployment.
> 
> Leveraging the investment will be important. A seed capital investment of $10m
> can not float, for long, a start up internet company selling bubble gum. By
> choosing an SRM method which lends itself to other uses, that seed money can
> be amplified. Only one SRM method has that potential, Direct Injection. A High
> Tether can be deployed and made operational without actually using it for SRM.
> It can be made operational and financially self supporting through meeting the
> needs of potential "customers" (as I pointed out in my first post on this
> thread). Having the hardware operational is essential!!! The actual use of the
> hardware for SRM will be decided in due course by the progression of Global
> Warming.
> 
> If this innovative approach to maximizing the amount of climate risk reduction
> is to succeed, it will need to beyeshighly innovative. Innovation is
> never without risk, it is never without controversy, it is never without
> setbacks and it is never without winners and losers. We may have a chance to
> build an emergency life line, let's not drown while debating on how best to
> tie the anchoring knot.
> 
> The High Tether method my not be the best solution in the long run, no climate
> intervention method is as they all are emergency methods at best. The tether
> option, however, is our best starting point for this limited budget. If the
> High Tether Option can be focused upon, it may potentially generate both
> public confidence in Geoengineering, as well as, future funding for continued
> R&D. I would have no problem with the USG owning/operating the hardware as a
> pure research tool. I would also have no problem with the USG supporting a
> JASON like round table on further R&D. I would have a problem with the USG
> sitting on the sidelines when so much can be done for so little of an
> investment. It is time to take that deep breath, lean into the storm winds and
> take that first step.
> 
>
> 
> On Apr 19, 2011 9:21am, "Lane, Lee O."  wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice
>> seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I
>> am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related
>> civilian R&D 

Re: [geo] Re: for Geoe E group Bright Water the movie

[Mike MacCracken]

Another approach to the bubble generation effort, and one Russell has
suggested, is to take advantage of existing ships (of order 1000 to 10,000
commercial ships at sea on a given day) and to put bubble generators on
them‹perhaps doing so in a way that reduces their hull friction to make up
for power of bubble generation. Indeed, lifetime matters, but that depends a
good bit on bubble size, and extrapolating from big bubbles in a present
ship¹s wake must be done cautiously.

Using commercial ships is also an approach that could be used for CCN
generation as well, again depending on lifetime, etc. Indeed, there are
areas where no ships go very often, but commercial ships would seem a fine
starting approach.

Mike


On 4/27/11 10:14 AM, "Michael Hayes"  wrote:

> Thank you both for the insight.
> 
> Yes, I do now recall the dual boat tether concept and I have some working back
> ground in towing a long array of gear. From a pilot's point of view, I can see
> an advantage of the dual boat/tether over the towed array. In that, turning
> would be easier as well as being able to "lay out" a broader path than a towed
> array.   
> 
> The need for a sail boat to tack back and forth into the wind does
> seem challenging with a tether between the 2 boats. But, I can see how a
> spring line rigging could adjust for any lag between boats in that type
> of maneuver. The symmetrical hull concept is interesting in that I have never
> considered a sail boat being able to "immediately" reverse direction.
> 
> I personally would like to play with the idea of modifying the bright water
> injectors along the tether to act as a "bow truster" type of directional
> control for the tether. That may help in overall control of the
> configuration. 
> 
> The recommended bubble diameter is .002mm. I can only see ultrasound providing
> that type size for a high throughput operation. I believe a table top
> experiment can possibly be done using the parts from an off the self
> ultrasonic humidifier and deep well pump. Measuring such small bubbles is
> something I have not studied yet. 
> 
> I did read in the paper Dr. Caldeira offered of observations of long lived
> bubbles through possible contamination of a natural surfactant film. Yet, I
> don't think the nature of the surfactant was mentioned. I refer to the first
> page 2nd 
> section https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MDE0NTY3NTk0NzY2MT
> MxMzQ4MjEBMDA1OTY0NDQ3MDgzNzU0NTIwODkBQkFOTGtUaWtZQ0pLSmJ2UzFRdFAzbmFrTHZkUTl3
> ay1kd0FAbWFpbC5nbWFpbC5jb20BNAE&pli=1 
> 
> Well, again, thank you both for the feed back. I will spend more time thinking
> about this. 
>          
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>> Stephen,
>> 
>> This technology is already used for towing hydrophone streamers in geophys,
>> but it doesn't work quite like you suggest.  There's no need for two boats,
>> and instead there's a paid of towed hydrofoils behind one boat, with the
>> support line tensioned between them.  The low mass of the hydrofoils means
>> that there's no real shock on the cable in rough seas.  The bubble generators
>> would be strung out on streamers behind this towed line.
>> 
>> The bubbles would be distributed by a number of 'birds' which are depth-set
>> from the control room - just like the hydrophones are currently.
>> 
>> To get good saturation with bubbles, I suggest that they'd need to be
>> delivered at a variety of depths - but whether that's worth doing depends of
>> course on the lifetime.  No use dropping them ten metres down if they don't
>> last long enough to mix or rise.
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> 
>> On 27 April 2011 13:05, Stephen Salter  wrote:
>>>  Hi All
>>> 
>>> Michael Hayes asks about how bubbles could be deployed.
>>> 
>>> One possibility would be for a pair of wind-driven vessels to sail side by
>>> side at, say, a kilometre separation, attached to each other by a buoyant,
>>> streamlined tether.
>>> 
>>> The chord of the tether would be about 100 mm.  In plan it would form a
>>> catenary with a generous bulge to reduce the tensile load.   The nose of
>>> tether would contain a strong Kevlar or carbon  tension member.  Behind this
>>> would be a number of high-pressure air-lines taking very well filtered air
>>> from each vessel to a porous strip near the nose of the foil section and
>>> running the full length.  The drag of the tether would be reduced by the
>>>  bubble layer on the underside.
>>> 
>>> The tether would have to be elastic enough to follow the curvature of the
>>> wave slope.  In most sea states this is surprisingly low but elasticity can
>>> be increased by running the tensile member in a series of S shapes.
>>> 
>>> The vessels need power but could generate this in the same way as suggested
>>> for the cloud albedo project.  Indeed it would not be difficult to design a
>>> dual purpose vessel which would change mode according to cloud conditions.
>>>  It would be convenient if the vessels were symmetrical fore and a

Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Michael and Wil--It is, of course, not one or the other. If the Earth's
temperature is to be limited to less than some value (2 C per the Copenhagen
Accord, and given what is happening at 0.8 C there is good reason to think
the ceiling should be lower), no one strategy will do--we need all that are
available. In addition to adaptation, it would seem the steps need to be:

1. Sharply reducing CO2 and other long-lived emissions from fossil fuels and
deforestation is critical to limiting long-term warming (as the NRC
Stabilization report makes clear). To the extent we don't do this, it
extends and intensifies the requirement for everything else.

