[geo] Losing Hearts and Minds
The poll, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4, finds that 57 percent of respondents believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. The level was 77 percent in January 2007 and August 2006. How about belief in ocean acidification? -G CLIMATE: Fewer Americans believe in human-induced global warming -- poll (10/22/2009) Ben Geman, EE senior reporter A declining percentage of Americans believe there is solid evidence that human activities, including burning fossil fuels, are causing global temperatures to rise, according to a newly released poll by the Pew Research Center for the People the Press. However, the poll shows that more respondents support carbon dioxide controls than oppose them. Asked if they back setting emissions limits and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices, 50 percent said they were in favor and 39 percent said they were opposed. The poll, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4, finds that 57 percent of respondents believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. The level was 77 percent in January 2007 and August 2006. Thirty-six percent of the respondents believe warming is occurring because of human activity, down from 47 percent in April 2008. It was also 47 percent in the 2006 and 2007 surveys. The dominant view among climate scientists is that increased carbon dioxide emissions from burning fuels like coal and oil are causing global temperatures to rise. The poll shows that the declines in the percentage of people who see solid evidence of global warming have occurred across the political spectrum, although the partisan divide is significant. Among Democrats, 75 percent hold this view, down from 91 percent in 2006, 86 percent in 2007 and 83 percent last year. Among independents, the number is now 53 percent, a sharp drop from the 75 percent of independents who believed there is solid evidence of global warming last year and similar levels in 2006 and 2007. Thirty-five percent of Republicans see solid evidence of global warming, down from 49 percent last year, 62 percent in 2007 and 59 percent in 2006. The poll also finds that 35 percent view global warming as a very serious problem, down from 44 percent in the April 2008 survey. The results come as President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are seeking to enact legislation that would establish a cap-and-trade program to sharply reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades. Pew found that 14 percent have heard a lot about a cap-and-trade policy, 30 percent have heard a little and a majority -- 55 percent -- have heard nothing about it. Pew surveyed 1,500 adults using cell phones and land lines. The survey had a 3 percent margin of error. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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] Meanwhile...
Baffin Island reveals dramatic scale of Arctic climate change Study delves back into 200,000 years of history to demonstrate the devastating impact of global warming By Steve Connor, Science Editor Tuesday, 20 October 2009 London's Independent A frozen lake on a remote island off Canada's northern coast has yielded remarkable insights into how the Arctic climate has changed dramatically over 50 years. Muddy sediment from the bottom of the lake, some of it 200,000 years old, shows that Baffin Island, one of the most inhospitable places on Earth, has undergone an unprecedented warming over the past half-century. Scientists believe the temperature rise is probably due to human-induced warming. It has more than offset a natural cooling trend which began 8,000 years ago. Instead of cooling at a rate of minus 0.2C every 1,000 years - a trend that was expected to continue for another 4,000 years because of well-known changes to the Earth's solar orbit - Baffin Island, like the rest of the Arctic, has begun to get warmer, especially since 1950. The Arctic is now about 1.2C warmer than it was in 1900, confirming that the region is warming faster than most other parts of the world. Baffin Island, the largest island in the Arctic Canadian Archipelago, is subjected to prevailing northerly winds that keep average temperatures at about minus 8.5C, well below similar Arctic locations at a comparable latitude. Polar bears, arctic fox and arctic hares walk the island's territory while narwhal, walrus and beluga whale patrol its coastline. The island is dotted with lakes, the bottoms of which have been periodically scoured by glaciers with each passing ice age. However, scientists have found that the sediments at the bottom of some of the lakes, which build up each year rather like tree rings, have survived this scouring process intact. This has enabled the scientists to take core samples going back tens of thousands of years. One such lake on Baffin Island, known as CF8, has been found to have layers of sediment dating back 200,000 years, which makes it the oldest lake sediment bored from any glaciated parts of Canada or Greenland, according to the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is the CF8 lake that has provided scientists with the sediment core showing the unprecedented warming of Baffin Island over the past few decades, compared with a time span going back 200,000 years, a period which included two ice ages and three interglacial periods - and roughly the time that Homo sapiens has been on earth. The past few decades have been unique in the past 200,000 years in terms of the changes we see in the biology and chemistry recorded in the cores, said Yarrow Axford of the University of Colorado at Boulder. We see clear evidence for warming in one of the most remote places on earth at a time when the Arctic should be cooling because of natural processes. The scientists found that certain cold-adapted organisms in the layers of sediment have decreased in frequency since about 1950. Larvae from species of Arctic midge, which only live in cold conditions, have abruptly declined and two species in particular have disappeared altogether. Meanwhile, a species of lake alga or diatom that is better suited to warmer conditions has increased significantly over the same period, indicating longer periods when the lake's surface was free of ice, the scientists said. Other sediment measurements support a dramatic reversal of the natural cooling trend, they said. As part of a 21,000-year cycle, the Arctic has been receiving progressively less summertime energy from the Sun for the past 8,000 years because of a well-established wobble in the Earth's solar rotation - the Earth is now 0.6 million miles further from the Sun during an Arctic summer solstice than it was in 1BC. This decline will not reverse for another 4,000 years, but changes to the climate of Baffin Island show that the cooling it should have caused has gone into reverse in the past few decades. A separate team of scientists analysing Arctic lakes in Alaska found a similar warming trend in recent years compared to sediment records going back a few thousand years. They, too, concluded that the warming was unprecedented and could be explained by human activities, namely the build of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of energy we're getting from the Sun in the 20th century continued to go down, but the temperature went up higher than anything we've seen in the last 2,000 years, said Nicholas McKay of the University of Arizona in Tucson . The 20th century is the first century for which how much energy we're getting from the Sun is no longer the most important thing governing the temperature of the Arctic, said Dr McKay, when the study was published last month in the journal Science. Baffin Island: An ancient trading post *Baffin Island
[geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
The Copenhagen conference next month is [correction: was - GR] in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way, World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientistsBy Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.htmlFast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming trueThe world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise - which would be much higher nearer the poles - would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s.This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.Although the 6C rise and its potential disastrous effects have been speculated upon before, this is the first time that scientists have said that society is now on a path to meet it.Their chilling and remarkable prediction throws into sharp relief the importance of next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where the world community will come together to try to construct a new agreement to bring the warming under control.For the past month there has been a lowering of expectations about the conference, not least because the US may not be ready to commit itself to cuts in its emissions. But yesterday President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China issued a joint communiqué after a meeting in Beijing, which reignited hopes that a serious deal might be possible after all.It cannot come too soon, to judge by the results of the Global Carbon Project study, led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, which found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available.On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.In total, CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008, yet global emissions in 1990 are the reference level set by the Kyoto Protocol, which countries are trying to fall below in terms of their own emissions.The 6C rise now being anticipated is in stark contrast to the C rise at which all international climate policy, including that of Britain and the EU, hopes to stabilise the warming - two degrees being seen as the threshold of climate change which is dangerous for society and the natural world.The study by Professor Le Quéré and her team, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, envisages a far higher figure. We're at the top end of the IPCC scenario, she said.Professor Le Quéré said that Copenhagen was the last chance of coming to a global agreement that would curb carbon-dioxide emissions on a time-course that would hopefully stabilise temperature rises to within the danger threshold. The Copenhagen conference next month is in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way, she said.If the agreement is too weak, or the commitments not respected, it is not 2.5C or 3C we will get: it's 5C or 6C - that is the path we're on. The timescales here are extremely tight for what is needed to stabilise the climate at C, she said.Meanwhile, the scientists have for the first time detected a failure of the Earth's natural ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide released into the air.They found significant evidence that more man-made CO2 is staying in the atmosphere to exacerbate the greenhouse effect because the natural carbon sinks that have absorbed it over previous decades on land and sea are beginning to fail, possibly as a result of rising global temperatures.The amount of CO2 that has remained in the atmosphere as a
[geo] Meanwhile, down under(water)
Published on Monday, November 23, 2009 by The Independent/UKAntarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought: Studyby The Independent/UKThe East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.More than 190 nations gather in Copenhagen next month to hammer out a global climate deal to curb greenhouse gases and help poor countries cope with its consequences.University of Texas professor Jianli Chen and colleagues analysed nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction in Antarctica.Covering the period up January 2009, the data was collected by the twin GRACE satellites, which detect mass flows in the ocean and polar regions by measuring changes in Earth's gravity field.Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.They also found for the first time that East Antarctica - on the Eastern Hemisphere side of the continent - is likewise losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of about 57 billion tonnes annually.The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.Up to now, scientists had thought that East Antarctica was in balance, meaning that it accumulated as much mass and it gave off, perhaps a bit more.Acceleration of ice loss in recent years over the entire continent is thus indicated, the authors conclude. Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea level rise.Another study published last week in the journal Nature reported an upwardly-revised figure for Antarctic temperatures during prior interglacials, warm periods such as our own that have occurred roughly every 100,000 years.During the last interglacial which peaked some 128,000 years ago, called the Eemian Period, temperatures in the region were probably six degree Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than today, which is about 3 C (5.4 C) above previous estimates, the study said.The findings suggest that the region may be more sensitive than scientists thought to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that were roughly equivalent to present day levels.During the Eemian, sea levels were five-to-seven metres higher than today.© 2009 The Independent -- 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] scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of research programs (or program)
Ken,Am all for getting a statement together, but am unclear on where this would ultimately be aimed - policy makers, funding agencies, governments, the public/media? - In any case may I suggest that post-Copenhagen would be an opportune time to lay an overview of the issues and needs on somebody's table, in the wake of what is shaping up to be a woefully inadequate response from world leaders. Another thought is to drop the geoengineering moniker (perhaps too much baggage) and use something else like climate intervention, or climate stabilization, or earth habitability assistance, or planet survival options, etc. As we've just heard, engineering does not elicit a warm, fuzzy feeling in certain quarters. -Greg --- On Tue, 11/24/09, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu Subject: [geo] scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of research programs (or program) To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 10:24 AM Folks, I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we need research into climate intervention. However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs). Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be prioritized. I would like to open this discussion: With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several independent or quasi-independent research programs: A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively active gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods) A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage that do not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e., Solar Radiation Management methods) Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to address problems. One could imagine another program element that is organized around assessing potential threats and possible responses: C. Threat and response assessment C.1. Ice sheet stability C.2. Permafrost methane degassing C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural productivity C.4. etc I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they should be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear that A.1 needs to be closely linked to A.2. === Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B, and C, some initial comments: I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and environmental consequences. I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity of possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences. I distinguish cost from affordability in that program elements A will, at least in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus marginal cost is critical. However, program elements B might be used in an emergency situation where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a bad enough situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of GDP on deployment. == Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of climate intervention research programs (or program)? == Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to 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] Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri
Sam, I second that. Glad Pachauri's on board. So how do we proceed?- Greg --- On Mon, 11/30/09, Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com Subject: [geo] Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 5:02 PM Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938298.ece Drastic cuts in carbon emissions may not be sufficient . . . Rajendra Pachauri proposed that new techniques should be applied . . “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.” . . such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency. Cheers! Sam Carana -- 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: Alternet/Mooney: Will Copenhagen Lead to Radical Climate Experiments?
Rather than being on the fringe, mainstream (?) Hansen and 350.org require enhanced air capture to achieve their goal. Otherwise it will take decades if not centuries to regain 350 ppm. (Personally, I'm demanding a much less wimpy and more earth-friendly 280 ppm; any other adherents (or donations)?). Of course their proposed approach is to (drastically) modify agriculture and land use practices to achieve this rather than use anything that they view as engineered air capture. But my contention is that all possible approaches will, because of their required and currently untested massive scale and speed of deployment, be risky, uncertain, and in effect geoengineering. So given the rising need for a Plan B (i.e., increasing ineffectiness of Plan A) and given what's at stake, it's time to fully, carefully, and apolitically test and evaluate all of our options, engineered and otherwise, to see which will be the most cost effective and least negatively impactfull. Guess I've completely squandered my daily (or is it weekly?) geoeng ration. Greg --- On Tue, 12/15/09, Josh joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: From: Josh joshuahorton...@gmail.com Subject: [geo] Re: Alternet/Mooney: Will Copenhagen Lead to Radical Climate Experiments? To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 3:52 PM Very interesting article. Just a few years ago, geoengineering even on the margins of a COP would have been unthinkable. The author suggests that views on geoengineering align with the conventional left- right political divide, but I'm not so sure about that - I think politics in this area are very scrambled and unsettled. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Dec 15, 5:37 pm, David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com wrote: Dan: My bet is that there is not going to be signifiant field testing (full scale) until the temperatures go up to a significant level (e.g., 1.5 deg C). Prior to that, there simply won't be sufficient concern. In addition, that 1.5 deg C increase is going to have to happen quickly (within 3 years) to be considered the kind of spike that will drive action. A slow risk to 1.5 (say over 50 years) is not going to be sufficient. d. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: This article was orignally here: http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/copenhagen-geoengineerings... But also here: http://www.alternet.org/story/144575/will_copenhagen_lead_to_radical_... And then cited here. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/first-geoengineering... On Dec 15, 12:55 pm, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote: Will Copenhagen Lead to Radical Climate Experiments? By Chris Mooney, Mother Jones Online. Posted December 15, 2009. If the summit fails, controversial geo-engineering projects may get a boost. You won't find geoengineering on the official agenda at the climate summit in Copenhagen. But for anyone watching the trajectory of the climate change debate, the controversial notion of intentionally modifying the planet or its climate system to counteract the effects of global warming is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Attracting almost no attention, Russia may have already conducted the first-ever geoengineering field trial. And if the climate talks at Copenhagen fail, it could give geoengineering advocates the lucky break they've been waiting for. While it hasn't been featured in the formal negotiations, geoengineering has been a significant sub-theme in Copenhagen -- the subject of numerous side events, protests, and a documentary film screening. Robert Greene's Owning the Weather, which aired here Sunday night in a venue off the spectacularly lit City Hall Square, paints the longstanding history of human attempts to control and modify the weather -- through anything ranging from rain dances to quack cloud seeding efforts and hail cannon fusillades. The film ends with the observation that we are moving ever closer to making this ancient dream (or nightmare, if you prefer) a reality. Indeed, scientists say there is little doubt that we could bring about an artificial planetary cooling by, say, seeding the Earth's stratosphere with reflective particles, called sulfate aerosols, that would act as an artificial global parasol and cool us down. Such an act would amount to mimicking the climatic effects of a large volcanic eruption, such as the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 -- whose 22 mile high stream of ash, subsequently dispersed across the globe, resulted in half a degree Celsius of global cooling over the course of the following year. Granted, the unintended consequences of such an action (such as decreased global precipitation) might be significant. But, goes the thinking among some scientists, if we're facing a climate catastrophe --
[geo] Why geoeng must be on the table
Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C riseUN secretariat initial draft shows gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of CO2 between present pledges and cuts required to limit rise to 2C Read the UN analysis document here Suzanne Goldenberg, John Vidal and Jonathan Watts in Copenhagenguardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 December 2009 18.03 GMT larger | smallerNomadic Turkana pastoralists at a dried out dam in Kenya. A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern review. Photograph: Stephen Morrison/EPAThe emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian.With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, moreflooding and droughts.Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world's biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse.The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow.Another key obstacle – the fate of the Kyoto treaty – was solved, with China and the developing world seeing off attempts to kill the protocol. But the UN analysis suggests much deeper cuts will have to be agreed tomorrow to achieve the stated objective of limiting temperature rises to 2C.The document was drafted by the UN secretariat running the Copenhagen summit and is dated 11pm on Tuesday night. It is marked do not distribute and initial draft. It shows a gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of carbon emissions between the present pledges and the required 2020 level of 44Gt, which is required to stay below a 2C rise. No higher offers have since been made.Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9-4.2Gt is closed and Annexe 1 parties [rich countries] commit themselves to strong action before and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550 parts per million, with the related temperature rise around 3C, it says. It does not specify a time when 3C would be reached but it is likely to be 2050.Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman said: This is an explosive document that shows the numbers on the table at the moment would lead to nothing less than climate breakdown and an extraordinarily dangerous situation for humanity.The UN is admitting in private that the pledges made by world leaders would lead to a 3C rise in temperatures. The science shows that could lead to the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, crippling water shortages across South America and Australia and the near-extinction of tropical coral reefs, and that's just the start of it.Bill McKibben, founder of the campaign 350.org, said: In one sense this is no secret – we've been saying it for months. But it is powerful to have the UN confirming its own insincerity. He did not know why his name was written on the top of the document.However, Bob Ward, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said current ambitions could still be consistent with a 50% chance of meeting the 2C target. But it would require steeper reductions after 2020, which are likely to be more costly, to be well below 35 billion tonnes in 2030 and well below 20 billion tonnes in 2050.The goal of keeping the increase in global average temperatures below 2C, relative to pre-industrial levels, has become the figure that all rich countries have committed to try to achieve in Copenhagen. However, 102 of the world's poorest countries are holding out for emission cuts resulting in a temperature increase of no more than 1.5C.Failing to do that, they say, would leave billions of people in the world homeless, facing famine and open to catastrophic weather-related disasters. But such an ambitious target would mean carbon would have to be removed from the atmosphere.The internal paper says: Further steps are possible and necessary to fill the gap. This could be done by increasing the aggregated emission reductions [in rich
[geo] OA False Alarm: CO2 is just neutralizing the ocean
What’s next – Acidgate? -Greg http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/ocean-acidification-is-a-misnomer/ Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer BY JACK DINI–A good way to excite people is to tell them that something is becoming more ‘acid,’ as ‘the oceans are undergoing acidification and this is a potential environmental catastrophe.’ The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading proponent of the doom of global warming, states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open oceans, so the oceans remain alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid. (1) Since the pH of the oceans is higher than neutral (pH = 7), this means the oceans are alkaline. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14; pH 6 is ten times more acid than pH 7 and pH 5 is a hundred times more acid than pH 7. (2) Unfortunately, as Scientific American points out, ‘acidification’ means a drop in value, anywhere along the scale. (3) So the term ‘ocean acidification’ is misleading. The oceans are not acidifying. They are undergoing a process known as neutralization, but the term ‘acidification’ sounds scarier than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral. At least one university is equating seawater with vinegar in an on-line presentation for schools. Vinegar (acetic acid) has a pH of 2.5, almost a million times more acidic in terms of hydrogen ion activity than seawater. This is deliberate disinformation to present to young people. (1) What about pH variation? The Economist talks about pH measurements in Hawaii; “The pH difference from one year to the next is frequently greater than the change in average pH levels over 20 years. All of this suggests that the effects will be far from uniform.” (4) Chris Jury, Center for Marine Science, Biology and Marine Biology, University of North Carolina, reports, “On some reef flats pH values have been measured to vary from as low as 7.8 to as high as 8.4 in a single 24 hour period. In some lagoons, pH has been measured to vary as much as 1 pH unit in a day (e.g., 7.6 to 8.6). (5) USF researchers raised a warning flag upon finding that upper-ocean pH had, over the preceding one-and-a-half decades, decreased by approximately 0.026 units, equivalent to an average annual pH change of -0.0017, over a large section of the northeastern Pacific. “The pH decrease is direct evidence for ocean acidification,” said Richard Feely. “These dramatic changes can be attributed, in most part, to anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean over a 15 year period.” (1) Pretty hefty words for a pH change of 0.0017 per year. Have you ever tried to measure pH? How do you get a value as low as 0.0017? What about the effects on corals and various species? “Experiments with seawater are flawed because they are done in laboratories removed from the ocean floor rocks, sedimentation from continents and flow of river waters into the oceans. It is these real processes that have kept the oceans alkaline for billions of years. Laboratory experiments have to provide results in a short time to be reported in scientific journals. Processes over geological time cannot be that easily replicated. Computer simulations that ignore observations and natural processes that have taken place over billions of years end up with a result unrelated to reality. Reality is written in rocks, not models based on incomplete information,” notes Ian Plimer. (6) Proof of this statement can be found in a recent Scientific American article by Marah Hardt and Carl Safina, “If small pH changes occurred gradually over tens of thousands of years, a species might evolve adaptations, for example, by retaining chance genetic mutations that result in greater production of buffer molecules. But species generally cannot adapt to changes occurring over mere hundreds of years or less. Similar changes produced in the lab over days to weeks are lethal.” (3) There it is; short time experiments are lethal. Lab experiments persist for weeks to months. Climate change occurs over decades and centuries. We have no way of predicting how species will adapt over long periods of time. There are many contrary peer reviewed papers challenging the claims about the impact of CO2 on the oceans. One survey highlights some one hundred and fifty such papers, most of them showing that we cannot possibly acidify the oceans. (1) Iris Hendriks of the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies recently analyzed data from a wide sample of research into how individual organisms respond to increased carbon dioxide in their seawater. She found that the range of responses was wide, with some seeming to prefer the lowered pH. She also found that the effects to be expected in the 21st century were, on average, comparatively modest. (4) Recent research published by Elisabetta Erba in Science says corals are
Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic
There seems to be some misunderstanding about my forwarding of Dini's piece. The intent was to illustrate that the ocean acidification issue has now been enjoined by those who have previously defended smoking and impugned anthropogenic climate change. However, unlike those latter issues, ocean acidificifation (lowering of pH) is a promise not a probability to cause harm; CO2 is an acid gas; more CO2 in a gas mixture guarantees that the pH of water in contact with that gas will decline by a very predictable amount (Henry's Law). Because of pH impacts, there are existing laws against lowering receiving water pH 0.2 units below ambient (these laws may ultimately prove to be too lenient for chronic, global ocean pH depression). With the cummulative CO2 emissions to date, globally we are half way to that threshold. That's a 26% increase in H+ ion concentration from pre-industrial levels so far, and twice that is projected to occur near midcentury under BAU. pH is a central controller of many ocean biogeochemical processes that are vital to earth habitability including greenhouse gas production/absorption. This in addition to the climate effects of CO2 make it extremely dangerous to assume that BAU CO2 emissions is not problem and can be ignored as Dini and his ilk suggest. The latter via well-funded and -aimed counter intelligence have temporarily succeeded in halting action on CO2 emissions reduction. Ultimately, reason will win, but unlike cigarette smoking, we do not have 50 years to eventually acknowledge evidence and impose restrictions on CO2. I can recommend Eric Pooley's The Climate Wars to anyone interested in the forces at play. But as the above argues, it's not just about climate, it's about CO2. OA effects need to be combined with climate effects to strengthen rationale for global CO2 emissions reductions. This would seem to be beyond IPCC's charter and hence current policy maker/political focus. This needs to change. Regards, Greg --- On Sat, 8/21/10, Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com wrote: From: Wil Burns williamcgbu...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] Digest for geoengineering@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, August 21, 2010, 8:19 PM I will leave it to experts on this list, e.g. Ken Caldeira to sort most aspects of this out if he wishes, but I think it should be pointed out that there's a hazard of accepting without question the works of Jack Dini, a shill for the Heartland Institute. For example, he says that the Erba et al. piece below shows no impacts of acidification on coral species; go read the piece, it says no such thing. Furthermore, here's the researchers' conclusions on the impacts of acidification on coccoliths during the Aptian Oceanic Anoxic Event: Shallow-water calcifiers also experienced a calcification crisis, which was most pronounced in the Atlantic and Tethys Oceans; it coincided with the “nannoconid crisis” and OAE1a, indicating that surface waters were loaded with excess CO2. Further, the conclusion of the piece: However, our data demonstrate that rising pCO2 and surface-ocean acidification during OAE1a triggered false extinctions (a so-called Lazarus effect) among calcareous nannoplankton. Conversely, a major origination episode starts approximately 1 My before global anoxia and persists through OAE1a and associated acidification (10). Increasing pCO2 triggered coccolith malformation and solicited production of r-strategist taxa,which secreted dwarf coccoliths as a strategy to overcome acidification. Now, I'm no scientist, but I think Dini has totally distorted the conclusions of this study. And as for Ian Plimer, here's a good critique of that thoroughly discredited book: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php And, finally, the Ambler citation is too a non-peer reviewed paper of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which is largely Lord Monckton's screeds hidden behind an institute. So, before I would characterize this as another gate, I might look at denialgate, including who is funding these guys stuff, and the fact that folks like Dini don't appear to be able to, or choose to, accurately summarize scientific research in peer-reviewed journals. wil On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 3:44 AM, geoengineering+nore...@googlegroups.com wrote: Today's Topic Summary Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics OA False Alarm: CO2 is just neutralizing the ocean [1 Update] Topic: OA False Alarm: CO2 is just neutralizing the ocean Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov Aug 20 10:54AM -0700 ^ What’s next – Acidgate? -Greg http://boss.hawaiireporter.com/ocean-acidification-is-a-misnomer/ Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer BY JACK DINI–A good way to excite people is to tell them that something is becoming more ‘acid,’ as ‘the oceans are undergoing
[geo] AEI's Lane discusses economics and politics of geoengineering
-- Forwarded Message From: EE Publishing, LLC eale...@eenews.net Sorry if rerun. - G Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:36:48 -0700 Subject: EETV -- Climate: AEI's Lane discusses economics and politics of geoengineering http://*www.*eenews.tv An EE Publishing Service OnPoint -- Tue., August 24, 2010 -- Go to www.*eenews.tv http://*www.*eenews.tv/2010/08/24/ An EETV Encore Presentation Originally aired: May 4, 2010 Climate: AEI's Lane discusses economics and politics of geoengineering http://*www.*eenews.tv/2010/08/24/ http://*www.*eenews.tv/2010/08/24/ Is geoengineering the future of the United States' climate policy? During today's OnPoint, Lee Lane, co-director of the geoengineering project at the American Enterprise Institute, explains the role geoengineering can play in the United States' efforts to reduce emissions. He discusses the economic and political challenges of geoengineering and compares it to other emissions reduction methods. watch video http://*www.*eenews.tv/2010/08/24/ read transcript http://*www.*eenews.tv/transcript/1159 -- 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
Why have any odd ducks? How about 1. SRM 2. CDR - distributed 3. CDR - centralized -or- 1. SRM 2. CDR - biological 3. CDR – chemical But then we are ignoring physical such as changing downwelling/thermohaline circulation(?) Not that this is necessarily a contender, but the point is why be exclusive at this early stage? I also think it’s unfortunate to have SRM and CDR, esp CDR-centralized under one umbrella. This will potentially dilute and confuse the different issues(?) -Greg On 1/3/11 9:31 AM, kcaldeira-gmail kcalde...@gmail.com 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, rongretlar...@comcast.net 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 ke...@ucalgary.ca 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 the various methods, their potential, risks and uncertainties. -D From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:35 AM To: em...@lewis-brown.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 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 It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would be an effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan the treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru in June. These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming. There really is not that much research going on because funding in this area is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs and offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about non-science. Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is startlingly high. We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has
[geo] House - BAU on GHG/Climate
BUDGET: Climate riders invite a midnight shutdown (04/08/2011) Evan Lehmann, EE reporter Urgent efforts to avert a government shutdown at midnight faltered yesterday over Republican initiatives to freeze climate rules, a challenge to the president's environmental priorities at the outset of his re-election bid. Controversial policy provisions meant to defund U.S. EPA's rulemaking for greenhouse gas emissions and abortion programs are the key obstacles to negotiating a government funding package through September, Senate Democrats and administration officials said yesterday. The numbers are basically there, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said of the $33 billion that Democrats are willing to cut over the next six months. The only thing holding up an agreement is ideology. Federal agencies are running on funding fumes, and the White House issued a stark warning to public employees that using BlackBerrys is forbidden during a shutdown. EPA officials, meanwhile, carved out a four-hour window for workers to rescue plants and other personal belongings from shuttered public buildings. It is illegal to volunteer, Jeffrey Zients of the White House Office of Management and Budget, who's overseeing shutdown plans, said of an estimated 800,000 public employees. If there is a shutdown, it would have very real effects on the services the American people rely on, as well as on the economy as a whole. Amendments to H.R. 1 included by the House AmendmentSponsor(s) Cutting $8.4 million from the U.S. EPA greenhouse gas registry.Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) A seven-month freeze on EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.Ted Poe (R-Texas), Joe Barton (R-Texas) and John Carter (R-Texas) The defunding of salaries for czars overseeing climate change and green jobs. Steve Scalise (R-La.) Striking funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate service.Ralph Hall (R-Texas) The removal of funding to support the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) Restricting funds to implement and enforce an EPA rule limiting mercury levels in cement.John Carter (R-Texas) A $10 million reduction in EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants that would defund sewer improvement work in Tijuana, Mexico.Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) Preventing funds to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board to consider or reject permits issued for outer continental shelf sources along the Arctic coast. Don Young (R-Alaska) Blocking EPA from instituting a waiver increasing the ethanol content in gasoline.John Sullivan (R-Okla.) Prohibiting funds for constructing ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) Stopping EPA from denying proposed and active mining permits at the Spruce Mine in West Virginia.David McKinley (R-W.Va.) Prohibiting EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from procedures that would delay the review of coal mining permits.Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) Preventing funds to maintain a limited access privilege program for fisheries under the South Atlantic, the mid-Atlantic, New England or the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.Walter Jones (R-N.C.) Striking support to study the Missouri River.Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) Preventing funds to allow EPA to enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards.Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) Preventing funds for EPA to monitor and enforce total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) Stopping efforts to eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone rule.Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) Blocking funds to implement the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study in California.Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) Striking $1.5 million for the Greening of the Capitol initiative.Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) Both political parties blamed the other for pushing agencies to the brink of closing. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) denied that the impasse is caused by the policy provisions on the environment and abortion. More cuts -- real spending cuts, he said -- are needed before Republicans can agree to a budget for the remaining fiscal year. But he made it clear that policy riders are also a key component to winning Republican consent. There is no agreement on a number, Boehner said yesterday at midday. There are a number of issues that are on the table. Any attempt to try to narrow this down to one or two just would not be accurate. But Democrats near the negotiations believe Boehner is publicly declaring that more cuts are needed to appease tea party adherents while diluting the focus on riders that many voters might view as extreme. I know exactly what's been going on in those negotiations, and the [dollar] number and what to cut is not standing in the way, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the No. 3 Democrat. Speaker Boehner doesn't want to sign off on
[geo] calling all CDRers
CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) Katie Howell, EE reporter Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, where it stalled in committee. But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (EENews PM, April 1). And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies, Simon said yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists. Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and permanently store it. This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation, Barrasso said in a statement. This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere without eliminating jobs in our communities. But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the committee would take up the CCS measures. -- 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] Meanwhile: Unrosy leadup to Durban
NEGOTIATIONS: When an agenda is not just an agenda (04/11/2011) Lisa Friedman, EE reporter Climate change negotiators returned from a round of talks in Bangkok this weekend with a list of items that nations will address this year leading up to a December summit in Durban, South Africa. But determining the one-page agenda came only in the eleventh hour of the talks, after three days of fighting between rich and poor countries that some said threatened to undermine the negotiations altogether. Wrapping up the week's discussions, U.S. Deputy Envoy Jonathan Pershing said he felt the atmosphere of the talks ended on a less rosy note than it began on. In the coming year, he said, U.S. officials hope to work past ideological arguments and focus on the actual work of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, monitoring mitigation progress and establishing a fund to help vulnerable nations avoid the worst impacts of global warming. The environment cannot afford for us to delay and wrangle, Pershing said. When negotiators meet again in Bonn, Germany, this June, he said, I hope we'll get back to work on substance. It might not be that easy. Developing nations insisted that the goal for Durban should be ensuring that industrialized nations commit to new and stronger targets for a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which begins in 2012. Many developing nation negotiators said they were frustrated that the future of Kyoto was not resolved last year and have no interest in working on other issues until Kyoto is enshrined for the future. We need a strong political commitment out of this meeting that the Kyoto Protocol will continue. We see no point in going off into spinoff groups to discuss technical issues without this commitment, said the lead negotiator for the African nation of Gambia, which this year is representing the small island developing states at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. But that is a nonstarter for many developed nations, which dislike Kyoto because it only requires industrialized countries to cut emissions. Japan already has announced it will not submit targets for a second commitment period, and several others insist they want to see a new agreement that also requires cuts from China and other major emerging economies. This year, they are pushing to put meat on the bones of the Cancun agreements devised in December and sidestep sticky political questions. The United States is not a party to Kyoto. But Obama administration officials have made clear the United States will never join Kyoto and will only consider a binding agreement that imposes equal legal obligations on all major emitting nations. It looks on the surface like it's petty bickering over a one-page agenda and something that would be pretty simple to solve, Remi Moncel, an associate at the World Resources Institute, said of the agenda fight. The reality is that underneath it's a reflection of deeper political disagreements. In the final hours, countries did emerge with an agenda that calls for discussions on all of those items. Moncel called it modest but real progress after Cancun and noted what he described as an intriguing parallel with the eleventh-hour congressional agreement that narrowly averted a government shutdown. When the clock ticks down, people move to a compromise, he said. Resolving the Kyoto question is a tricky one, as developing nations are loath to just get rid of the world's only climate change treaty in exchange for what would presumably be a voluntary list of national mitigation pledges. But few are taking bets on how the dispute might get resolved. In the meantime, the so-called technical issues -- particularly the creation of the Green Climate Fund -- do demand attention, activists say. The transition board to that fund, created last year to manage a significant portion of a $100 billion annual mobilization pledge from industrialized nations -- will meet April 28-29 in Bonn, Germany. Civil society groups from around the world have sent a lengthy set of recommendations to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change calling for nonprofit groups to have a seat at the table when funds are disbursed to help vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts and shift to lower-carbon economies. It also proposes environmental and social safeguards for government bodies to adhere to, like ensuring that indigenous communities are not forced off their land and compliance with labor standards. What this document shows is how many critical issues there are, and how civil society has strong experience and a lot to add to this process, said Ilana Solomon, a policy analyst with ActionAid International. -- 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
Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers
to tackle this problem. Some researchers are already investigating the problem. Scientists and engineers from organizations like chemicals giant BASF, glass and ceramics maker Corning, Columbia University and the University of Calgary in Canada are all investigating new technologies that would capture CO2 from the air. Their ideas are varied and at different stages of development. But most involve using some sort of material to react with CO2 in the atmosphere and form a stable solution or mineral. Other efforts to award monetary prizes for technology development have also emerged. Airline entrepreneur Richard Branson and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore launched the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007 to offer $25 million to the first demonstrated design to remove 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases per year from the atmosphere (Greenwire, Feb. 9, 2007). No one has yet claimed that prize. Barrasso introduced similar legislation last session. That bill, S. 2614, stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee. The new bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Bingaman chairs, and an aide said it could move as part of larger energy and climate legislation in the Senate. - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:16 Subject: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: A bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources on a significant scale using direct air capture technologies. The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of climate engineering. Of course, there is tremendous distance from a bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount of skepticism is in order. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) Katie Howell, EE reporter Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, where it stalled in committee. But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (EENews PM, April 1). And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies, Simon said yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists. Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and permanently store it. This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation, Barrasso said in a statement. This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere without eliminating jobs in our communities. But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the committee would take up the CCS measures. -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr
RE: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers
Thanks, Oliver. Very disappointing. Of course there are no commercially viable ways to consume 1GT of air CO2/yr, but let's at least find out what technologies come closest, give them some award for their efforts, and spur the RD community to evaluate and innovate further. If the goal is to find the perfect CDR method, Branson and the rest of us will be waiting for a very long time (to party). -Greg From: omeconom...@googlemail.com [omeconom...@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Morton [olivermor...@economist.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:48 PM To: Rau, Greg Cc: rongretlar...@comcast.net; kcaldeira-gmail; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers From Green Futures magazine, this week, by Alan Knight, who is the director of the Earth Challenge http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/Virgin_25million_fix With 2,600 submissions, why is no one top dog? Question: how can $25 million be too much money and also not enough at the same time? Answer: when it is a prize for a way to remove greenhouse gases from the air. This paradox has been instrumental in shaping the Virgin Earth Challengehttp://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/, right from its conception, to our present interest in looking at how we can add value to the wider debate around carbon negative proposals. The prize was launched on a cold February morning in 2007 by Sir Richard Branson, Al Gore, James Lovelock, Tim Flannery, Dr. James Hansen and Sir Crispin Tickell. Its official purpose was simple and clear: $25 million for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases. We know that $25 million would be a huge contribution to any group's work in this field. One scientist said to me that they suspected this sum exceeded the total spend on the relevant science to date. The amount is also too small. It is a crude but not unreasonable assumption that the amount of resources (be it trees or machines) required to take carbon out of the air will roughly parallel the resources that – intentionally or not – put the excess carbon into the air in the first place. Therefore, if the world was to sequester greenhouse gases on a scale that makes a material contribution to hitting our emissions targets, overall investments of several billions would probably be required. A key requirement for any prize-winner was a commercially viable way of taking carbon out of the air, and keeping it out. We asked: Could you really build it, and could you make money, or at least break even, from building it? But there are clearly other considerations too: the wider economic, environmental and social impacts must be clearly understood if a technology is to be properly governed. As the Royal Society has shown, some carbon sequestration technologies appear to come out safer than others, and naturally we will be using that type of thinking to influence the ideas we support. We do, however, feel that all new technologies in this field, and most other fields for that matter, must address their wider impacts if they are to one day work effectively at scale. This cannot be achieved without sufficient collaboration, understanding and communication between people with different points of view and different stakes. And when it comes to carbon-negative technologies, we feel businesses have a valid point of view and so need to take part in that dialogue. So how is the original prize doing? Well, it's time for an official announcement: Drumroll… …and the winner of the Virgin Earth Prize is, at the moment… …Nobody. Disappointing yes, but honest. ... [more at http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/Virgin_25million_fix] On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov wrote: Certainly all forms of CDR need to be solicited, but as in most things congressional (and executive for that matter), those that lobbied for the legislation are the ones that make or influence the rules. Knowing who and what was behind S 757 would go a long way in knowing what sort of an “umbrella” we are talking about. But it’s likely not too late to lobby the senators for a broader treatment or for riders or amendments that would make it so, on the remote chance that this goes any where. Speaking of prizes, what happened to the the Virgin Earth Challenge from which my CDR idea was unceremoniously rejected? I think I speak for all CDRer’s when I say I very much look forward to getting a party invitation from the person who wins that one (and supposedly saves the world). Perhaps Mr. Branson can cover the airfare and the carbon offset. -Greg ps as for 5) - seems very unlikely that anyone would submit something whose IP wasn’t already protected. How else could an idea be (safely) reviewed by the Board, unless a blizzard
[geo] Speaking of losing the Arctic...
SCIENCE: Vanishing ice allows storms to sharply erode Alaska's Arctic coast (04/18/2011) Lauren Morello, EE reporter Portions of the Arctic coast are eroding by more than 26 feet per year, a problem that is likely to worsen as climate change intensifies, according to a new study. The problem is most severe along the shores of the Laptev, East Siberian and Beaufort seas, concludes the State of the Arctic Coast 2010 report, compiled by more than 30 researchers in 10 countries. The analysis, which examined roughly a quarter of the Arctic's coastline, found the region's shores are eroding by an average of about 1.5 feet per year. A house perched on Alaska's Arctic coast became a victim of erosion. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. Driving the erosion is a potent cocktail of receding and thinning sea ice, warming seawater and stronger waves. As the extent of Arctic sea ice declines, it leaves more -- and warmer -- open water. Wind combines with that water to generate waves that batter the region's coasts. Without the icy barrier that has traditionally protected the Arctic's vulnerable permafrost, huge chunks of the coastline can disappear during a severe storm. A 2009 analysis by University of Colorado scientist Robert Anderson found that between Point Barrow and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska's northern coast is eroding by up to 100 feet per year. Several native settlements along Alaska's coast have made plans to move their communities inland to escape the erosion threat, despite steep costs. The new study notes that the erosion problem will intensify as climate change becomes more severe. The report was sponsored by the International Arctic Science Committee, the Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone project, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the International Permafrost Association. -- 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] New SRM risk/cost analysis
http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/17/aerosol-geoengineering-economics/ Science Sunday: “The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering” Is the aerosol strategy intergenerationally unethical? April 17, 2011 Joe Romm The Gist: Putting reflective aerosols high into the atmosphere to slow climate change is too risky and not cost effective. That’s Climate Central describing the core conclusions of the Climatic Change paper “The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering,” (full paper online here):http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~kzk10/Goes_et_al_geoengineering_cc_2009_submitted.pdf This study would seem to support the view that if you don’t do aggressive greenhouse mitigation starting now, you pretty much take aerosol geo-engineering off the table as a very limited (but still dubious) add-on strategy — as even geo-engineering experts like climatologist Ken Caldeira have made clear. What’s nice about this study is that it doesn’t just do an economic analysis, but also discusses intergenerational ethics. I’ll excerpt the study itself at length — after the full Climate Central summary: Summary: Some have argued that if human society cannot sufficiently reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, than we could still avoid the worst consequences of global warming by putting highly reflective particles, known as aerosols, high into the atmosphere. These aerosols would reflect light back to space, thus counteracting warming from greenhouse gases. The authors of this paper use an integrated assessment model to determine how costly such a method would be. The authors discuss the potential side effects of this so-called “geoengineering” strategy, since adding aerosols to the atmosphere could have unintended consequences, such as significantly altering weather patterns and damaging stratospheric ozone. Also, aerosols are short-lived, and would have to be continuously added to the atmosphere in order for this scheme to work. If society stopped injecting them, the result would be a rapid shift in the climate, something this paper argues would be highly damaging. The authors calculate that if there is greater than a 15 percent chance that such a method will be shut down, or if the unintended consequences of aerosols are greater than half a percent of the world’s economy, then this method of geoengineering is not worth the effort. And let’s not forget that the aerosol ’solution’ does nothing to stop the consequences of ocean acidification, which recent studies suggest will be devastating all by itself (see Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century”). Here is the conclusion to the study itself: First, aerosol geoengineering hinges on counterbalancing the forcing effects of greenhouse gas emissions (which decay over centuries) with the forcing effects of aerosol emissions (which decay within years). Aerosol geoengineering can hence lead to abrupt climate change if the aerosol forcing is not sustained. The possibility of an intermittent aerosol geoengineering forcing as well as negative impacts of the aerosol forcing itself may cause economic damages that far exceed the benefits. Aerosol geoengineering may hence pose more than just “minimal climate risks,” contrary to the claim of Wigley (2006). Second, substituting aerosol geoengineering for CO2 abatement fails an economic cost-benefit test in our model for arguably reasonable assumptions. In contrast, (and as shown in numerous previous studies) fast and sizeable cuts in CO2 emissions (far in excess of the currently implemented measures) pass a costbenefit test. Third, aerosol geoengineering constitutes a conscious temporal risk transfer that arguably violates the ethical objectives of intergenerational justice. Our analysis has barely scratched the surface and is silent on many important aspects. More than a decade ago, a Unites States National Academies of Science committee assessing geoengineering strategies concluded that “Engineering countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks” (COSEPUP, 1992). Today, we are still lacking this broad understanding. Caldeira made some similar points to me in a 2009 e-mail interview: Nobody has written about this that I know of, but …. If we keep emitting greenhouse gases with the intent of offsetting the global warming with ever increasing loadings of particles in the stratosphere, we will be heading to a planet with extremely high greenhouse gases and a thick stratospheric haze that we would need to main[tain] more-or-less indefinitely. This seems to be a dystopic world out of a science fiction story. First, we can assume the oceans have been heavily acidified with shellfish and corals largely a thing of the past. We can assume that ecosystems will be greatly affected by
[geo] Arctic melting; could raise sea 5 feet by 2100
Arctic melting faster, could raise sea 5 feet by 2100 STOCKHOLM (AP) — Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the average global sea level by as much as five feet this century, an authoritative new report suggests. The study by the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, is one of the most comprehensive updates on climate change in the Arctic, and builds on a similar assessment in 2005. The full report will be delivered to foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations next week, but an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday. It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in. One mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, which reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years, AMAP said. The report also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Oceanhttp://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Bodies+of+water/Arctic+Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years. Its assessment also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise — one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations. The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain. That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica. The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns, AMAP said in the executive summary. The organization's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic — the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland — on threats to the Arctic environment. The findings of its report — Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic — will be discussed by some of the scientists who helped compile it at a conference starting Wednesday in the Danish capital, Copenhagen. In the past few years, scientists have steadily improved ways of measuring the loss of ice into the oceans. In research reported in March in the journal Geophysical Research Lettershttp://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Geophysical+Research+Letters, U.S. and European scientists used two independent methods to corroborate their findings: the on-the-ground measurement of ice thickness and movements using GPS stations and other tools, and the measurement of ice mass through gravity readings from satellites. That team, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, projected that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would itself raise sea levels by about 6 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. Adding in other factors — expansion of the oceans from warming and runoff from other glaciers worldwide — would raise sea levels a total of some 13 inches (32 centimeters) by 2050, they said. They did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties. Currents, winds and other forces would make sea-level rise vary globally, but Bangladesh, Florida and other such low-lying areas and coastal cities worldwide would be hard hit. The AMAP report said melting glaciers and ice sheets worldwide have become the biggest contributor to sea level rise. Greenland's ice sheet alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) of sea-level rise observed annually between 2003 and 2008, AMAP said. It said the yearly mass loss from Greenland's ice sheet, which covers an area the size of Mexico, increased from 50 gigatons in 1995-2000 to more than 200 gigatons in 2004-2008. Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. AMAP projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions
[geo] CDR Senate hearing
May 5, 2011 - Committee Meeting Notice Senate Energy and Natural Resourceshttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=SSEG Thu, May 12, 2011 9:30 AM. Hearings to examine carbon capture and sequestration legislation, including S.699, to authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to demonstrate the commercial application of integrated systems for long-term geological storage of carbon dioxide, and S.757, to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources on a significant scale using direct air capture technologies. S. 699http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-699: Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program Amendments Act of 2011 S. 757http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-757: A bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute sources on a significant scale using direct air capture technologies -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report
Unclear on the statement “only Biochar ...provides rather than requires energy...” Unless I’m missing something biochar requires massive solar energy input, meaning massive land (and/or ocean?) area management, and probably water and nutrient management as well (additional energy requirements?). True, some useable stored solar energy could be syphoned off in the pyrolysis process, but partial energy recovery is also part of some abiotic CRD approaches (House et al 2007. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 8464–8470; Rau 2008. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 8935–8940). We need a forum (beyond this googlegroup) wherein CRD ideas can be openly solicited, clearly described, and fairly evaluated (at least on paper). Having national/international policies that would be supportive of such efforts wouldn’t hurt either. -Greg On 5/8/11 11:23 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Josh: I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report. Thanks for pointing that paragraph out. Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad nauseum - with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced by Solar Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being discussed. CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year climate benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new forestry carbon sink - I believe he is thinking much more of mitigation than of Geoengineering. To repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well with this new sink (and how to pay for either has not been established). I think this list would benefit from a discussion of whether planting a new 100GtC of forest is Geoenegineering. Ron - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report Ron, Note the following on p. 4: Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I would also be interested in learning more about the working group dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On May 7, 7:03 pm, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Prof. Robock (with ccs) 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a report ( Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene), where you are listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/... 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow co-authors (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. More specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between CDR and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest that Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a Mitigation measure (which I consider it to be) 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent just before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct parts (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can you explain why this discrepancy? 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has (for the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 gigatons carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I believe qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for Biochar. Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop... Ron (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that I include it all here) Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an
[geo] CDR: Fool's errand?