2. Sharply reducing CH4, ozone precursor, black carbon, HFC and other
short-lived emissions is critical to slow the rate of warming over the next
several decades, as made clear in the recent UNEP/WMO assessment (and in an
overshoot diagram in the NRC stabilization report).

3. Carbon Dioxide Removal through a range of processes is critical to
reducing damage from ocean acidification and to shorten duration of time
with high levels of CO2.

4. Even with all of these, is seems quite plausible that
tropospheric/surface Solar Radiation Management (quite possibly regionally
applied and focused on countering specific impacts) might well be
appropriate. For example, it might be useful to invoke to continue the
existing cooling offset of sulfate aerosols and to at least moderate polar
warming in order to help limit loss of ice sheets and mountain glaciers, to
sustain permafrost and limit methane release (other applications might be
seeing if one could slightly redirect storm tracks by adjusting sea surface
temperature gradients, or limiting tropical cyclone intensification by
cooling critical regions, etc.). The level of SRM here would, assuming the
first three approaches, not need to be near the equivalent of reversing a
CO2 doubling (as most calculations have been focused on), and so it would
seem, so still to be tested, likely to have not nearly the unintended
consequences of global stratospheric SRM. [And in this category as well
might be the buffering of ocean waters in critical sub-regions as discussed
in other emails.]

5. It seems to me that global stratospheric SRM, which has received the most
attention, and seems to be envisioned by most as being invoked on an
emergency response basis after all of the above (plus adaptation) have been
pursued and there is still some crossing or near crossing of a key threshold
(e.g., permafrost and clathrate methane seem very near massive release,
etc.) right ahead. At that point, even with there being some significant
losers (e.g., storm track or monsoon shifting), there would be substantial
global interest and basis for proceeding. In going forward, however,
suggesting that the only cost would be to get the sulfate up there really
omits the likely much larger cost of compensating the losers in some way.
Not thinking about this and accounting for it is a bit like the fossil fuel
industry at present, saying it is providing the least expensive energy while
at the same time it is not counting the externalities.

While all of these together might well provide a path through the 21st
century that would not be overly costly and not unduly impose on future
generations, it is a narrowing path with precarious footing, and if we don't
get started immediately on all steps (some emphasizing implementation, some
emphasizing research), having to run faster in the future seems sure to lead
to some serious slips and bumps in the road--at least.

Mike MacCracken

On 5/11/11 12:10 PM, "Dr. Wil Burns"  wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> Several responses here:
> 
> 1. A future generation might have no choice in terminating an SRM
> approach should it technologically fail; this is certainly not beyond
> the pale. For example, various climatic feedback processes might
> ultimately denude the effectiveness of cloud brightening or particle
> dispersants in the stratosphere;
> 2. A future generation might deem the use of such technologies
> unethical should they be visiting grave harms on certain vulnerable
> populations, such as the potential for substantially denuding
> precipitation in southeast Asia. A nation in that region might also
> threaten military retaliation, compelling suspension. The point is
> that the consequences then would be potentially very grave in terms of
> the termination effect;
> 3. I find your view that it's this generation saving itself vs. the
> needs of future generations excessively reductionist. There is a third
> alternative, which is substantive measures by this generation to
> reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. As the article points out, some
> measures, e.g. massively reducing black carbon, might be able to
> prevent us from crossing the critical thresholds that are often cited
> as a rationale for geoengineerin

Re: [geo] Re: New law review symposium issue on geoengineering

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Wil--With regard to how to get the train going, which I agree is
essential, as indicated in papers I have done in past couple of years (for
general sense of idea and reference to papers, see
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/maccracken-proposal-north-south
-framework.html), I think there is a potential deal to be made if we
understand the importance of reducing emissions of both short- and
long-lived species and think in terms of differentiated efforts, in the
first phase, of the high per capita emission and growing per capita emission
nations. For too long, use of the 100-year GWP has made the lifetimes of the
short-lived species seem like that of CO2 and thus hidden the near-term
limiting of warming that is possible by going after their emissions. The new
UNEP/WMO report (finally) gets at this and this new insight has the
potential to help make clear that the developing nations can play a very
important role by limiting emissions of short-lived species (something they
are already working to do because of the co-benefits) while the developed
nations do what they really need to do, which is show that a modern economy
can prosper on low GHG (and particularly CO2) emissions.

What we need are some leaders who will really lead, and some creative
approaches that will entice those fearing moving forward away from their
deny-the-science recalcitrance.

Mike


On 5/11/11 1:45 PM, "Wil Burns"  wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> As usual, a thoughtful response on this issue. I quite agree with you;
> there may be a need for some level of SRM intervention in the future.
> As I argue in the article, my concern is that any potential deployment
> should be legally tied to step-wise redutions in emissions to
> ameliorate any potential termination effects. I'm not entirely
> sanguine, however, that this can be accomplished given the current
> state of cooperation on climate matters, and thus I have some serious
> reservations about letting the train leave the station. At the very
> least, my effort to highlight intergenerational equity issues attempts
> to keep such considerations in the fore as we contemplate our climate
> policy options in the future; in short, it's an effort to exert a
> counterpoise to the position of Benedick et al. wil
> 
> On May 11, 10:38 am, Mike MacCracken  wrote:
>> Hi Michael and Wil--It is, of course, not one or the other. If the Earth's
>> temperature is to be limited to less than some value (2 C per the Copenhagen
>> Accord, and given what is happening at 0.8 C there is good reason to think
>> the ceiling should be lower), no one strategy will do--we need all that are
>> available. In addition to adaptation, it would seem the steps need to be:
>> 
>> 1. Sharply reducing CO2 and other long-lived emissions from fossil fuels and
>> deforestation is critical to limiting long-term warming (as the NRC
>> Stabilization report makes clear). To the extent we don't do this, it
>> extends and intensifies the requirement for everything else.
>> 
>> 2. Sharply reducing CH4, ozone precursor, black carbon, HFC and other
>> short-lived emissions is critical to slow the rate of warming over the next
>> several decades, as made clear in the recent UNEP/WMO assessment (and in an
>> overshoot diagram in the NRC stabilization report).
>> 
>> 3. Carbon Dioxide Removal through a range of processes is critical to
>> reducing damage from ocean acidification and to shorten duration of time
>> with high levels of CO2.
>> 
>> 4. Even with all of these, is seems quite plausible that
>> tropospheric/surface Solar Radiation Management (quite possibly regionally
>> applied and focused on countering specific impacts) might well be
>> appropriate. For example, it might be useful to invoke to continue the
>> existing cooling offset of sulfate aerosols and to at least moderate polar
>> warming in order to help limit loss of ice sheets and mountain glaciers, to
>> sustain permafrost and limit methane release (other applications might be
>> seeing if one could slightly redirect storm tracks by adjusting sea surface
>> temperature gradients, or limiting tropical cyclone intensification by
>> cooling critical regions, etc.). The level of SRM here would, assuming the
>> first three approaches, not need to be near the equivalent of reversing a
>> CO2 doubling (as most calculations have been focused on), and so it would
>> seem, so still to be tested, likely to have not nearly the unintended
>> consequences of global stratospheric SRM. [And in this category as well
>> might be the buffering of ocean waters in critical sub-regions as discussed
>> in other emails.]
>> 
>> 5. It seems to me that global stratospheric SRM, which

Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 9 Messages in 1 Topic

[Mike MacCracken]

The Summary for Policymakers of the UNEP/WMO report, which is all that I
think is so far released, is at
http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Black_Carbon.pdf  They basically
discuss something like 16 key emissions reduction targets to focus on first
or most aggressively (or maybe just to show the potential as there are quite
a number of other sources they could have mentioned.

Best, Mike


On 5/12/11 12:23 PM, "nathan currier"  wrote:

> Thanks, Mike, for the excellent responses, with which I agree 100%. Do you
> have handy a link to the new UNEP assessment you mention? I'd much like to see
> it.
> 
> One of the things that often perplexes me is why CCS from burning coal at a
> plant is generally 
> considered geoengineering, but trapping the methane that escaped in mining
> that very same coal 
> is generally not. For purposes of this site, where thinking is on a much
> higher level than in general climate discourse, I hope that we can consider
> both equally to be "geoengineering" (or neither, I suppose, depending on how
> one wants to define geoengineering).  
> 
> In any case, a major point of mine for a number of years now has been that the
> best, safest, cheapest, way to cool the planet quickly (at least to help put
> off tipping points into the future, if not enough to avoid them altogether, so
> that SRM, etc, would be ready) will likely be shown to be rapid methane
> emission declines (or CH4/BC).  In the past I've written here my own estimates
> of what is possible - rough amounts, their resulting radiative forcing effects
> and evolution in time-scale, and their costs - saying that the maximum amount
> that could be spent now is ~$250 Bn. 
> 
> But economics works on minimums, of course. The M2M (now GMI) program has thus
> far only been spending about $10Mn/yr for a half decade, or $50Mn. But they
> say that this spending has leveraged $387Mn in total project investments (or a
> 7.7x leveraging). Clearly $250 Bn wouldn't really need to be spent. Since one
> wants to insure maximum speed, one can guess that actual spending would need
> to be > $32.5Bn, but even assuming just a three-fold leveraging,  ~$80Bn total
> could probably achieve about the same as the $250Bn, a relatively pronounced
> near-term forcing decline for the arctic (i.e. effects beginning to be felt in
> a few years from onset of program). Were there even a mild carbon market price
> of $14/t CO2e, the methane trapped that I am talking about would have a
> ~$40Bn/yr value, and even without any such market, it provides a formidable
> income stream (which is why governments, international corporations and
> lending institutions, etc, have so greatly leveraged the rather meager US
> investments). 
> 
> So, even just $5-8Bn from each of a dozen wealthy nations might be enough to
> make a HUGE difference in our current emergency, if we can figure out how to
> make this into an appealing "methane game." In recent posts, people have been
> talking about how to trap methane down in the arctic taliks and so on. At
> present there's an estimated total of ~8 MMt/yr coming from there, and it
> would be a most messy business, but easily well above 10x that could be
> trapped quickly through currently planned projects, while also providing an
> appealing profit stream, all around the world, and probably having more
> climate effect/t, since it would effect the larger ocean/air currents entering
> the arctic from outside that are a large part of what's pushing it out of its
> current state. 
> This is the best "geoengineering" we've got at the moment, I believe. Call it
> "methane CCU" - carbon capture and use, that is - if it feels more like
> geoengineering that way. Again, a total -RF equal to some 1/3 of the net
> positive forcing is at stake with this approach.   
> 
> In terms of Michael Hayes' comment,
> 
>> The notion of un-known/hypothetical feedbacks denuding SRM efforts is 
>> interesting. In that, it is injecting a double-false conditional into the 
>> debate. This is more of a media tool than a scientific one.
> 
> I'd like to mention something that partly underscores why I continue to say
> that methane seems like the real key, more than BC, even though some BC
> sources are cheaper per unit of -RF. BC is quite complex and gives both
> positive and negative forcings, and has its positive forcing increased when in
> a general mix of negative forcing aerosols. That's precisely the kind of
> feedback that Hayes is dubbing hypothetical -  it isn't, but such
> aerosol/aerosol interactions are vastly problematic to ever get a precise
> handle on, so it makes things less certain in terms of resulting effects (both
> for BC reductions and for any SRM done at an altitude where it could interact,
> by the way, if Ramanathan's very large 1W/m2 BC forcing is right). I much
> agree with Drew Shindell at GISS, in his saying that methane reductions have a
> very low level of uncertainty. (That being said, taking down the 20% or so of
> B

Re: [geo] Re: Speaking of methane...

[Mike MacCracken]

I think it is also important to remember the difference. Every reasonable
effort will be made to capture any methane they can as it can be sold as
energy. The same is not true of CO2, and with the higher background, leaks
may well be harder to detect unless some tracer is added to the sequestered
CO2.