There is no doubt about the feasibility of air CO2 capture; Nature does 16 GT worth of net uptake each year. What also seems certain is that concentrating CO2 from air is the last thing you want to do, as fundamental thermodynamics predicts. Where was a discussion about existing and alternative air capture methods? How will this narrowly focused report now shape CDR policy - e.g. the Senate hearing this Thurs? -G May 9, 2011 Physicist Group’s Study Raises Doubts on Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF Over the last few years, some of world’s brightest minds have become fascinated with a seemingly simple idea: easing the threat of climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. The concept is entirely different from capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide from power plants and other big polluters before it enters the air. Rather, the aim would be to remove the gas from the planet’s ambient air, where it exists in low concentrations everywhere. In 2007 the British billionaire Richard Branson and Al Gore, the former vice president, created a $25 million prize for the first creator of such a technology, and millions of dollars in venture capital have since flowed to start-up companies tackling the problem. But a new study casts serious doubts on whether such efforts will ever yield an economically viable tool for fighting global warming. The study, released on Monday by the American Physical Society, the world’s largest group of physicists, finds that while removing carbon dioxide from ambient air is technically feasible, the cost is likely to remain prohibitively high. The report concluded it would cost at least $600 a ton to capture carbon dioxide from the air, compared with an estimated cost of about $80 a ton to capture the gas from a typical coal power plant. The most significant hurdle is the extremely low concentrations of carbon dioxide in air, compared with the stream from a coal-fired power plant or other large emitter, said Robert H. Socolow, a Princeton physicist and a co-chairman of the report. The flue gas from a coal plant is roughly 10 percent carbon dioxide, while carbon in the ambient air is around four-hundredths of a percentage point. “We have to deal with our centralized power sources first,” Mr. Socolow said. “This is not an assignment for the next few decades.” The conclusion was greeted with dismay by several leading scientists who have championed air capture as a climate change solution, however. Wallace S. Broecker, a professor of geology at Columbia University and a pioneering climate change researcher, said it was premature to write off the technology, which was still in its infancy. “It’s something that’s so promising, it’s a crime not to explore it,” he said. “The cost depends on how widely it’s implemented,” Dr. Broecker added. “The first computers cost a fortune, and now they cost almost nothing.” Developing a workable system to capture and sequester carbon emissions directly from power plants is far more pressing, said Michael Desmond, a chemist and senior internal consultant at BP who served as co-chairman of the report. “You’ve got to get your entire electric infrastructure decarbonized,” Mr. Desmond said. “It’s only there where air capture starts to make sense.” The development of carbon capture technology for power plants and other large emissions sources has made significant strides in recent years, and the federal stimulus package included billions of dollars for research and demonstration projects. But wide-scale deployment in the United States will almost certainly require the passage of federal climate legislation setting a price for carbon dioxide emissions; such legislation failed to clear the Senate last year and is unlikely to be revived anytime soon. Spending on carbon capture from ambient air, by contrast, has been far more modest, totaling just tens of millions of dollars. Kilimanjaro Energy, a California start-up and one of the leading developers of ambient air carbon-capture technology, for instance, has spent just over $11 million on research and development, said Nathaniel David, the firm’s president. The idea of capturing carbon in ambient air has found some bipartisan support in the Senate, where a bill to reward researchers who develop carbon-removal technology was reintroduced last month with a Republican sponsor. Klaus S. Lackner, a physicist and director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University’s Earth Institute who created the company’s technology, criticized the American Physical Society study as too narrowly focused, saying it had analyzed only outdated technology. Dr. Lackner said his design, which uses a plastic that absorbs carbon dioxide when dry and releases it to the air when wet, would eventually be capable of capturing the gas for far less than $600 a ton. “I can assure you that if I believed it would cost $600 a
[geo] Senate hearing
For those interested, archived webcast of Thurs Senate hearing on CCS and air capture here: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStreamHearing_id=bc9e9485-df04-5fb0-8621-ac3afa2b26a6 But perhaps I can save you the agony of watching. The continued economic unviability of CCS comes to the fore (despite billions of investment), and now more is being requested to indemnify projects. Air capture is finally mentioned for a few sentences at about 51:30 into the session. No air capture experts were present. Very depressing given what's at stake and what little progress on CO2 stabilization has been made (and will be made) on the present course. -Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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] Mineral Rain vs Biological Rain
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_role_of_bacteria_in_weather_events_999.html The role of bacteria in weather events A diverse range of particles are capable of serving as IN, but the most active naturally occurring IN are biological in origin, capable of catalyzing ice formations at temperatures near -2 degrees Celsius. The most well-studied biological IN is the plant pathogen Psuedomonas syringae. by Staff Writers New Orleans LA (SPX) May 27, 2011 Researchers have discovered a high concentration of bacteria in the center of hailstones, suggesting that airborne microorganisms may be responsible for that and other weather events. They report their findings at the 111th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. Bacteria have been found within the embryo, the first part of a hailstone to develop. The embryo is a snapshot of what was involved with the event that initiated growth of the hailstone, says Alexander Michaud of Montana State University in Bozeman, who presented the research. Michaud and his colleagues analyzed hailstones over 5 centimeters in diameter that were collected on the University campus after a storm in June 2010. The large hailstones were seperated into 4 layers and the meltwater from each layer was analyzed. The number of culturable bacteria was found to be highest in the inner cores of the hailstone. In order for precipitation to occur, a nucleating particle must be present to allow for aggregation of water molecules, says Michaud. There is growing evidence that these nuclei can be bacteria or other biological particles. Michaud's research is part of a growing field of study focusing on bioprecipitation, a concept where bacteria may initiate rainfall and other forms of precipitation including snow and hail. The formation of ice in clouds, which is necessary for snow and most rainfall events, requires ice nuclei (IN), particles that the ice crystals can grow around. Aerosols in clouds play key roles in the processes leading to precipitation due to their ability to serve as sites for ice nucleation. At temperatures warmer than -40 degrees Celsius ice formation is not spontaneous and requires an IN, says Brent Christner of Louisiana State University, also presenting at the meeting. A diverse range of particles are capable of serving as IN, but the most active naturally occurring IN are biological in origin, capable of catalyzing ice formations at temperatures near -2 degrees Celsius. The most well-studied biological IN is the plant pathogen Psuedomonas syringae. Ice nucleating strains of P. syringae possess a gene that encodes a protein in their outer membrane that binds water molecules in an ordered arrangement, providing a very efficient nucleating template that enhances ice crystal formation, says Christner. Aerosol-cloud simulation models imply that high concentrations of biological IN may influence the average concentration and size of ice crystals in clouds, horizontal cloud coverage in the free troposphere, precipitation levels at the ground and even insulation of the earth from solar radiation. Evidence for the distribution of biological IN in the atmosphere coupled with the warm temperatures at which they function as IN has implied that biological IN may play a role in the Earth's hydrological cycle and radiative balance, says Christner. On 5/26/11 9:53 PM, BHASKAR M V bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John Thanks, but the paper is about DMS. DMS is produced by algae growing in oceans. Bioprecipitation (biological rain) is due to bacteria (and algae and fungi) in the atmosphere. regards Bhaskar On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:14 PM, JohnDuke johnd...@johnduke.com wrote: See Charlson, Lovelock, Andreae, Warren 1987, paper attached (over 2000 citations). - Original Message - From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:09 AM Subject: [geo] Mineral Rain vs Biological Rain Hi All I thought that clouds only formed due to mineral actions and artificial rain by cloud seeding was done by using chemicals like silver iodide. A report on Bioprecipitation says that bacteria, diatoms and fungi too can cause clouds and rain. Can this lead to a biological SRM solution? Fertilize atmosphere over oceans with Diatoms and Nutrients and cause clouds to form and the residual diatoms and Nutrients fall into oceans with the rain and continue to bloom. http://www.livescience.com/14299-bacteria-create-rain-snow-hail.html Surprising Find: Live Bacteria Help Create Rain, Snow Hail Living bacteria that get whipped up into the sky may be just the spark needed for rain, snow and even hailstorms, research now finds. Alexander Michaud of Montana State University in Bozeman, Mont., found large amounts of bacteria at the centers of giant hailstones. Traditionally, researchers have thought that minerals or other particulates
Re: [geo] Bonn: CBD geoengineering workshop at the unfccc
Thanks, Emily. If the background statement (below) for the workshop is representative (of civil society views?), then GE might be useful when there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts. So the issue (apparently) is testing at some safe scale the hypothesis that GE benefits outweigh the costs and risks. Fair enough. This seems like something far removed from ETC's outright opposition of GE and its research, but fill me in. Unfortunately, I can't make the meeting (with lunch and cocktails, civil indeed!), but keep us posted on developments. Regards, Greg On 5/31/11 12:38 PM, Emily em...@lewis-brown.net wrote: dear geo group, two bits of info here: 1) civil society opposes geo eg. Geopiracy: the Case Against Geoengineering http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217. 2) there is a CBD workshop on geo in Bonn in June, following on from the moratorium. best wishes, Emily. If you are attending the UNFCCC June meetings I would like to invite you to join us for a mini-workshop on biodiversity and geo-engineering to be held the 10^th June at the Gustav Stresemann Institute (a short walk from the Maritim Hotel). Additional details on the mini-workshop are in the attached document. If you are able to join us please rsvp toannie.c...@cbd.int mailto:annie.c...@cbd.intas space is limited. Kind regards, Jaime PS I would appreciate it if you could also disseminate this invitation through your network. Ms. Jaime Alexandra Webbe Programme Officer - Dry and Sub-humid Lands and Biodiversity and Climate Change Convention on Biological Diversity jaime.we...@cbd.int mailto:jaime.we...@cbd.int 1-514-287-8718 ** *Mini-Workshop on Geo-engineering and Biodiversity* *Friday, 10 June, 2011: 10am - 3pm* *Gustav Stresemann Institute[1] #_ftn1 - Bonn, Germany* ** /Lunch and Cocktails will be served/ */Background/* Decision X/33 on biodiversity and climate change calls on Parties to ensure that no large scale climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, untilthere is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts. The same decision calls for additional work on the possible impacts of geo-engineering techniques on biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural considerations, as well as options on definitions of climate-related geo-engineering and gaps in science-based global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for climate-related geo-engineering. // */Themes/* The mini-workshop will discuss the following items: ·Definitions for geo-engineering, including consideration of carbon capture and storage;// ·Potential impacts of geo-engineering activities on biodiversity; and// ·Possible gaps and limitations in the global regulatory framework for geo-engineering.// // */Programme/* 10 am - 10:15 am Welcome and introductions 10:15 am - 11 am Presentation and discussion on definitions 11 am - 12:30 pm Presentation and discussion on potential impacts of geo-engineering activities on biodiversity 12:30 pm - 1:30 pm Lunch 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Presentation and discussion on the global regulatory framework for geo-engineering 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm Cocktails // The workshop will be convened by the CBD Secretariat thanks to the kind support of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Norway. ** *Please RSVP by Monday 6 June, 2011 to: annie.c...@cbd.int mailto:annie.c...@cbd.int* [1] #_ftnref See directions below -- 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] Skype-ing Conferences
What/which meetings? -G From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:21 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Skype-ing Conferences Hi Folks, The meetings being set up are exciting to see come about. If a Skype link could be incorporated, I believe we could see a significantly larger participation. I personally can not afford the travel yet would very much like to be there. This group is global and these types of conferences/meetings will grow in number. If a Skype like link could be offered by the organizers, the non funded members would have a better means to stay abreast. The UNEP Conference is offering internet participation for the selected experts. However, the proceedings should be opened to internet viewing by all interested parties on simple transparency grounds. There is no practical/technical reason why network viewing should not be made available to the general public. A side Google Group could be set up for those that are not invited experts but wish to make comments and/or discuss the issues being presented by the invited participants. as it happens. I am not any type of expert and thus would not qualify for direct involvement in the UNEP Conference, yet I would appreciate an opportunity to view the proceedings and express my views within a conference dedicated Google Group. This is a critical meeting which has far-reaching potential. An internet version of a spectator gallery would seem reasonable for such a potentially historic conference. Thanks, -- 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/-/b1ktWFMzMm1tRGtK. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Deep ocean disposal
Unclear how a discussion of methane and fracking got diverted to deep sea CO2 lakes, but if you are suggesting that CCS-captured CO2 be stored as pools in the deep ocean (discussed at some length in Ken’s IPCC chapter: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/.files-images/SRCCS-Chapter6.pdf), this seems unlikely to happen any time soon due the high cost of purifying and transporting the CO2. Even more costly if you are talking about this for air CO2: http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfilePageID=244407 Another option is CO2 emulsion: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/05/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20Paper%20206.pdf But If you are serious about abiotic, ocean C storage, it’s much easier, cheaper, and safer to convert point-source or air CO2 to ocean alkalinity and store in the water column where it might even help mitigate ocean acidification: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102671x http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366q No? -Greg On 6/3/11 8:26 AM, kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote: People have thought about liquid sealing layers before for CO2 lakes on the bottom of the ocean, and I think the problem is that nobody has come up with the right substance. It needs to be: 1. between the density of seawater and liquid CO2 which is a pretty narrow density range. 2. relatively unreactive so can remain in place thousands of years. 3. relatively impermeable to both seawater and CO2. The good news is that the sealant need not be that cheap if you can make the lakes deep enough. If a CO2-lake is, say, 100 m deep, even at $30/tonCO2, this is $3000 worth of CO2 per m2, so even if this seal cost $300 per m2, it would only add 10% to cost of disposal. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/ http://royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/ From memory ocean storage was pretty safe in theory. Co2 and water dissolve together to create a mixture more dense than either. The demo was pretty cool but I'm on my phone so I can't check if the video is still up. You can pester the lecturer for a YouTube video if you like What about earthquake, flood basalt, dissolution into subducting rock, etc? All a bit unstable and complex for my liking, those great lakes of co2 sitting down there. Plus, won't it turn marine snow into methane? A On 3 Jun 2011 12:52, Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk wrote: Andrew The deep ocean seal I am postulating is a liquid with low miscibility with both CO2 and sea water and a density between them. It should self heal if punctured but could have quite a high viscosity. Whether or not it will work depends only on current velocities. We need to know what these are wherever the depth exceeds 700 metres and then see if such a magic liquid exists. My guess is that it might work if the deep water velocity was below 5 cm per second but we can test for this in small tanks in the lab. I know that lots of places have velocities well above this but perhaps not all. Like I said we can be picky about the places we choose. Undisturbed ooze might be a good indicator. I would rather have a small but defined leakage than something we thought was perfect but which then suddenly failed, hence the need for self healing. Can you tell me any more about what was said at The Royal Society and which date it was? Did anyone mention liquid sealing layers? 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 tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704 Mobile 07795 203 195 tel:07795%20203%20195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 02/06/2011 20:37, Andrew Lockley wrote: It's not that simple. This issue was covered at the royal society. If reserves are deep enough, they will be kept stable by pressure. As long as they're not perturbed and don't diffuse into anything, you should be ok. If you're relying on pressure containment, then fracking is a problem. However, the pressure reservoir is unstable anyway so why use it. Use a deep saline aquifer instead. I don't trust deep ocean disposal as there's no seal. The ocean is too dynamic to mess with in this way. Doesn't pass the gut feel test. Maybe that's voodoo engineering, but it's served me pretty well. Only useful as an emergency option, but the storage isn't the hard bit, as I see it. A On 2 Jun 2011 20:18, Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com wrote: Michael writes in an earlier email that 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 know a little about CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then we've got a
[geo] A chance to stop 400 GT C addition to air?