Mike MacCracken


On 6/1/11 4:39 PM, "Andrew Lockley"  wrote:

> I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of
> extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is a
> load of methane and the odd earthquake.
> 
> Seems like a fair trade off to me!
> 
> Obviously, it's a completely unacceptable technique for oil extraction in its
> current form. Nice data set, though. Shame it doesn't bode well for CCS,
> though - although I'm sure views may vary.
> 
> If only we could get the oil industry to build us some cloud machines and high
> altitude planes...
> 
> A 
> 
> On 1 Jun 2011 21:25, "Michael Hayes"  wrote:
>> > Hi Folks,
>> > 
>> > After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the
>> > methane release being caused by "Fracking". Here is a link to a resent film
>> > on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you are
>> > interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the
>> time 
>> > to view this film. I do realize that any "media" based documentary is
>> > subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2
>> > reasons.
>> > 
>> > 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2
>> > geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I
>> > have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However,
>> this 
>> > type of information should raise profound questions about the entire
>> concept 
>> > of geological CO2 sequestration.
>> > 
>> > 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this
>> > drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at
>> > the regional level.
>> > 
>> > Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field
>> CO2 
>> > sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas industry
>> > activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas industry be
>> > relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2
>> > sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related pollution
>> is 
>> > important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying this
>> > industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be
>> viewed 
>> > with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do apologize
>> > to all used car salesmen for the comparison.
>> > 
>> > Thanks for your patience.
>> > 
>> > Michael
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK.
>> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>> > 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

[Mike MacCracken]

But aren¹t deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject to
rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan?

Mike


On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, "Stephen Salter"  wrote:

>Hi All
>  
>  I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural gas then they
> should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this argument would be changed by
> fracking.
>  
>  However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is higher than that
> of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression with it and then cover the CO2
> puddle with a material which prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the
> sea water then most of it should stay put.  The cover could be a layer of
> liquid with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and very low
> miscibility with both.  This would allow it to self repair.  We could also
> stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to release some in order to offset
> Lowell Wood's overdue ice age.  We need to look for deep depressions close to
> where CO2 is being produce or could be concentrated.
>  
>  I did suggest this in a previous  contribution to the blog quite a while ago
> but I think that it sank without trace.  This is what we want for the CO2.
>  
>  Stephen
>  
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
> Institute for Energy Systems
> School of Engineering
> Mayfield Road
> University of Edinburgh EH9  3JL
> Scotland
> Tel +44 131 650 5704
> Mobile 07795 203 195
> www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs 
>  
>  On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote:
>> Michael raises the crucial issue: Should the oil and gas industry be relied
>> upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 sequestration?
>>  
>>  There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 years ago, made by
>> his group at UCI, of the methane content of air across Texas & Oklahoma. He
>> found no difference in methane levels in cities vs oil fields and farms.
>>  
>>  He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings that yielded no
>> oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were leaking methane into the air. No one
>> has contradicted this.
>>  
>>  That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to working on CROPS,
>> where we know it takes ~1000 years to return to the atmosphere.
>>  
>>  Gregory Benford
>>  
>>  
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:
>>  
>>>  Hi Folks, 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the methane
>>> release being caused by "Fracking". Here is a link to a resent film on the
>>> subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you are interested in
>>> the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the time to view this
>>> film. I do realize that any "media" based documentary is subject to dispute
>>> and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 reasons.
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2
>>> geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I
>>> have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this
>>> type of information should raise profound questions about the entire concept
>>> of geological CO2 sequestration.
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this
>>> drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at the
>>> regional level.
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field CO2
>>> sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas industry
>>> activities. I believe the question of; Should the oil and gas industry be
>>> relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2
>>> sequestration?, should be asked. The issue of fracking related pollution is
>>> important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying this
>>> industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be viewed
>>> with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do apologize
>>> to all used car salesmen for the comparison.
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Thanks for your patience.
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Michael
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  -- 
>>>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>>  
>>>  To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>>  .
>>>  For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  You received this message because you 

Re: [geo] Re: Strategies using Lair to mitigate specific near-term impacts of global warming

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Mark: As I have noted before, you really need to do some order of
magnitude estimates and not just what you feel might be needed.

Let's take your 2000 tons of Lair dispersed over 3 days over about the area,
let's assume, of a good size of a city. The heat of vaporization (so heat it
would take up to vaporize the Lair) is roughly 200 Joules per gram
(something you can find in physics references). Each ton is 10**6 grams, and
each Joule is about 0.24 calories. Add maybe 24 calories/gram to raise the
temperature from the condensation point to a reasonable temperature, and one
has maybe 70 calories per gram of total heat uptake. Multiply this out (so
2000 tons times 70 calories per gram times 10**6 grams per ton) and one gets
something like 1.5 times 10**11 calories.

I switched to calories so I could make a comparison to a nuclear weapons
explosive power as we have had such events and had energy (heat rather than
cooling) added to the atmosphere and have a sense of the impact. So a
megaton is 10**15 calories, a kiloton is 10**12 calories, and Hiroshima and
Nagasaki blasts were of order 10**13 calories. If this is all right, the
amount of energy you are talking about, even if done all at once, is about a
hundredth the size of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki events. You are proposing
this energy transfer would be spread over 3 days, so if the nuclear bomb
clouds took 5 minutes to dissipate, then divide by another 1000 or so (take
a smaller number here if you want). However, during the three days the air
is moving and this will greatly spread out your proposed influence. I just
do not understand how this would have any significant effect.

As another example, let's take a guess at the amount of energy that a
tornado-generating convective storm processes. Assume a storm that covers
only 5 by 5 kilometers and generates 2.5 cm (1 inch) of rain per hour (both
very likely on the low side). So 2.5 cm times 25 square kilometers times 600
cal/g heat from condensation times 10**10 cm**2/km**2 and we get roughly 4
times 10**13 calories--so Hiroshima or Nagasaki size, and injecting the 2000
tons would be 1% of that, and that is sort of the very highest possible
ratio--most of these storms are much, much bigger. Again, I don't see how
this might work.

It would be good for you to work through on this and other order of
magnitude analyses, and for someone else to check this all, but if this is
anywhere near right, completely aside from the energy it would take to
create and insert the Lair, I just don't see how it would have any effect on
a large scale or on the tornado scale. Until you can provide really
quantitative examples, I don't think advocating Lair is advancing the
discussion. 