As pointed our by Jim Hansen:http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdfthe US State Dept is soliciting comments on the Keystone pipeline that will bring 800,000 barrels Canadian tar sands oil to the US per day.Your voice can be heard at:http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/CommentFset?OpenFrameSetDeadline June 6.-Greg -- 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] NYT Geo opinion
NY Times June 10, 2011 Geo-Engineering Can Help Save the Planet By THOMAS E. LOVEJOY Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are pushing 400 parts per million (p.p.m.) — up from the natural pre-industrial level of 280 p.p.m. Emissions for last year were the highest ever. Rather than drift along until a calamity galvanizes the world, and especially the United States, into precipitous action, the time to act is now. The biology of the planet indicates we are already in a danger zone. The goal of limiting temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, as discussed at the Copenhagen and Cancun climate summits, is actually disastrous. As we push the planet’s average temperature increase beyond 0.75°C, coral reefs (upon which 5 percent of humanity depends) are in increasing trouble. The balance of the coniferous forests of western North America has been tipped in favor of wood-boring bark beetles; in many places 70 percent of the trees are dead. The Amazon — which suffered the two greatest droughts in recorded history in 2005 and 2010 — teeters close to tipping into dieback, in which the southern and eastern parts of the forest die and turn into savannah vegetation. Estimates of sea-level rise continue to climb. Even more disturbing, scientists have determined that, if we want to stop at a 2°C increase, global emissions have to peak in 2016. That seems impossible given current trends. Yet most people seem oblivious to the danger because of the lag time between reaching a greenhouse gas concentration level and the heat increase it will cause. So what to do? One possibility is “geo-engineering” that essentially takes an engineering approach to the planet’s climate system. An example would be to release sulfates in large quantity into the atmosphere or do other things that would reflect back some of the incoming solar radiation. There are serious flaws with most geo-engineering solutions because they treat the symptom (temperature) rather than the cause (elevated levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases). That means the moment the solution falters or stops, the planet goes right back into the ever-warmer thermal envelope. Such “solutions” also neglect the oceans because elevated CO2 makes them more acidic. Further, any unintended consequences of global scale geo-engineering by definition will be planetary in scale. It’s far better to address the cause of climate change by lowering concentrations of greenhouse gases to an acceptable level. That means going beyond reduction and elimination of emissions to things that can pull out some of the excess CO2. Fortunately, because living things are built of carbon, the biology of the planet is capable of just that. At the moment, roughly half the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from destruction and degradation of ecosystems over the past three centuries. A significant amount of CO2 can be withdrawn by ecosystem restoration on a planetary scale. That means reforestation, restoring degraded grasslands and pasturelands and practicing agriculture in ways that restore carbon to the soil. There are additional benefits: forests benefit watersheds, better grasslands provide better grazing and agricultural soils become more fertile. This must integrate with competing uses for land as the population grows, but fortunately it comes at a time of greater urbanization. The power of ecosystem restoration to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and avoid disruptive climate change is great but insufficient. We also need to use non-biological means to reduce atmospheric carbon. The barrier to the latter is simply cost, so a sensible move would be to initiate a crash program to find more economical ways. Some methods can build on natural processes that consume CO2, such as the weathering of rock and soil formation. Other methods could simply convert CO2 into an inert substance. For example, Vinod Khosla’s Calera experiment has demonstrated how to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by mixing it with seawater to produce cement. All of this must take place as we strive for a future with low carbon energy sources and lower carbon transportation. It is in our own self-interest to manage ourselves, the planet and its climate system in an integrated fashion. We can do so, and there are abundant economic possibilities in doing so, but the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. Thomas E. Lovejoy is professor of science and public policy at George Mason University and biodiversity chairman at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. -- 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] Climate dialogue's new dimension: Terrorism
June 9, 2011, Chronicle of Higher Education After Death Threats to Climate Researchers, Australian Universities Take Tough Protection Measures By Colin Woodard In Australia, the climate for climate-science researchers has deteriorated to an alarming state. At least a dozen university climate scientists have in recent months received messages threatening death or violence against themselves and, in some cases, their families. The threats–which came as Australian lawmakers prepared to debate imposing carbon taxes in an effort to discourage the emission of climate-altering greenhouse gases–appear considerably more serious than those against researchers at American universities, and Australian authorities have reacted accordingly. Scientists at several Australian universities have been moved to secure buildings after security personnel concluded the threats were credible enough to warrant heightened protection. Their names have been removed from telephone and online directories, as well as from signs outside their office doors. They reportedly can meet only students and visitors who have made appointments, shown photo identification to security guards on the premises, and been escorted through the building door to door. Australian National University takes the safety and well-being of staff very seriously, Vice Chancellor Ian Young said in a written statement, adding that climate research had become an emotive issue recently. It's completely intolerable that people be subjected to threats like this. The affected researchers work at four universities spread across the country: Canberra-based Australian National, the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, and the University of Queensland, in Brisbane. Faculty and administrators were reluctant to provide many details, and it is unclear if they believe the threats are being made as part of an orchestrated campaign or if they might come from a single source. A public-affairs officer at Australian National said the death threats there had occurred over the course of three years and had escalated in recent months. As a result, nine scientists were moved to a more secure location that requires card access. The added security, the officer continued, means students may have to plan ahead to make an appointment to see these researchers and general staff. Australian media accounts suggested these robust security measures had been taken recently, and that the threats had escalated in response to the continuing parliamentary debate on carbon taxes and a television advertisement in support of them featuring the Australian actress Cate Blanchett, which was broadcast last week. Online publications in the United States–including The Atlantic Wire and Grist–have framed the threats to researchers as coming in response to Ms. Blanchett's ad, which itself has been the subject of heated criticism from climate-change deniers in the Australian Parliament and punditocracy. But university sources say they took the actions earlier this year, long before the ad existed. 'Offensive and Abusive' One of the scientists who received death threats is David J. Karoly, a professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne and a lead author of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who has appeared regularly in the Australian media to convey the current scientific consensus on the issue. He says he started receiving an increased number of offensive and abusive e-mails following media appearances in connection with the release of the panel's 2007 report http://chronicle.com/article/Climate-Panel-Issues-Dark/22934/ , escalating to a death threat in the last 12 months. The intensity and volume of the threats appeared to him to be closely related to scientists like myself appearing on the media. My assessment, and the advice I have from the university, is that these are not imminent threats but were indications of increasing threats, and that they appear to be coming from multiple sources, not from an individual person or organization, Mr. Karoly said. The university has worked to improve security measures for not just myself but at least one researcher. He said he was not compelled to remain behind secure, locked access doors but that his colleague–who was not named for security reasons–was. A spokeswoman at the University of New South Wales didn't respond to questions about the threats but noted in a press release that scientists there had reported receiving abusive e-mails and phone calls, including threats of violence, sexual assault, or attacks on family members. A recent article in the university's magazine, Uniken, described the ridicule and vitriolic personal attacks heaped on one professor, Andrew J. Pitman, director of the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, as a result of his media appearances. I have a very, very thick skin, and the
[geo] Merchants of Doubt: The Briefing
EVENT REMINDER Conference Call: Merchants of Doubt The Union of Concerned Scientists is excited to announce a briefing on Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=72F58J_B5s5LVROUO9blkw.. . Join esteemed author Naomi Oreskes, recently named Climate Communicator of the Year (Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University), for a 40-minute presentation, followed by a questions-and-answers session. Dr. Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, will moderate. From the Merchants of Doubt http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=GArsKHyh0KdoZl4S41tX4Q.. site: “Historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.” RSVP for this presentation http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=cvfT3hS0tuj2xJJd2Hn9CA.. today. RSVP Today for Our Call Join Naomi Oreskes for a discussion about her book examining doubt in scientific knowledge and the people who spread it. Wednesday, June 15, 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT. http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=epOmuh5A3NBitQFi9hbxaQ.. Related Links Merchants of Doubt website http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=583jchYoef40QFLZwsUAhA.. The Limits of Doubt-Mongering http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=xDe0f8Kren2RVxms7zCWfA.. Tell A Colleague Please encourage your colleagues to sign up http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=2cH73t8guCGRIcXIZ4bR5w.. and help increase our effectiveness in creating a healthy environment and a safer world. CLICK HERE http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=j3zsfx7ElGhokWvP05MLiQ.. . Merchants of Doubt http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=hOvs1lbNalukBrrwcGQ_kg.. Wednesday, June 15 2:00 – 3:00 pm (EDT); 11:00 am – 12:00 pm (PDT) Presenter: Naomi Oreskes RSVP Today http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=BibvxBjvpr0x3Z2UP26UFQ.. Read more about “The Limits of Doubt-Mongering” in this piece http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=YVqTRKFD__gieR0UMQdWZw.. by Drs. Naomi Oreskes and Peter Frumhoff, who this past December met with reporters and producers from 60 minutes, MSNBC, Time, USA Today, and other top news organizations to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Jean Sideris Outreach Coordinator Climate and Energy Program Union of Concerned Scientists The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=XzPCnb6umBpf8rwN344d6A.. Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 phone: 800-666-8276 | Fax: 617-864-9405 sciencenetw...@ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=G8gXJUONAB9GLKBDbHbrbw.. To stop receiving emails from UCS about climate change, click here to update your interests http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=cb7ZL9_TApafAMyFkRXZYQ.. . About UCS http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=K8uUeKnysbThzJO7B1BeRQ.. | Take Action http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=sLrBNNQUQ6o_wG0UKPJE_g.. | Donate http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=GpuLPSkKqxTCqPDNSBZRJQ.. | Contact Us http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=JWfvos4sl025KH6MwRx6Kg.. | Privacy Policy http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=CuV2mBv8uzKU-GoQ2AP-rA.. | Unsubscribe http://action.ucsusa.org/site/CO?i=KcsaPs3y_4E5735q1_BfTklIdhT8DiMacid=1781 | Add UCS to Your Address Book http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=3s1ryDymvnkXqknNg0zc7A.. © Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved. http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=M4FoTHe9kggBbCTHtzyomg.. nonprofit software http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=3ct2Wnf4_aFgFmWSve4z-w.. -- 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] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
From the letter: The likelihood that geoengineering will provide a safe, lasting, democratic and peaceful solution to the climate crisis is non-existent. [please fill us in on the safer, longer lasting, more democratic, and peaceful solutions, and therefore why further evaluation of GE isn't needed.] Asking a group of geoengineering scientists if more research should be done on the topic is like asking a group of hungry bears if they would like honey. Their predictable answer should be viewed with skepticism. At the same time, independent organizations, which have devoted years of critical research to geoengineering, are not allowed to participate, even as observers. [ glad someone has been able to do years of critical research on GE. Please transparently provide results, as well as evaluations of the better, non-GE solutions] ...we urge the IPCC to ensure that a variety of civil society voices is heard, understood, and taken into account, particularly from the global South. This will provide much-needed common sense and a global perspective, as well as a counterpoint to the more prominent and extreme positions of some Northern scientists engaged in geoengineering research. [didn't realize that there is a north/south divide here. I thought global warming and ocean acidification were equal opportunity impactors. Any Southerners on the GE list? care to weigh in?] Interesting signatories* of this letter, including the African Biodiversity Network, Africa, international World Rainforest Movement, Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands, Island Sustainability Alliance CIS Inc (ISACI) Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS, Rainforest Rescue – Rettet den Regenwald, Germany, Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership, United States. Certainly we are all for biodiveristy, rainforests, Pacific islands, charity, etc. Why run the risk of losing them by not considering all of our options for preserving them? I've learned that effective political messaging requires 3 things: a victim, a villain, and an opportunity. While HOME et al. certainly have the first two covered, they offer no alternative opportunities for saving the world. That's truly dangerous. Let's keep all of our options open. -Greg * African Biodiversity Network, Africa, international ATALC – Amigos de la Tierra America Latina y Caribe, Latin America, international Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas -CAOI, Andean, international ETC group, international Friends of the Earth International Global Forest Coalition, International Global Justice Ecology Project, International GRAIN, International Land is Life, international network of indigenous communities and organizations Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, International International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), US / international OILWATCH Sudamérica, international Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), Africa, International RALLT, Red por una América Latina libre de Transgénicos, Latin America, international Red Latinoamericana contra los Monocultivos de Árboles (RECOMA), Latin America, international Redmanglar Internacional, Guatemala, international Temple of Understanding US / international Third World Network, international Via Campesina, International Peasant Movement, international World Future Council Foundation, international World Rainforest Movement / Mov. Mundial de Bosques, international Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc, Australia Acción Ecológica, Ecuador Acción por la Biodiversidad, Argentina ADEID, Action pour un Développement Équitable, Intégré et Durable, Cameroon African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa Alliance Sud, Switzerland Amigos da Terra, Brazil Amigu di Tera FoE Curaçao, Brazil APUNA, Andhra Pradesh United Nations Association, India Asociación ANDES, Cusco, Perú Bio WILD Foundation, Biodiversity and Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Development, INDIA Biofuelwatch, UK / US Casifop, México Ceccam, México Cenami, México Censat Agua Viva, Colombia Center for Cultural Interchange and Greenheart, USA Centre for Civil Society Environmental Justice Project, Durban, South Africa Centro Ecológico IPÉ, Brazil Centro Ecologista Renacer, Argentina Centro Fray Julián Garcés de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Comunitario, México CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra El Salvador COECOCEIBA-AT Costa Rica Colectivo COA, México Colectivo Voces Ecológicas COVEC, Panamá Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP), México Cook Islands Climate Action Network (CICAN), Rarotonga, Cook Islands Cooperativa por un Ambiente Biodiverso y Sustentable, CAMBIOS, S.C. de R.L.,México Corner House, UK Cuarto Menguante Aliento por la conservación A.C., México Dewan Adat Papua, New Guinea Dogwood Alliance – Asheville, NC, USA Ecological Society of the Philippines Ecologistas en Acción, Spain Ecomunidades, red ecologista autónoma de la
Re: [geo] Re: HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
'Geoengineering is not a public good but could be a giant international scandal with devastating consequences on the poor, said Diana Bronson, a researcher with the ETC Group, an international non-governmental organization.' What is ETC's answer to the devastating consequences to the poor if by other means we fail to mitigate climate change and ocean acidification? What are those other means, aren't they currently failing, and what is ETC offering as a better strategy? If one is concerned about the poor and the planet it would seem dangerous to prematurely reject any potential mitigation option until proven unsafe/unuseful. So what is ETC's real motivation, agenda, and clientele? -Greg EE News Climatewire Leaked geoengineering plans draw ire from opponents (06/16/2011) Scientists concerned about global warming are considering turning to some radical solutions they hope will allow them to geoengineer the Earth's climate, according to documents leaked from the United Nations. Potential plans include painting streets and roofs white, planting lighter-colored crops and shooting droplets of seawater into clouds, all in an attempt to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Other plans include placing massive iron filing deposits in the world's oceans and suppressing cirrus clouds. The leaked papers outline plans that a group of 60 scientists are planning to discuss and assess next week at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Lima, Peru. Far from being 100 percent confident in their plans, the scientists expressed concerns that they could have unforeseen and potentially permanent consequences. A group of 125 environmental, human rights and development groups sent a letter to IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri, outlining complaints that the IPCC had no authority to be considering geoengineering. A larger concern surrounding the IPCC meeting centers on who or what would regulate geoengineering. [Geoengineering] is not a scientific question, it is a political one. International peasant organizations, indigenous peoples and social movements have all expressed outright opposition to such measures as a false solution to the climate crisis, said the letter. Nations like the United States and Great Britain have supported geoengineering research with millions of dollars in research funding. That enthusiasm is not shared globally, though, and Catherine Redgwell, a professor of international law at University College London, asserted: A multilateral geoengineering treaty is not likely or desirable. The appetite for climate change law-making is low. Without regulation, geoengineering opponents fear that technologies like the ones outlined in the leaked papers could be pushed forward recklessly and without oversight. Geoengineering is not a public good but could be a giant international scandal with devastating consequences on the poor, said Diana Bronson, a researcher with the ETC Group, an international non-governmental organization (John Vidal, London Guardian, June 15). -- LN -- 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] Air capture prize gets thumbs up from the US CBO
Unlike the Virgin Earth Challenge, perhaps the US government might get serious about awarding an air capture prize, though for less money. May the best idea win (this time). -Greg http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill=s112-757type=cbo Jun 17, 2011 - Report Budget Report for S. 757: A bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of...http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill=s112-757type=cbo A new Congressional Budget Office Report is available: S. 757 would authorize appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide competitive financial awards to support the development of advanced technologies to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Because the bill also would reduce an existing authorization of appropriations for other activities, CBO estimates that implementing S. 757 would have no significant net impact on... -- 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] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
John, I would not put much credence in APS's $600/tonne CO2 figure. Since $0/tonne air capture now accounts for 50% uptake of emitted CO2 (15GT CO2/yr), it would seem to me that should be plenty of low cost ways of increasing this. If, on the otherhand, you choose to ignore these very effective natural processes and insist on reinventing the wheel as APS did, then certainly the sky is the limit re costs. However, applying air capture to the methane problem does involve very different (bio)chemistry than in the case of CO2, and I think is a much tougher nut to crack. If your $100/tonne CO2 is indeed the magic AC threshold, and you are interested in saving the ocean, may I humbly recommend: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es800366q Regards, Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Nissen [johnnissen2...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:50 AM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: rongretlar...@comcast.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Oliver Tickell; John Nissen Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Hi all, I've been concentrating on the Arctic methane threat for the past few weeks. The threat is extremely serious. But this talk of $600 per tonne of CO2 for air capture is another bombshell. That's $2200 per tonne of carbon! I had been assuming that we could take carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it in the ground for at most $100 per tonne of carbon. We could then pay for this out of a tax on carbon taken out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels. This tax could be ramped up to pay for increasing CO2 removal (CDR) until the CO2 level fell below 350 ppm. At $100 per tonne of carbon, this would be easily affordable - and the polluter would be paying for removing the pollution. And it could be done over 20 years, to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees (assuming we manage to deal with the Arctic methane threat) and reduce risks arising from ocean acidification (which remains an unknown quantity, so should NOT be ignored). But $2200 per tonne of carbon for direct air capture rules it out - we would need about half of world's GDP to get CO2 level below 350 ppm! So we have to find a cheaper way of doing it - which can be scaled up over about ten years to be removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we are putting in. Oliver Tickell has suggested that rock crushing could be a cheap way of removing CO2 which could be scaled up - if enough land area is available for spreading out the crushed rock. And Ron Larson has been considering whether biochar could be scale up enough - which would have benefits of soil improvement at low or even negative cost. So these approaches must be examined seriously. Judging by the State of the ocean report [1], we are going to need to get CO2 below 350 ppm rather quickly to avoid the deadly trio of global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia. To quote: In Brief: Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon perturbations (global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of oxygen; e.g. Veron, 2008). It is these three factors — the 'deadly trio' — which are present in the ocean today. In fact, the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is occurring faster than in the past 55 million years, and with the added man-made stressors of overfishing and pollution, undermining ocean resilience. I think we should aim for bringing CO2 below 350 ppm in 20 years rather than much later in the century. As Andrew aptly puts it: We'd do well to be far more precautionary, rather than hoping we know exactly how long it is before the train hits us. However, being precautionary involves considering all techniques at our disposal and then pulling out all the stops. That's what I'm proposing for dealing with the Arctic methane threat, and it should be the approach for dealing with ocean acidification - and the Amazon rainforest problem (not to be forgotten after the severe droughts in 2005 and 2010 started a die-off). Cheers, John [1] http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm --- On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: All this talk of limiting warming to such-and-such a rise just annoys me. We know far too little about carbon cycle feedbacks to be sure that we don't hit a tipping point. Maybe there just isn't a stable region at 3c? Maybe its 2c or 6c and nothing in between. We aren't even that certain of climate sensitivity, yet - and that's without all the tricky DMS, trop sulfur, cloud aerosol feedbacks and other nasties we barely understand The whole debate feels like playing with fire to me. Or like getting the
[geo] Sea Level
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161215.htm Researchers Link Fastest Sea-Level Rise in Two Millennia to Increasing Temperatures ScienceDaily (June 20, 2011) — An international research team including University of Pennsylvania scientists has shown that the rate of sea-level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years and that there is a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level. The research was conducted by members of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science in Penn's School of Arts and Science: Benjamin Horton, associate professor and director of the Sea Level Research Laboratory, and postdoctoral fellow Andrew Kemp, now at Yale University's Climate and Energy Institute. Their work will be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on June 20. Sea-level rise is a potentially disastrous outcome of climate change, as rising temperatures melt land-based ice and warm ocean waters, Horton said. Scenarios of future rise are dependent upon understanding the response of sea level to climate changes. Accurate estimates of past sea-level variability provide a context for such projections, Kemp said. In the new study, researchers provided the first continuous sea-level reconstruction for the past 2,000 years and compared variations in global temperature to changes in sea level during this time period. The team found that sea level was relatively stable from 200 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. During a warm climate period beginning in the 11th century known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly, sea level rose by about half a millimeter per year for 400 years. There was then a second period of stable sea level associated with a cooler period, known as the Little Ice Age, which persisted until the late 19th century. Since the late 19th century, however, sea level has risen by more than 2 millimeters per year on average, which is the steepest rate for more than 2,100 years. To reconstruct sea level, the research team used microfossils called foraminifera preserved in sediment cores from coastal salt marshes in North Carolina. The age of these cores was estimated using radiocarbon dating and several complementary techniques. To ensure the validity of their approach, the team members confirmed their reconstructions against tide-gauge measurements from North Carolina for the past 80 years and global tide-gauge records for the past 300 years. A second reconstruction from Massachusetts confirmed their findings. The records were also corrected for contributions to sea-level rise made by vertical land movements. The team's research shows that the reconstructed changes in sea level during the past millennium are consistent with past global temperatures and can be described using a model relating the rate of sea-level rise to global temperature. The data from the past help to calibrate our model and will improve sea-level rise projections under scenarios of future temperature rise, research team member Stefan Rahmstorf said. In addition to Horton and Kemp, the research was conducted by Jeffrey Donnelly of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Martin Vermeer of Finland's Aalto University School of Engineering in Finland and Rahmstorf of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Geological Survey, the Academy of Finland, the European Science Foundation through European Cooperation in Science and Technology and the University of Pennsylvania. -- 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] Friday lite - Global warming and wine: Bottoms up?
another reason we need GE. - Greg Global warming no friend of California wines: study By Emmett Berg SAN FRANCISCO | Fri Jul 1, 2011 6:03pm IST SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Global warming could make it more difficult for California's prized Napa Valley to make high quality wines over the next 30 years, but could improve grape-growing in Oregon, a study published on Thursday suggests. A research team led by Stanford University scientists examined four premium wine-growing counties in the West. Those were Santa Barbara County and the Napa Valley in California, Yamhill County in Oregon's Willamette Valley and Walla Walla County in Washington state's Columbia Valley. The scientists, whose study appeared in the journal Environmental Research Letters, applied climate models and historical weather data to predict how global warming would affect those fertile regions. They assumed a 23 percent increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases by 2040. That is a conservative scenario, amounting to a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in average global temperature, said study co-author Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Stanford University. In northern California's Napa Valley, one of the world's best wine-making regions and a key contributor to the state's $18.5 billion wine industry, the results of climate change could be dramatic. An uptick of 2 degrees Fahrenheit over 30 years could shift half the lands hospitable to pinot noir or cabernet sauvignon beyond the acceptable band of temperatures required for those high quality varieties, which is typically around 68 degrees, according to the study. We do see a shift in Napa, Diffenbaugh said. The hotter weather would reduce the quality of the grapes. Hotter weather also was predicted to reduce suitable grape-growing acreage in California's Santa Barbara County and the Columbia Valley in Washington. But warmer conditions would significantly increase opportunities for high-quality grape growing in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, where conditions at present are considered too cool for some premium wines, according to the study. Still, the researchers' forecast is no guarantee the Willamette Valley will become the next Napa. A lot more than temperature goes into making wine, Diffenbaugh said. But temperature is one consistent factor across the highest-quality wines. A 2006 climate study projected that as much as 81 percent of premium wine grape acreage in the United States could become unsuitable for some varietals by the end of the century. This latest study looks at effects of climate change on the wine industry over a shorter time frame, more in-line with what growers would use to make decisions, Diffenbaugh said. (Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis and Greg McCune) -- 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] Geo thoughts
Response to Daly's crtique (below) of geo-engineering - The very sad and unappreciated truth is that: a. If all emissions were shut off tomorrow, the sulfate would go away first and that would yield about a W/m2 forcing in first two weeks, perhaps diminished slightly by loss of organic aerosols (though these may be balanced by loss of black carbon). Then we’d lose several tenths of a W/m2 due to methane over a decade or two. But with thermal inertia and the remaining positive forcing, temperature would be pushed up to near 2 C (and dangerous is likely really about 0.5, not 2). And such an emissions shutoff cannot occur. b. If the global CO2 emissions could be held constant at the year 2000 level for century (so global emissions of about 6.5 GtC/yr) even as population rises, standard of living rises, and we tend toward coal and oil shale, and then go to zero CO2 emissions after that, we are at 550 ppm or so, and that warming (given end of SO2 emissions) is 3 C or so above preindustrial and clearly over reasonable limit. Doing this will be a real challenge, but not good enough. c. If we assume 8 billion average population for the century and 3 tonneC/yr per person, we reach 1000 ppm by 2100 and would likely be headed higher, and that is 6 C or so. What energy path does one choose that keeps world from going over 2 C, and maybe way over, and how would we suffer through those impacts? So, question is do we suffer or consider climate engineering. There is no question we must mitigate-the question is how much we must suffer. 7/2/11 1:08 PM, Kirk R. Smith krksm...@berkeley.edu krksm...@berkeley.htm http://steadystate.org/geo-engineering-or-cosmic-protectionism/ June 27, 2011, Daily News Geo-engineering or Cosmic Protectionism? by Herman Daly “We are capable of shutting off the sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend.” John Maynard Keynes, 1933 Frederic Bastiats classic satire, Petition of the Candlemakers Against the Sun, has been given new relevance. Written in 1845 in defense of free trade and against national protectionism in France, it can now be applied quite literally to the cosmic protectionists who want to protect the global fossil fuel-based growth economy against unfair competition from sunlight a free good. The free flow of solar radiation that powers life on earth should be diminished, suggest some, including American Enterprise Institutes S. Thernstrom (Washington Post 6/13/09, p. A15), because it threatens the growth of our candle-making economy that requires filling the atmosphere with heat-trapping gasses. The protectionist solution of partially turning off the sun (by albedo-increasing particulate pollution of the atmosphere) will indeed make thermal room for more carbon-burning candles. Although this will likely increase GDP and employment, it is attended by the inconvenient fact that all life is pre-adapted by millions of years of evolution to the existing flow of solar energy. Reducing that flow cancels these adaptations wholesale just as global warming cancels myriad existing adaptations to temperature. Artificially reducing our most basic and abundant source of low entropy (the solar flux) in order to more rapidly burn up our scarcer terrestrial source (fossil fuels), is contrary to the interests both of our species and of life in general. Add to that the fact that candles, and many other components of GDP, are at the margin increasingly unneeded and expensive, requiring aggressive advertising and Ponzi-style debt financing in order to be sold, and one must conclude that geo-engineering the world for more candles and less sunlight is an even worse idea than credit default swaps. Why then do some important and intelligent people advocate geo-engineering? As the lesser evil compared to absolutely catastrophic and imminent climate disaster, they say. If the American Enterprise Institute has now stopped offering scientists money to write papers disputing global warming, and in fact has come around to the view that climate change is bad, then why have they not advocated carbon taxes or cap-auction-trade limits? Because they think the technical geo-fix is cheap and will allow us to buy time and growth to better solve the problem in the future. One more double whiskey to help us get our courage up enough to really face our growth addiction! Probably we are irrevocably committed to serious climate change and will have to bear the costs, adapt, and hasten our transition to a steady state economy at a sustainable (smaller) scale. Panicky protectionist interventions by arrogant geo-engineers to save growth for one more round will just make things worse. At the earthly level I am no free trader, and neither was Keynes, but shutting off the sun and the stars to protect the fossil fuel economy is carrying
[geo] US House: Massive cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy RD
MO: fossils fuels continue to reign, mortgage the future, deal with the consequences later (i.e. with geo?) - G Appropriations Update. The House will finish debate on the Defense appropriations bill (H.R.2219 http://app.aaas-science.org/e/er.aspx?s=1906lid=4475elq=28614788d8694268b3bda78b55d3232a ) this week and then move on to the Energy and Water appropriations bill (H.R.2354 http://app.aaas-science.org/e/er.aspx?s=1906lid=4741elq=28614788d8694268b3bda78b55d3232a ). The Energy and Water appropriations bill as reported contains double-digit percentage cuts to a number of applied research energy programs, including a 27.3% cut to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. That would bring the total to $1.3 billion, less than half of the President's request. e.g.: “Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RDD.--Along with electric, fuel-cell, and natural gas vehicles, biofuels grown from non-food crops or algae are one of a small handful of means by which the nation can lower its dependence on imported oil in the long run. The Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RDD program develops and demonstrates technologies to convert biomass crops to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems RD, $32,695,000 below fiscal year 2011 and $190,500,000 below the budget request.” further details here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?dbname=cp112sid=cp112KY3r9refer=r_n=hr118.112item=sel=TOC_162574; -- 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] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so one cubic metre weighs about 3 tons. So 2000 billion tons will have a volume of about 700 billion cubic metres which is 700 cubic kilometres. If we opencast mine to a depth of 500 metres that requires a land area of 1400 square km, which is a circle of radius only about 20 kilometres. So a combined mining and processing facility only about 25 miles across could deal with the whole of the CO2 problem for good ! It would need a nuclear power station or two for the transport, crushing etc but the reaction is exothermic so it would be self sustaining once up to temperature. The calcium/ magnesium carbonate would be dumped int the same hole that the peridotite is taken out of, working in a circle round the central processor for 50 years. This back of an envelope calculation is produced for comment. I hope I haven't lost a few factors of 10 ! Could any chemical process engineer suggest how the actual processing plant might look. john gorman -- You received this message
Re: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
Using silicates as cation sources? I thought your process precipitated Ca and Mg from seawater, thus removing rather than generating alkalinity in seawater, but fill us in. -G On 7/11/11 11:58 AM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Dear Greg, Thanks! You say below: Longer electrolysis times and/or alternative electrolyte solutions might allow formation and precipitation of Ca or Mg carbonates. Such electrochemistry might ultimately provide a safe, efficient way to harness the planet’s: i) large, off-peak or off-grid renewable electricity potential, ii) abundant basic minerals, and iii) vast natural brine electrolytes for air CO2 mitigation and carbon-negative H2 production. That is precisely what we do with the Biorock® Process! Best wishes, Tom On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com ] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so
Re: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
And correct me if I am wrong, but since your process forces CaCO3 and alkalinity to be lost from seawater, the process is a net source rather than a net sink of atmospheric CO2: Ca(HCO3)2(aq) -- CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O. In contrast our process starts with seawater or brine and ends up with dissolved carbon and alkalinity concentrations that (so far) can be 8X those of ambient seawater, all of the added C coming from air. Imagine the consequences to atmos CO2 if a fraction of this this was performed on a small piece of the ocean. Meantime, both of us need to figure out how to avoid Cl2 formation if NaCl is the electrolyte. Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 12:30 PM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Sorry if this was not clear. We do NOT use silicates, but do all the rest. On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Using silicates as cation sources? I thought your process precipitated Ca and Mg from seawater, thus removing rather than generating alkalinity in seawater, but fill us in. -G On 7/11/11 11:58 AM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net x-msg://138/gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Dear Greg, Thanks! You say below: Longer electrolysis times and/or alternative electrolyte solutions might allow formation and precipitation of Ca or Mg carbonates. Such electrochemistry might ultimately provide a safe, efficient way to harness the planet’s: i) large, off-peak or off-grid renewable electricity potential, ii) abundant basic minerals, and iii) vast natural brine electrolytes for air CO2 mitigation and carbon-negative H2 production. That is precisely what we do with the Biorock® Process! Best wishes, Tom On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://138/andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov x-msg://138/r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://138/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://138/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://138/gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com ] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent
[geo] RE: Prescriptive statements in scientific papers
Thanks, Dave, for the careful read and perspectives. I too am somewhat confused by the demarcation that Ken refers to. Isn't the entire field of geoengineering prescriptive and hence not science by Ken's definition? How can the science body IPCC publish numerous prescriptive tomes on CO2 mitigation? Or does science = observations, models, and predictions, and engineering = responses/actions, and hence IPCC is a science + engineering body? I think for anyone to be forced to stay in a particular box is troubling. As a scientist I'm certainly going to speak up if I have prescriptive ideas, as should anyone else. What am I risking by doing this? -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave [dhawk...@nrdc.org] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:40 AM To: kcalde...@gmail.com Cc: John Nissen; em...@lewis-brown.net; geo-engineering grp; John Nissen Subject: [geo] Prescriptive statements in scientific papers Hi Ken, Your prescription that science papers should not include prescriptive statements raises interesting issues. While I agree that it is important to avoid confusion between science-based findings and statements based on values, it seems to me that it is possible to avoid this confusion in a single paper by careful writing that clearly separates the findings components of the paper from any value-infused implications that the authors draw from the findings. To me it seems an unnecessary obstacle to communication to require that values-based statements appear only in a separate publication than the paper containing the science-based findings. Regarding the Hansen paper, he would probably argue that as a technical matter his paper does not breach your rule though. Certainly, the following sentence from the abstract could be interpreted as a prescriptive statement: Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed. But it can also be read as a science-based statement; to wit, based on the paleo-climate information presented in the paper, the authors conclude that continued loadings from fossil fuel use are very likely to result in conditions that are outside the envelope of conditions prevalent during the rise of modern human civilizations. One can argue whether the authors have provided adequate support for this statement but that is different than calling it a policy prescription. In the body of the paper, the last page (pasted below) contains essentially all of the statements that veer into prescriptions. But on my inspection at least, the statements mostly boil down to the inclusion of terms that some (not me) might quarrel with: disastrous, devastating, not safe or appropriate, unwise, and disaster scenario. I would agree that appropriate and unwise are values-infused terms, as, arguably, is safe.. But disaster and devastating are just as easily understood as descriptive of the changes the authors argue are likely, based on the paleo-climate science discussed in the paper. In any event, the paper is an interesting illumination of the fuzzy nature of the line between science and prescriptive policy pronouncements. David excerpt from Hansen: Thus burning all or most fossil fuels guarantees tens of meters of sea level rise, as we have shown that the eventual sea level response is about 20 meters of sea level for each degree Celsius of global warming. We suggest that ice sheet disintegration will be a nonlinear process, spurred by an increasing forcing and by amplifying feedbacks, which is better characterized by a doubling time for the rate of mass disintegration, rather than a linear rate of mass change. If the doubling time is as short as a decade, multi-meter sea level rise could occur this century. Observations of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica are too brief for significant conclusions, but they are not inconsistent with a doubling time of a decade or less. The picture will become clearer as the measurement record lengthens. There are physical constraints and negative feedbacks that may limit nonlinear ice sheet mass loss. An ice sheet sitting primarily on land above sea level, such as most of Greenland, may be limited by the speed at which it can deliver ice to the ocean via outlet glaciers. But much of the West Antarctic ice sheet, resting on bedrock below sea level, is not so constrained. We recognize the negative feedback that comes into play as iceberg discharge reaches a rate that cools the regional ocean surface. But that negative feedback would be cold comfort. High latitude cooling and low latitude warming would drive more powerful mid-latitude cyclonic storms, including more frequent cases of hurricane force winds. Such storms, in combination with rising sea level, would be disastrous for many of the
[geo] Speaking of methane...