Mike MacCracken




On 6/5/11 11:54 AM, "m2redmond"  wrote:

> John and Mike-
> Thank you for taking the time to consider how Lair might be applied to
> increase global albedo or to possibly mitigate storm severity, as well
> as other potential applications such as "frosting" permafrost to make
> it more reflective or fighting wildfires by releasing liquid nitrogen
> (LN2).
> 
> I think because Lair can provide a number of different benefits (which
> is a good thing), this has led to some confusion over how specific
> strategies might work.  I¹ll take the blame on that- I¹ve probably
> tried to pack too much information in my previous posts.  However,
> because Lair has these different possible applications, there is
> greater feasibility that one or more of them will provide important
> benefits.  Performing field tests could answer many of these questions
> on short order.
> 
> Please let me try to clarify what I think is needed:
> A.  The amount of Lair we are considering is very large (100-ton
> payloads) and would include multiple heavy-lift aircraft to deliver
> enough Lair for the desired result.  The specific amount and frequency
> would depend on the size and intensity of a particular storm, or in
> the case of creating clouds would depend on cloud lifetime.  For
> example, to mitigate a large storm this might mean 10 aircraft making
> two sorties per day or 2,000 tons of Lair for 3 days.  For global
> albedo, maybe 3 or 4 of these operations might be spaced evenly around
> the equator, so that 40 aircraft would deliver 8,000 tons per day on
> an ongoing basis (probably an upper bound of what would be needed).
> 
> B.  If necessary, certain regions may require a concurrent release of
> water vapor and/or CCN¹s (i.e. salt particles) along with Lair, to
> form clouds more effectively.
> 
> C.  For increasing cloud albedo, Lair could be released at any
> altitude- it¹s not limited to creating ice-clouds at high altitudes.
> It could also help to form low clouds through condensation and might
> increase the droplet density (and therefore reflectiveness) of
> existing clouds.
&

Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Alvia--Legally, IPCC is organized by the UN, but it really answers to
all of us, at least it needs to if it is to be effective.

Mike


On 6/17/11 10:42 AM, "Alvia Gaskill"  wrote:

> And lest you forget, ETC blew off Asilomar (as did Ken) rather
> hypocritically, citing funding reasons when that had nothing to do with it.
> So they had an opportunity to participate in the largest gathering devoted
> to governance and callously passed it up.  I would also note that none of
> the mainstream environmental groups are making the absurd demands of ETC
> regarding the Peru meeting.  Where is Greenpeace?  EDF?  NRDC?  Sierra Club?
> World Wildlife Fund?  By their silence, they endorse letting the scientists
> do their job without the circus atmosphere that ETC, the Westboro Baptist
> Church of modern technology is sure to bring.  And BTW, Mike, the IPCC is
> not a city council.  It answers to the UN, not whoever shows up with an axe
> to grind.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alvia Gaskill" 
> To: 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:19
> Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
> 
> 
> The IPCC meeting as I understand it, is simply to consider the efficacy of
> some of the proposed technological alternatives to emissions reductions,
> i.e., geoengineering.  It is not to adopt or endorse action plans based on
> them.  The IPCC has held workshops and published reports on the subject of
> climate change for nearly 20 years and I don't think it has been their
> policy or should it be to have every meeting vetted or overseen by people
> from outside the discipline being considered.
> 
> Would you like for example, to have someone from the philosophy department
> at your local university "sit in" on every discussion you have on
> development of a research tool?  Oh, this could have far reaching
> implications.  Better get the ethics people to sign off on this first.  EPA
> doesn't do this.  I am getting ready to review SBIRs again and I don't think
> that it's necessary to have anyone from ETC or the Guardian drop by to make
> sure I don't ignore the intergenerational implications of the X technology.
> That's for later.
> 
> There have been more than ample opportunities for the non science
> contributors to make their case against geoengineering and they have already
> received a disproportionate share of the attention as well as funding.  The
> recent meeting in the UK, the Asilomar conference and most recently, Ken's
> wrongheaded hand wringing conclusion that the IPCC meeting needs greater
> transparency just makes the problem worse.  There's an old saying that you
> shouldn't feed stray animals because it will just encourage them to come
> back for more and bring some friends.  Feeding ETC a steady diet of outrage
> is just what they want.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Lockley" 
> To: 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:25
> Subject: Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
> 
> 
> Suggested wording, for amendment and endorsement.
> 
> A
> 
> We the undersigned represent a selection of the scientists, engineers
> and social & policy experts involved in the development of
> geoengineering and its governance.  We write with frustration at the
> sentiments expressed in the recent letter sent by ETC et al to the
> press and IPCC.  As a result, we would like to express the following
> views on the IPCC's process on geoengineering, and more generally:
> 
> 1) We do not propose geoengineering as a substitute for emissions
> cuts, and never have done.
> 2) We believe that research demonstrates that emissions cuts are
> necessary, but may not be sufficient to control dangerous climate
> change.
> 3) We note that several geoengineering schemes have been proposed
> which appear to be workable, but that we currently lack the research
> necessary to determine the full extent of any role they may play in
> the future control of global warming.
> 4) We fear the deployment in emergency of poorly tested geoengineering
> techniques
> 5) We argue for the proper funding and testing of possible
> geoengineering technologies, in order to better understand them
> 6) We note that, despite the lack of clear geoengineering solutions
> available for deployment at present, efforts to curtail emissions have
> thus far achieved little or nothing.  As such, we believe that further
> research will not in itself raise climate risks due to any perceived
> panacea which the existence of the technology may wrongly appear to
> offer.
> 
> Nevertheless, we note the the IPCCs consideration of this issue
> represents a departure from its traditional pure science remit.  We
> argue therefore for greater transparency of the process, the inclusion
> of experts from social policy fields in the process, and the opening
> up of sessions to external observers, notably civil society groups.
> 
> Yours sincerely
> 
> 
> On 16 June 2011 09:39, Stephen Salter  wrote:
>> Hi All
>> 
>> Pat Mooney of the ETC group

Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear David--I was going to ask a similar question to Bala¹s‹as this has
actually been an ongoing argument in some circles of the energy community,
with a scientific study by a Royal Society lead physicist in their energy
analysis talking about a limit based on extracting a share of the existing
atmospheric KE and Mark Jacobson at Stanford saying there is plenty of KE as
it will be restored.

It seems to me that the KE pulled out will be replaced‹if not, the
atmosphere would eventually not be moving and so a huge equator-pole
temperature gradient would build up. With solar energy concentrated at the
low latitudes and IR loss in excess at high latitudes, the atmosphere will
be seeking balance; take some energy out and the atmosphere will try to
restore it, rather like what happens when one puts a rock in a stream, maybe
with a bit different flow, but I would not think significantly less KE.
Right?