NY Times July 25, 2011 Blame for Extinction Spreads to Methane Gas By SINDYA N. BHANOO Two hundred million years ago, at the end of the Triassic period, a mass extinction, often attributed to major volcanic activity, wiped out half of all marine life on Earth. But new research published in the journal Science suggests that the extinction was more likely to have been caused by the release of at least 12,000 gigatons of methane from the seafloor into the atmosphere. Volcanic activity occurred over a period of 600,000 years at the end of the Triassic, while the extinction took place over a period of just 10,000 to 20,000 years, said Micha Ruhl, an earth scientist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and the study’s lead author. Dr. Ruhl and his colleagues studied carbon isotopes of sediments from the period and found that the extinction event coincided with the giant release of methane into the atmosphere. Volcanoes still played in a role in the process, Dr. Ruhl said. “There was a release of CO2 from volcanic eruptions that warmed up global temperatures and also the ocean,” he said. “Methane is only stable under certain temperatures. If it gets warm, it is released.” The study could be foreshadowing the effect of climate change on Earth, Dr. Ruhl said. An increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel use could warm up the planet enough to release methane from the ocean floors, he said. “Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so potentially that could result in a strong increase in temperature and climate change,” he said. -- 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] The melting Arctic: Another effect
SCIENCE: Climate change 'remobilizes' long-buried pollutants as Arctic ice melts (07/25/2011) Lauren Morello, EE reporter Warming in the Arctic is causing the release of toxic chemicals long trapped in the region's snow, ice, ocean and soil, according to a new study. Researchers from Canada, China and Norway say their work provides the first evidence that some persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are being remobilized into the Arctic atmosphere. Our results indicate that a wide range of POPs have been remobilized into the Arctic atmosphere over the past two decades as a result of climate change, confirming that Arctic warming could undermine global efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to these toxic chemicals, write the scientists, whose analysis was published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change. The Zeppelin Mountain Atmospheric Research Station in Norway's Arctic is picking up traces of old, long-lived pollutants as the ice melts down to release snow layers deposited years ago. Photo courtesy of Ove Hermansen. That's of concern because POPs can travel long distances on air currents, persist in food and water supplies, and accumulate in the body fat of humans and other animals. The pollutants also can be passed from mother to fetus and have been linked to serious health problems in humans and other animals. Co-author Hayley Hung, a scientist with Environment Canada's Air Quality Division who studies toxic organic pollutants in the Arctic, said that in recent years, researchers had posited that warmer conditions would liberate POPs stored in land, ice and ocean reservoirs back into the atmosphere. The chemicals are known to be semi-volatile, Hung said. They have the ability to evaporate out of storage -- if temperatures are warm enough. She and her colleagues began to suspect the phenomenon was already under way when they examined 20 years of air monitoring data collected at a high Arctic monitoring site, Zeppelin Mountain Air Monitoring Station in Norway's Svalbard archipelago. Toxic blasts from the past Beginning in the mid-2000s, scientists observed higher levels of certain POPs, including hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), at the Norwegian research station. That stood out, Hung said, because the chemicals' use has been restricted to the point where many POPs are no longer produced. As a result, the level of POPs in Arctic air had been decreasing. Stockpiles still exist, but these are limited sources, she said, and the sources are already known to us. So we were surprised to see concentrations actually coming up at the Svalbard station. The scientists then examined two decades of monitoring data from the Alert monitoring station in the Canadian province of Nunavut. They saw smaller, though still significant, increases in POPs at the second site. Hung believes the larger increase at the Svalbard site is caused by its proximity to ocean areas where sea ice has retreated. This is a sign to us that these chemicals are indeed evaporating out of the ocean, she said. Still, she noted that all POPs don't react the same way to warming. Hexachlorobenzene and PCBs, the chemicals detected in increasing amounts in Norway and Canada, evaporate more easily than many other POPs, and are harder to dissolve in water. That means they're more prone to re-enter the atmosphere after they're deposited on land or sea. Jordi Dach, a scientist at the Barcelona, Spain-based Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research, said the new study provided convincing evidence of the long-suspected movement of POPs from Arctic reservoirs into the atmosphere. The new study demonstrates that climate change can remobilize POPs stored in water, snow, ice and presumably soils -- and that this process is already occurring in the Arctic region, he wrote in an essay accompanying the new study. Eventually, Dachs said, atmospheric circulation patterns could carry the newly liberated POPs to other parts of the globe. Oldies, but not goodies The remobilization of pollutants generated by our grandparents -- pollutants that were banned decades ago -- are unwanted witnesses to our environmental past that now seem to be 'coming in from the cold, he said. Meanwhile, the new study suggests the effect will intensify in the future with continued climate change, based on computer models that attempt to project how rising temperatures would affect the Arctic's chemical reservoirs. That echoes a report released in February by the U.N. Environment Programme and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. For some POPs, climate change-induced enhancement of emissions may reduce the expected effectiveness of the Stockholm Convention -- the international treaty that bans use of several POPs -- resulting in releases decreasing less rapidly than targeted. That's a concern of Hung's, as well. The main purpose of this paper is to raise the
[geo] Know thy enemy...
What is most sobering, especially for the scientific community and climate change communicators, is that climate change denial has actually increased in the U.S. general public between 2001 and 2010, although primarily due to a significant increase in the past two years. Conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views. . differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. (!!-GR) CLIMATE: Conservative white males are biggest skeptics -- study (07/27/2011) Conservative white males are more likely than any other adult demographic to deny the existence of global warming, according to a new study conducted by researchers at two universities. In polling conducted by Gallup, researchers from Michigan State University and Oklahoma State University found that nearly 30 percent of conservative white males believed that the effects of global warming will never happen, while 7.4 percent of other adults held the same view. Close to 60 percent of conservative white males do not believe that global warming is caused by human behavior, a view shared by 31.5 percent of other adults. Conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views, the researchers wrote in their study. These differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Conservative white males were more than twice as likely as other adults to assert that the media had overstated the effects of global warming, and nearly 60 percent denied that a scientific consensus existed on the reality of global warming. The study was quick to point out that the lack of belief in global warming extended beyond one demographic. Denialism is sufficiently diffuse within the American public that it obviously cannot be attributed solely to conservative white males, the study says. What is most sobering, especially for the scientific community and climate change communicators, is that climate change denial has actually increased in the U.S. general public between 2001 and 2010, although primarily due to a significant increase in the past two years which may prove abnormal in the long run (David Malakoff, London Guardian, July 27). -- 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] CO2 mitigation via biomass-coal co-firing?
Thanks, Dave. Roger that. Full environmental cost/benefit accounting (and sustainability) for biomass is trickier than the current market euphoria would suggest. Abiotic carbon mitigation must also be considered, esp since this is the way nature will otherwise consume nearly all of our excess CO2. Meanwhile: BIOFUELS: Coal power plant in U.K. could become top renewable energy source (08/03/2011) The largest coal power plant in the United Kingdom could become the biggest source of renewable energy by burning more straw and other biomass, if government subsidies are increased. In the first half of this year, the Yorkshire-based Drax plant produced about 6 percent of the United Kingdom's total renewable power. Dorothy Thompson, chief executive of the power station, said Drax currently runs at 8 percent capacity but could achieve up to 50 percent with greater subsidies for biomass. The level of financial support is inadequate to burn biomass in very large quantities at current market rates, she said. By burning carbon-neutral bio-waste instead of coal, the Drax facility could have a smaller carbon footprint than gas-fired power stations. If offered government support, Thompson said, the plant could be delivering renewable energy to t2 million homes by 2020. Meanwhile, U.K. government ministers are looking to move away from coal and cut carbon dioxide emissions while avoiding potential power shortages. Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, said, Biomass is one of the cheapest ways of meeting our renewable energy targets, but the key issue is setting the level of support -- enough to deliver what is needed, but not too much, or that becomes an unnecessary price for the end-user to pay. Drax, which released its half-year financial report yesterday, was aided by a one-time £198 million ($323 million) tax credit. This will go a long way in converting the plant's coal-fired boilers to predominantly biomass generators. Huhne said the government will complete a review of its subsidy program by later this year (Fiona Harvey, London Guardian, Aug. 2). -- JP On 8/2/11 2:14 PM, Dave Hawkins dhawk...@nrdc.org wrote: Two points. In the carbon mitigation option supply curve there are lots of options that get minor to modest reductions at low costs per ton. But trying to use these techniques to achieve large reductions typically escalates the costs per ton, if large reductions are even technically achievable. So the biomass/CCS comparison by the RAND engineer is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Second, as my colleague Nathanael Greene points out, without lifecycle-based accounting criteria for biomass used for energy purposes, GHG emissions can increase for decades before the benefits of the substitution of fossil fuels become large enough to pay back the carbon debt produced by harvesting the carbon sequestered in biomass. The US (and other countries) are not off to a good start in developing sustainable accounting provisions for biomass use. Biomass producers waged political war against EPA's attempts to implement full life-cycle GHG accounting for biomass energy resources. Biomass use can be an important mitigation tool but it is important to do it right. The lesson to date is just because it is technically possible to do it right does not mean that it will be done right. That's a lesson to keep in mind for (other) geo-engineering concepts too. This is not an argument against geo-engineering; just a reminder that making a concept effective in the real world involves more than coming up with an effective technological approach. -Original Message- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:56 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] CO2 mitigation via biomass-coal co-firing? According to DOE's estimates, it would cost $94 per metric ton of carbon dioxide to abate carbon emissions using carbon capture technology in older, subcritical coal plants. In comparison, it could cost as little as $16 per metric ton to abate carbon if 5 percent of coal supply were replaced with locally sourced woody biomass. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Adding biomass to coal much less expensive than carbon capture -- study (08/02/2011) Tiffany Stecker, EE reporter Faced with increasing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, coal-burning power plants may be better off adding biomass to the energy mix rather than waiting for expensive carbon capture and storage technology, a study suggests. Shrinking greenhouse gas emissions with biomass from forestry waste, logging residues or commercially produced wood pellets costs a fraction of what carbon capture and storage technology abatement would, states a report from the RAND Corp. The report is the fourth in a series prepared for the Department of Energy on the technical aspects of using biomass. According to DOE's
[geo] Major BECCS study
http://ruralclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/document_cw_01-2.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Siberia melting
Russia may lose 30% of permafrost by 2050(AFP) – Jul 29, 2011 MOSCOW — Russia's vast permafrost areas may shrink by a third by the middle of the century due to global warming, endangering infrastructure in the Arctic zone, an emergencies ministry official said Friday.In the next 25 to 30 years, the area of permafrost in Russia may shrink by 10-18 percent, the head of the ministry's disaster monitoring department Andrei Bolov told the RIA Novosti news agency.By the middle of the century, it can shrink by 15-30 percent, and the boundary of the permafrost may shift to the north-east by 150-200 kilometres, he said.The temperature of the zones of frozen soil in oil and gas-rich western Siberia territories will rise by up to two degrees Celsius to just three or four degrees below zero, he predicted.Permafrost, or soil that is permanently frozen, covers about 63 percent of Russia, but has been greatly affected by climate change in recent decades.Continued thawing of permafrost threatens to destabilise transportation, building, and energy extraction infrastructure in Russia's colder regions.The negative impact of permafrost degradation on all above-ground transportation infrastructure is clear, Bolov added.Scientists have said that permafrost thawing will set off another problem because the process will release massive amounts of greenhouse gas methane currently trapped in the frozen soil. -- 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] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program
Good luck -G __ Science And The Debt Deal Politics: Compromise includes cuts that will hit science agencies over the next decade Susan R. Morrissey, Glenn Hess and Raj Mukhopadhyay Legislation signed by President Barack Obama this week to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default on government loans presents a mixed bag for science. The deal includes more than $900 billion in cuts over the next decade to federal discretionary funds—money that includes support for science agencies. In terms of an immediate impact, the Budget Control Act of 2011 sets the discretionary spending limit for fiscal 2012 at $1.04 trillion. This is the amount of money Congress can dole out to agencies for the next fiscal year. It is actually $24 million above the amount the House of Representatives set for its 2012 spending limit. Having this essentially flat cap on spending in place provides agencies with some certainty that there will not be huge across-the-board cuts in 2012, a White House official says. As a result, agencies can begin making preliminary spending decisions for 2012. Business leaders also appreciate the certainty the measure provides. Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, says the agreement, “while far from perfect, ... begins the process of getting America’s fiscal house in order and was necessary to avoid a default that would have resulted in an economic catastrophe.” But all federal agencies will face cuts over the long term. Congress will need to make tough spending decisions to comply with the legislation. The impact on science funding remains unclear. “Everything is subject to being cut,” noted Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) at a press briefing last week. A bipartisan, bicameral “supercommittee,” said Whitfield, chairman of a House Energy Commerce subcommittee, will closely scrutinize all federal spending. As Congress irons out the details, the science community will be watching closely. “Budgets for fiscal 2012 and future years will be impacted by mandated reductions in the debt-ceiling deal,” notes Glenn S. Ruskin, director of the Office of Public Affairs at the American Chemical Society. “But how those reductions will be spread out over the agencies is not at all clear right now. ACS will continue to advocate on behalf of predictable and sustained funding for key RD agencies.” Chemical Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:37 PM To: Stuart Strand Cc: xbenf...@gmail.com; mmacc...@comcast.net; Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] My AGU abstract: We Don¹t Need a ³Geoengineering² Research Program If something is not now in the mission of an agency, Congress can cause it to be in the mission. DOE managed to find the Human Genome Project within their domain even though it didn't fit with their energy mission: http://genomics.energy.gov/ If Congress allocates money to an agency to do something, most agencies will take the money and do it. Congress decides what agencies do, not the agencies themselves (although agencies can influence congressional decisions). ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edumailto:sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote: The problem is that geoengineering doesn't really fit with the missions of any of the national scientific funding agencies as far as I can tell. As an example, when I talked to the Department of Energy about ways to remove methane and nitrous oxide from the atmosphere they said that it wasn't in their mission because those gases did not relate to energy production. Although this argument was flawed in addition to being somewhat boneheaded, you hear this type of thinking a lot when you bring new ideas to old agencies. There are gaps between disciplines and missions and they can be quite large. A geoengineering program need not be a monolithic program but instead could be a cooperation between agencies along the lines of NIEHS Superfund or SERDP. = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014, Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98105 voice 206-543-5350tel:206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996tel:206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent:
RE: [geo] Major BECCS study
Will do. All interested in bio air capture need to be aware of this study: http://ruralclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/document_cw_01-2.pdf Your pithy analysis invited. Contact me at r...@llnl.gov if you have trouble with the link - G From: Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 7:36 PM To: Rau, Greg Subject: Re: [geo] Major BECCS study Please can you add text to your posts in future? Offline readers can't view links, and they are also more likely to be caught in spam filters Thanks A On 5 Aug 2011 10:29, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov wrote: http://ruralclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/document_cw_01-2.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto: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] Important paper on potential CDR / SRM interactions