Mike



On 7/12/11 7:25 AM, "Govindasamy Bala"  wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> Couple of questions.
> Generation of wind energy would increase the KE dissipation rate but this is
> not an external forcing to the climate system. I agree there would be local
> and regional climate changes but there should be no global mean warming.
> Right?
> 
> The current KE dissipation rate is about 2 watts/m^2. Over land, this
> translates to about 300 TW. Suppose wind farms extract 150 TW (which may be
> impractical), the dissipation rate over land will increase to 3 Wm^2. Don't
> you think the KE (or available PE) generation rate in the atmosphere would
> correspondingly increase? Of course these would be large regional climate
> changes. 
> 
> Bala
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:37 AM, David Keith  wrote:
>> Responding to a VERY old thread on wind power:
>>  
>> The only link to geoengineering here is that there is a possibility of
>> manipulating wind turbine drag for weather control, see:
>>  
>> At 10¹s TW scale extraction of wind does begin to be constrained by the
>> generation of kinetic energy. I led the a joint NCAR-GFDL group that
>> published the first paper on this topic see:
>> David W. Keith et al, The influence of large-scale wind-power on global
>> climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, p.
>> 16115-16120.
>> http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/66.Keith.2004.WindAndClimate.e.pdf
>> > >  
>>  
>> See 
>> http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/94.Kirk-Davidoff.SurfaceRoughnessJAS.
>> p.pdf 
>> > AS.p.pdf>  for a paper that says a bit about why it happens.
>>  
>> The following web page gives and overview but it¹s now out of date:
>> http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/wind.html
>> 
>>  
>> Alvia¹s comment that about ³kinetic energy, i.e. the motion of molecules²,
>> confuses the physics. Kinetic energy is macroscopic velocity, random motion
>> of molecules is just heat. It is true that large scale production and
>> dissipation of kinetic energy must balance, have a look at Peixoto and Oort¹s
>> the Physics of Climate or a short encyclopedia article I one wrote on
>> atmospheric energetics:
>> http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/15.Keith.1996.Energetics.s.pdf
>> 
>>  
>> Bottom lines:
>>  
>> 1. Commonly cited estimates for global wind power potential are too large. On
>> cannot get to 100 TW in any practical scheme I know about.
>>  
>> 2. At even a few TW large scale climate effects will begin to be important.
>> But, this does not say we should not make a few TW of wind, just that--like
>> any energy technology‹there are tradeoffs.
>>  
>> David
>>  
>> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nando
>> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 8:25 AM
>> To: agask...@nc.rr.com
>> Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
>> Subject: Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
>>  
>> My reading of the article suggested that the authors of the study were
>> principally claiming that wind has an impact on climate, so it is already
>> being "used". What wasn't clear from the article was what type of impact
>> reducing the energy level of winds all over the globe through the prolific
>> use of wind turbines might have. In a warming world, I understand we should
>> expect stronger winds. On a simplistic generalized level that might not be
>> relevant to local climate, slowing those stronger winds down might have
>> an ameliorating effect on climate change. Hence the claim that "The magnitude
>> of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by
>> doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide" might not be as bad as
>> it is made to seem.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As usually, I'm grasping at straws, but as a layman, that's what stood out
>> f

Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all

[Mike MacCracken]

A few further thoughts. The driving force for atmospheric motions is the
equator-pole temperature gradient‹energy continues to come in and decrease
entropy (that is, enhancing the gradient), and then the motions tend to
increase the entropy (trying to smooth out the gradient).

I guess what wind power really does is create an alternate form of
dissipation to small eddies moving vegetation and just dissipating heat. So,
instead of local heat dissipation by the vegetation (entropy increase), the
energy is drained by windmills and then the electricity is dissipated as
heat, so it is an alternative pathway. And I gather what you find is that
the atmosphere above does not really care if the dissipation is locally
friction heat loss or goes through the wind power bypass, doing some useful
work for humanity. I guess that is just sort of saying that having fully
efficient wind power machines would be no different than having higher
orography, as far as the atmospheric circulation is concerned. So, then the
question is what fraction of the surface friction that one can replace with
wind power machines.

While you did the calculation for land areas, there is really no reason that
one could not have floating windmills out over the ocean, diverting energy
away from the wind driven currents and evaporation.

If one could develop the optimal machine, one could potentially extract
energy at the rate that it is created by the differences in energy being
supplied and radiated away from low and high latitudes, not wasting any
energy in wind, etc.--so there is a theoretical upper limit‹the supply is
not infinite. But, the amount available could be pretty large using large
windmills, tethered wind turbines in the jet stream, etc.--for an interim
period, this would likely cause an increase in the gradient, but ultimately
the limiting rate of removal of energy is the pole-equator difference (times
some fractional potential efficiency).

As for the Jacobson calculation, the US is a pretty small area and so I
would think creating a stronger drag over it would tend to attract energy in
from elsewhere as Nature likes to push down gradients. This can take time,
but there surely will be some infilling, especially given large scale
motions due to the atmospheric circulation. Interesting.

Mike


On 7/12/11 9:36 PM, "David Keith"  wrote:

> Mike & Bala
>  
> A few answers:
>  
> First there is almost no link to geo here so we should probably take this off
> this list. The only (weak link) is weather control, see:
> http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/769/2010/acp-10-769-2010.html
>  
> 1. Bala said ³Generation of wind energy would increase the KE dissipation rate
> but this is not an external forcing to the climate system.² And ³The current
> KE dissipation rate is about 2 watts/m^2. Over land, this translates to about
> 300 TW. Suppose wind farms extract 150 TW (which may be impractical), the
> dissipation rate over land will increase to 3 Wm^2. Don't you think the KE (or
> available PE) generation rate in the atmosphere would correspondingly
> increase? Of course these would be large regional climate changes.²
>  
> Answer: As the surface drag is increased the total dissipation does not change
> much. That is, as you increase the KE sink in some locations with wind
> turbines the dissipation decreases elsewhere keeping total about constant. See
> Figure 2 of our 2004 PNAS where we tried this. This is what one would expect
> because dissipation of KE must balance its creation from APE (see pexoto and
> ort or my encyclopedia article cited below for an overview of atmo
> energetics). Going a bit deeper one might think that with more to ³push
> against² the APE generation rate would go up and the atmo heat engine get more
> efficient, Kerry Emanuel have suggested to me that this should not be true
> because of a maximum entropy principle that I do not fully understand.
> 
> Bottom line: very likely Bala¹s assumption is wrong.
>  
> 2. Bala said: ³I agree there would be local and regional climate changes but
> there should be no global mean warming. Right?²
>  
> Answer: mostly. One can see either warming or cooling depending on where the
> wind drag is applied. The point is that (a) climate changes due to drag are
> non-local, and (b) they can be large.
>  
> 3. Mike asked about the Jacobsen paper that says no effect.
>  
> Answer: I think this paper is just wrong. If it were true I could violate the
> first law by extracting power without altering KE and then using that power to
> increase APE generating infinite power with no input. Nice trick.  There are
> now about 5 studies that confirm the broad results in our 2004 paper. The
> Jacobsen paper is an outlier. I expect a convincing critique will be published
> in the next few years.
>  
> Yours,
> David
> 
> 
>

Re: functionally Re: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)

[Mike MacCracken]

For species, I have heard (e.g., from reviewers when I have misused the word
extinct) that when there are no more in a region or in the wild, the
appropriate term is (from biology online):

Extirpation

The act of extirpating or rooting out, or the state of being extirpated;
eradication; excision; total destruction; as, the extirpation of weeds from
land, of evil from the heart, of a race of men, of heresy.

Extinction only applies when there are none either in the wild or in
captivity.

I am not sure that applying this word to sea ice would work very well,
however.

Mike MacCracken


On 7/18/11 3:53 PM, "Emily"  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> a term used for species extinctions comes to mind - when a species is
> reduced to such a small number of animals in the wild but isn't extinct,
> it is sometimes referred to as 'functionally extinct'.
> 
> If we consider the functions of the Arctic sea ice - in areas it is
> pretty near functionally extinct already... eg in Hudson Bay...
> 
> Sea ice performs so many different functions it's hard to even list them.
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> Emily.
> 
> 
> On 18/07/2011 17:24, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Ken (cc list)
>> 
>>I have tried (as a rank amateur observer, not participant) to
>> follow this retreatjng September arctic ice topic for the last 5
>> years.   I have come to a different conclusion than expressed in your
>> two articles..   The website I have found most valuable can be located
>> by remembering the name "Neven" - and googling with "arctic" and "ice"
>> .  This blog averages more than one message per hour - and the folks
>> commenting there seem to be putting a lot of time into the topic.  Not
>> experts on this blog, but dedicated amateurs, who do seem to be
>> talking to the ice experts, however.
>> 
>>The key question is what are we to be measuring when we talk of
>> "gone"?   I gather that 10% remainder is considered "gone".   One also
>> has to consider whether one will be talking area, extent, or volume.
>> I like the volume definition - as thickness is dropping much more
>> rapidly than area (the smaller number) or extent - and the volume is
>> easier to find data on than thickness.   A good (April 2011)
>> discussion of these differences is at
>> 
>>  
>> http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/trends-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume.html#m
>> ore
>> 
>>This short write-up, using experimental volume data, suggests about
>> 2016 as a best guess to get to this 10% value.  This uses a "Gompertz"
>> model - which has no particular theoretical validity - but seems to
>> have more validity than a linear or quadratic approach to absolute
>> zero.  It might be overly conservative.
>> 
>>  For today's blog exchange  (several dozen so far today), go to just
>> the early part of the above URL.
>> 
>>The modeler who seems (to me) to have done the best job in modeling
>> this (the subject of Ken's two articles) is  Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski who
>> has supported this 2016 "gone" date since 2008 or so (and again this
>> year).  The following 2008 cite is given in the above URL for a
>> Maslowski Ppt:
>> 
>> http://www.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/dc2008/DC/report/Maslowski.pdf
>> 
>>  His work doesn't show up in literature comparisons such as in
>> Ken's articles because his (highly detailed) model is limited only to
>> the Arctic;  it is not a global model, although of course it is linked
>> to the rest of the world.   We should also note that Maslowski has
>> supported 2013 as not being out of the question.  (and still does)
>> 
>> I don't believe we have the luxury of relying on a "gone" date in
>> the 2030's or even 2020's  - and this is based on interpretations of
>> recent data - not model outputs.   It seems to me the lesson is that
>> the global models need retuning.
>> 
>> Ron
>> 
>> *From: *"Ken Caldeira" 
>> *To: *"geoengineering" 
>> *Sent: *Monday, July 18, 2011 6:41:17 AM
>> *Subject: *[geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much
>> sooner)
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> There has been a fair amount of discussion on this group that talks
>> about imminent September sea ice loss in the Arctic.
>> 
>> The attached paper indicates that around half of the normal September
>> sea-ice should still be around in the 2020-2040 time frame.
>> 
>> Boe, J., 

Re: functionally Re: [geo] September sea-ice gone by end of century? (or much sooner)

[Mike MacCracken]

The sea ice is already becoming dysfunctional in a number of ways--for some
marine animals, for indigenous communities on barrier islands (absence means
less suppression of winter storm waves), indigenous hunting at certain times
of the year is disrupted, disruption of the creation of the very cold air of
the Arctic in some seasons (so we have a longer season with the Arctic
supplying a lot of heat to the atmosphere and affecting the weather in
mid-latitudes), etc.

Even thin ice or shorter ice-in situations leads to dysfunction--we don't
have to wait until 100% is gone in a particular season, etc.

Mike


On 7/18/11 5:00 PM, "Emily"  wrote:

> hi
> thanks, extinct, I think means it isn't in the wild or captivity for 30
> years... which is a long time to wait.
> The point I'm making is that other terms are created when there is
> little sense in waiting for 30 years for non existence to exist...
> 
> The point about sea ice, is an important one. Communicating an issue is
> key. If, as is possible, that some sea ice remains in pockets or as a
> thin film over the Arctic in areas at some times of the year, do we wait
> before accepting that the ecosystem is functionally, well, dysfunctional?
> 
> I think a term can be adopted in this case, which refers to the sea ice
> as so severely reduced that it is no longer performing its critical
> previous functions.
> 
> Communicating in phrases and terms which are accurate but also readily
> accessible is key. I am not sure what the correct phrase for the
> diminishing sea ice is, and I am hopeful that we wont need one. I am
> optimistic that we will restore the Arctic ecosystem, just as we re
> plant a forest when we realise we need it, we clean up an oil spill, and
> we clean up a coal spoil heap.
> 
> thanks so much,
> 
> Emily.
> 
> On 18/07/2011 21:50, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>> For species, I have heard (e.g., from reviewers when I have misused the word
>> extinct) that when there are no more in a region or in the wild, the
>> appropriate term is (from biology online):
>> 
>> Extirpation
>> 
>> The act of extirpating or rooting out, or the state of being extirpated;
>> eradication; excision; total destruction; as, the extirpation of weeds from
>> land, of evil from the heart, of a race of men, of heresy.
>> 
>> Extinction only applies when there are none either in the wild or in
>> captivity.
>> 
>> I am not sure that applying this word to sea ice would work very well,
>> however.
>> 
>> Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/18/11 3:53 PM, "Emily"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> a term used for species extinctions comes to mind - when a species is
>>> reduced to such a small number of animals in the wild but isn't extinct,
>>> it is sometimes referred to as 'functionally extinct'.
>>> 
>>> If we consider the functions of the Arctic sea ice - in areas it is
>>> pretty near functionally extinct already... eg in Hudson Bay...
>>> 
>>> Sea ice performs so many different functions it's hard to even list them.
>>> 
>>> best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Emily.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 18/07/2011 17:24, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> Ken (cc list)
>>>> 
>>>> I have tried (as a rank amateur observer, not participant) to
>>>> follow this retreatjng September arctic ice topic for the last 5
>>>> years.   I have come to a different conclusion than expressed in your
>>>> two articles..   The website I have found most valuable can be located
>>>> by remembering the name "Neven" - and googling with "arctic" and "ice"
>>>> .  This blog averages more than one message per hour - and the folks
>>>> commenting there seem to be putting a lot of time into the topic.  Not
>>>> experts on this blog, but dedicated amateurs, who do seem to be
>>>> talking to the ice experts, however.
>>>> 
>>>> The key question is what are we to be measuring when we talk of
>>>> "gone"?   I gather that 10% remainder is considered "gone".   One also
>>>> has to consider whether one will be talking area, extent, or volume.
>>>> I like the volume definition - as thickness is dropping much more
>>>> rapidly than area (the smaller number) or extent - and the volume is
>>>> easier to find data on than thickness.   A good (April 2011)
>>>> discussion of these differences is at
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://neven1.

Re: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise

[Mike MacCracken]

As I understand it from scientific presentations at the IUGG conference in
Melbourne, recent reconciliation of US and European satellite observations
of solar irradiance give a quiet sun value of 1360.8 W/m2 (so average over
the Earth of 340.2 W/m2 before about 30% reflected)--two years ago the
baseline values of the instruments differed by about 5 W/m2, although their
variations were in excellent agreement. Apparently, some stray light was
found to be leaking in, and correcting for this has brought observations of
the baseline into agreement.

The variation over solar cycles is really quite small compared to the
magnitude of the greenhouse forcing. Asserting that the accelerating melting
back of Arctic sea ice is due to the sunspot cycle is, given that the
relative magnitude of the GHG induced changes, is thus really
unsubstantiated wishful thinking.

Mike MacCracken

PS to Gene--Excellent correlation of what--and how accurate are each of the
records. Suggesting something is "perfect" would really mean no room for any
volcanic effects or anything else--just not a scientific statement.


On 7/24/11 4:33 PM, "esubscript...@montgomerycountymd.gov"
 wrote:

> Albert:
>  
> No! Geoengineering Yesterday. In any case it is interesting that sunspots are
> now getting attention. Most climate scientists have ignored sunspots despite
> excellent perfect  correlation back to the year 1500. So much for the science!
>  
> -gene
>  
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Veli Albert Kallio
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 4:23 PM
> To: wf...@utk.edu; kcalde...@gmail.com
> Cc: John Nissen; em...@lewis-brown.net; Geoengineering FIPC; John Nissen;
> Peter Wadhams
> Subject: RE: [geo] Jim Hansen : 1 to 2DegC and 20m sea level rise
>  
> 
> Have you been wondering, why the North Pole's sea ice is looking like this
> today? 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
> <http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
> > 
> 
> Cryosphere Today has reported a phenomenal North Pole melting:
> 
> North Pole's Ice Cap currently melts away at a phenomenal weekly rate of:
> 14.9%.
> 
> Melting figures of the Arctic Ocean for the last 7 days are:
> 
> 17.07.2011: ice area 5,456,000 km2 - melting   98,000 km2
> 18.07.2011: ice area 5,383,000 km2 - melting   73,000 km2
> 19.07.2011: ice area 5,283,000 km2 - melting 100,000 km2
> 20.07.2011: ice area 5,083,000 km2 - melting 200,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area
> reduction: 3.93%
> 21.07.2011: ice area 4,931,000 km2 - melting 152,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area
> reduction: 3.08%
> 22.07.2011: ice area 4,843,000 km2 - melting   88,000 km2
> 23.07.2011: ice area 4,726,000 km2 - melting 117,000 km2 - 24 hour ice area
> reduction: 2.48%
> 
> At the start of the week, 16.07.2011 the ice area was 5,554,000 km2.
>  
> A daily sea ice melting rate 77,000 km2 could melt all ice from the North Pole
> by the autumn equinox. The current rate of disappearing sea ice is much
> higher. This suggests that the open seas are increasing solar energy
> absorption at higher rates than the shortening of daylight hours are reducing
> the sunlight supply. A return of cold weather and clouds can break this
> vicious circle.
>  
> The fact that the North Pole Sea Ice Cap is able to lose 10.5% of its size in
> just over the last 4 days is a matter of immense concern to me as our train
> may have already lost its breaks...
> 
> WattsUpWithThat.com suggests the sun has entered a more intense phase in its
> sun-spot cycle and the sea ice is now melts. They now say the sea ice melting
> intensifies over the next few years until solar activity peaks, after that the
> sunspots disappear and the Arctic Oceans sea ice cover recovers. The concern
> over melting sea ice is alarmism as it is all due to a recent change in solar
> weather, the increasing radiation drives global warming and, therefore, North
> Pole's sea ice is now melting.
> However, this contradicts their own sea ice area outlook projection:
> http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/ju
> ly_panarctic_fig1.png
> <http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/07/images/pan-arctic/j
> uly_panarctic_fig1.png>
> 
> In June WattsUpWithThat.com forecasted the second largest sea ice area in
> September with ice area recovery to 5,100,000 km2. WattsUpWithThat.com
> forecasting logic apparently expects the Arctic Ocean to be freezing 374,000
> km2 by September.
>  
> We should change our Googlrgroup's name to: Geoengineering Now!
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Albert
>  
> 
> 
> From: wf...@utk.edu
> To: kcalde...@gma