With all due respect to Martin, I'm very sceptical the iron fueled marine biology was a major player in G-I air CO2 fluctuations, but at $32/reprint, can anyone freely supply me with the evidence? Thanks, Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 7:20 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Important paper on potential CDR / SRM interactions Hi Please see below abstract of http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10310.html, which suggests reduced precip and increased Aeolian dust as the main amplification mechanism for the Milankovitch cycle. If correct, this relationship suggests that there could be a potentially powerful carbon cycle amplification of SRM. This results from changes to precip in the hydro cycle causing desiccation, and subsequent increases in the Fe-containing aelion dust fluxes to the Southern Ocean. This ultimately may lead to a flux of CO2 from atmosphere as NPP increases and drives a subsequent increased flux of marine snow. A Southern Ocean dust–climate coupling over the past four million years · Alfredo Martínez-Garcia, et al Nature (2011) doi:10.1038/nature10310 Dust has the potential to modify global climate by influencing the radiative balance of the atmosphere and by supplying iron and other essential limiting micronutrients to the ocean1, 2. Indeed, dust supply to the Southern Ocean increases during ice ages, and ‘iron fertilization’ of the subantarctic zone may have contributed up to 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) of the decrease (80–100 p.p.m.v.) in atmospheric carbon dioxide observed during late Pleistocene glacial cycles3, 4, 5, 6, 7. So far, however, the magnitude of Southern Ocean dust deposition in earlier times and its role in the development and evolution of Pleistocene glacial cycles have remained unclear. Here we report a high-resolution record of dust and iron supply to the Southern Ocean over the past four million years, derived from the analysis of marine sediments from ODP Site 1090, located in the Atlantic sector of the subantarctic zone. The close correspondence of our dust and iron deposition records with Antarctic ice core reconstructions of dust flux covering the past 800,000 years (refs 8, 9) indicates that both of these archives record large-scale deposition changes that should apply to most of the Southern Ocean, validating previous interpretations of the ice core data. The extension of the record beyond the interval covered by the Antarctic ice cores reveals that, in contrast to the relatively gradual intensification of glacial cycles over the past three million years, Southern Ocean dust and iron flux rose sharply at the Mid-Pleistocene climatic transition around 1.25 million years ago. This finding complements previous observations over late Pleistocene glacial cycles5, 8, 9, providing new evidence of a tight connection between high dust input to the Southern Ocean and the emergence of the deep glaciations that characterize the past one million years of Earth history. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Polar Ice: Death throes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/polar-sea-ice-may-expand_n_935279.html?view=printcomm_ref=false Polar Sea Ice May Expand Before It Disappears Posted: 8/25/11 05:44 PM ET React Arctic sea ice is melting, but don't say goodbye just yet. A new study reveals that it may temporarily stop melting--or even expand--during the next several decades. Scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that the melting Arctic sea ice may see periods of stability and growth as it disappears. According to Jennifer Kay, the study's lead author, atmospheric conditions, like wind patterns, will vary enough in the coming decades to slow the rate of melting for up to 10 year periods. The good news comes in the wake of last month's observation that Arctic sea ice levels were the lowest for any July since 1979. But Kay told the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) that these trends would not be permanent. “when you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer, she said. Kay's team found that “sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues. According to CBS News summertime ice in the Arctic has shrunk by about a third since 1979. About half of the sea ice loss in recent years can be blamed on human activity, the study found. The research, which was published earlier this month in Geophysical Research Letters, suggests that Arctic ice will completely disappear by summer 2060. Josefino Comiso, a senior cryospheric scientist with NASA, explained that increased melting creates a repetitive cycle. If the area becomes warmer that means that the ice doesn't have as much time to grow. And in the process it's generally thinner every year than the previous year, and if it's thinner then it's more vulnerable to melt in the following summer, he told CBS News. NCAR researcher Marika Holland recently told NPR that no one is exactly certain when the Arctic will see ice-free summers. She said her generation may live to see summers without any Arctic sea ice. But she said if “we don't live to see it, our children will. NPR explains that future sea ice levels are hard to predict because the ice “is at the mercy of currents, cloud patterns and a host of other variables that change naturally from year to year.” Earlier this month, the International Business Times reported that MIT researchers are concerned with the United Nations' most recent climate report. The MIT team claims that the 2007 UN report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, may “substantially underestimate” the rate at which the Arctic sea ice is melting. They argue that the ice may be thinning up to four times faster than previously predicted. Scientists also found that melting Arctic ice may release trapped organic pollutants which are harmful to humans. Despite these and other studies on climate change and receding polar ice, some U.S. political leaders remain skeptical. -- 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] Deep Heat
Deep Oceans May Mask Global Warming for Years at a Time Earth's deep oceans may absorb enough heat at times to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade--even in the midst of longer-term warming. This according to a new analysis led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet as the main location of the missing heat during periods such as the past decade when global air ... More at http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121699WT.mc_id=USNSF_51WT.mc_ev=click -- 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] abiotic air capture test
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/print/2011/09/21/10 GEOENGINEERING: Testing begins on device that captures CO2 from the air Published: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 A machine designed to suck carbon dioxide out of the air has taken shape on the University of Calgary campus in Alberta. The technology is not new, but for engineer David Keith and the venture capitalists who backed the project, the aim is to see whether this particular carbon extraction device can operate affordably on a large scale. There were commercial processes that took CO2 out of the air, in fact, in the 1950s, so there's no mystery that we can do it, said Keith, a professor of public policy and applied physics at Harvard University. So our interest is in building full-scale commercial systems that would take tens of thousands of tons -- or more -- of CO2 out of the air. Outside academia, Keith leads a startup company called Carbon Engineering, which is based on the University of Calgary campus. Some of Keith's colleagues have criticized his efforts to take CO2 out of the air, while he insists it's just a matter of the right engineering. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and a Canadian billionaire agree, and have donated $6 million to test out Keith's ideas. If the project succeeds, it could help mitigate the effects of climate change. It provides a route to manage emissions from transportation, he says. Transportation needs high-energy fuels, like hydrocarbons. It's very hard to replace those with batteries, and in some instances, like airplanes, you just can't. The machine works by drawing air into a 31-foot-long chamber filled with wavy plastic. Water laced with sodium hydroxide pours over the plastic, reacting with C02 to pull it out of the air. Once the machine is operating reliably, Keith will look at ways to sequester the gas. Even if this prototype is taken to scale, Keith acknowledges it won't be enough to affect the global climate. I don't believe any one [technology] is the silver bullet, he said. But I do believe we need to have a larger set of potential solutions to deal with the climate problem (Richard Harris, NPR, Sept. 19). -- JP -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Speaking of mineral carbonation, check out: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1530-9290.2011.00368.x/abstract ;jsessionid=15DD453CB61D6B1B218D916F13507A2E.d01t01 -Greg On 9/23/11 4:40 AM, Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org wrote: Monbiot's real mistake here is to swallow the conclusion of the Royal Society report on the subject, whole and undigested, without critical scrutiny or attention to other sources of information - in particular as regards the weathering of magnesium silicate (not enough Ca silicate to bother with): Monbiot reports: Dumping lime or calcium or magnesium silicates into the sea, where they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly safe. Effective. Expensive. Has the advantage of potentially reversing ocean acidification, but the amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up rock is likely to be prohibitive. A) where does he get the idea that it's about dumping it in the sea? It is about spreading the rock powder on land, and in intertidal zones. B) So it's fairly safe. Why only fairly? This is just to accelerate a natural process that is going on all the time anyway. C) Expensive - how much? People who have done the sums conservatively estimate $10-15 per tCO2. Making it one of the cheapest options around. D) It will only potentially reverse ocean acidification. Well, insofar as the science of chemistry potentially applies. He seems to be implying that maybe chemistry is potentially all wrong. George, tell us more! D) The amount of quarry is likely to be prohibitive - is it? Has he done the sums? Has he asked anyone who has done the sums? Or is this just his uniformed guess? For a start there are Gt of already mined rock that can be used, in mine tailings around the world. From then on, roughly 1t of rock sequesters 1t of CO2. So you need to mine an amount of rock comparable to the amount of fossil fuel we are burning. If it's not prohibitive to mine the coal, why's it prohibitive to mine the rock? Oliver Tickell. -- 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] New green, abiotic CO2 capture
Strong and Reversible Binding of Carbon Dioxide in a Green Metal-Organic Framework http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja206525x The efficient capture and storage of gaseous CO2 is a pressing environmental problem. Although porous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have been shown to be very effective at adsorbing CO2 selectively by dint of dipole-quadruple interactions and/or ligation to open metal sites, the gas is not usually trapped covalently. Furthermore, the vast majority of these MOFs are fabricated from nonrenewable materials, often in the presence of harmful solvents, most of which are derived from petrochemical sources. Herein we report the highly selective adsorption of CO2 by CD-MOF-2, a recently described green MOF consisting of the renewable cyclic oligosaccharide γ-cyclodextrin and RbOH, by what is believed to be reversible carbon fixation involving carbonate formation and decomposition at room temperature. The process was monitored by solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy as well as colorimetrically after a pH indicator was incorporated into CD-MOF-2 to signal the formation of carbonic acid functions within the nanoporous extended framework. Still the problem of what to do with CO2 once captured. - G -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
There is a delay if air capture is the objective - limestone dissolution takes place in the subsurface waters and alkalinity is generated, which can effect air capture only when upwelling finally brings it in contact with air. Gas diffusion rate and CO2 dissolution rate will then also affect the air capture rate. Alternatively, I'm suggesting let's use limestone, silicates, or some other cheap base to mop up some of the excess CO2 naturally present in surface/subsurface upwelling water before it degasses, thus reducing ocean CO2 emission to the atmosphere. This at least avoids the air--ocean CO2 uptake rate limitations. It would seem easier/faster to chemically mop up excess CO2 in solution prior to degassing (ocean CO2 emissions reduction) than to chemically enhance CO2 transfer from gas to liquid (air capture). A detailed comparison of the two concepts re air CO2 stabilization under realistic ocean physics and starting chemistry would be an interesting paper. For starters, assuming an air pCO2 of 390 uatms and upwelling ocean pCO2 of 450 uatms, one would need to chemically drive ocean pCO2 to below 390 before net air capture is effected. In contrast one has to only chemically reduce ocean pCO2 to below 450 to reduce some ocean CO2 emissions (over natural) and to 390 to have zero net CO2 emissions from that ocean parcel. -G On 9/26/11 9:25 AM, Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org wrote: Actually this option does not look too bad on first sight - low cost, low tech, so that's a good start, and the chemistry looks right too. Biggest problem is the delay of approx 100y before the results come through, if I read the paper right. That's a long time for us to have to wait. Also if we change our minds, its a long lead time for reversal. Go for Mg silicate weathering on land / intertidal zones, and the CO2 drawdown is immediate, operating on a decadal time scale. Re the kinetics of Mg silicate, they are unfavourable if carried out in a chemistry lab. Carried out in nature and enhanced by activity of fungi, bacteria, roots, digestive systems of worms and higher animals, etc, it's a great deal faster - the biospheric enhancement factor speeds it up by several orders of magnitude. Oliver. On Sep 26, 4:09 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: And to round out the options, let¹s not forget Harvey¹s limestone-rain-in-the-ocean method:http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/harvey_08_co2_mitigation. .. While billed as (eventual) air capture, I view this as ocean CO2 capture bomb upwelling areas with limestone to consume the excess CO2(aq) prior to degassing to air. Don¹t forget that the ocean emits in gross 300 GT CO2/yr. If we can cut that by 1% it would have a huge effect on air CO2. No? Humbly, Greg -- 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] GE: Hand-wringing down under
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/engineering-the-eart h-forums-big-ideas/2303296.aspx?storypage=0 Engineering the Earth: forum's big ideas BY BREANNA TUCKER 26 Sep, 2011 12:00 AM Shading the Earth under a giant umbrella, painting roofs white and simulating volcanic eruptions have been proposed as the latest solutions to climate change. The seemingly wacky set of ideas will be explored by more than 65 scientists today as Canberra hosts a forum on the controversial field of geoengineering. This comparatively new area of science recognises that human attempts to reduce carbon emissions will not be enough to combat climate change alone. Instead, scientists believe they may need to fiddle with the Earth's physical and chemical make-up to cool the planet and absorb more carbon dioxide. The only problem is that all the ideas scientists have come up with so far run the risk of creating dangerous side effects, ranging from overwhelming cancer rates to ocean acidification. University of Melbourne Earth sciences professor David Karoly said geoengineering had been debated across the US and Britain but this week's Geoengineering the Climate symposium was the first time the issue would be comprehensively debated in the southern hemisphere. ''The key thing to remember is that these strategies are designed to compliment, or work in parallel, to our attempts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and creating greenhouse gases,'' he said. Topics for the week are split into two key strategies: to reverse global warming by cooling the planet or to enhance removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Under the cooling argument, scientists initially thought they could reflect sunlight by painting all the roofs of the world's buildings white or by creating an umbrella of space reflectors. Both ideas were dismissed as impractical given the large area that would have to be covered and the risk of reflectors colliding with stars and becoming space junk. Instead, researchers are now looking at simulating volcanic eruptions by injecting dust and other small particles into the air. ''It has long been known that particles from volcanic eruptions stay in the upper atmosphere for one to three years and can lead to a cooling of the climate system by up to three-tenths of a degree,'' Professor Karoly said. But this idea has also been rejected as such particles are likely to enhance depletion of the ozone layer, which will let more UV rays in and increase global rates of cancer. The particles would also eventually drop back down to Earth, worsening lung disease and polluting the ocean, which would in turn increase ocean acidification. Another school of researchers have suggested the thick, white clouds created by the smoke stacks of ships could increase cloud cover and reflect sunlight. ''The major adverse impact of this one is that the changes in sunlight would affect rainfall patterns and, again, it wouldn't have any long-term impact on slowing down carbon dioxide absorption, hence we would still have ocean acidification.'' On the issue of absorbing carbon dioxide, scientists are exploring simple concepts such as planting more trees, changing farming practices to improve carbon absorption in soil and storing carbon underground to fuel coal factories. A more complex idea of injecting iron into the ocean, to help marine algae and photoplankton absorb more carbon, have also been explored but were found to have only short-term effects. Mr Karoly said a number of scientists were excited by the idea of geoengineering but many were also concerned that ill-informed policies could make the world even worse-off than it is today. ''I find it concerning because it reminds me of the times when Australia brought in cane toads to solve the problem of the sugar cane beetle,'' he said. ''We are looking at technological solutions with adverse impacts that could leave us in a situation that could be worse than the problem we first set out to tackle. ''Before any specific initiatives take place we need to have more research and more open discussion about the potential benefits and problems, and that is what this forum is all about.'' +The Geoengineering the Climate symposium is a joint initiative of the Australian Academy of Science and the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. It will run today and tomorrow at The Shine Dome, in Canberra. -- 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] GW: A retrospective
Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long. Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening. Said the pope's scientific advisers, We must protect the habitat that sustains us. Maybe it's all an evil plot by GEers to stall action until GE becomes our only option. - G The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18969700?nclick_check=1 By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent – 9 hours ago NEW YORK (AP) — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention. I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that, the author recalls. But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of global warming didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny. ___ In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the greenhouse effect is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened. What's going on? The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows, concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton. He and others who track what they call denialism find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign. From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve. The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger, the 79-year-old grandfather of climate science said in an interview. But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized. The solution: Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit... He stopped and laughed. Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up. The basic physics of anthropogenic — manmade — global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising. As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me, said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world. The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on. In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science. By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists. But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear. That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful
RE: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Thanks David. I defer to Harvey's paper as to the particle size and rain rate needed to effect limestone dissolution at depth. Slow kinetics can always be countered by increased particle surface area (at a cost). I wasn't aware of the P story - reprints? On the other hand elevating pH might reduce trace metal solubility - good or bad for phytos? E.g., Cu vs Fe? The added alkalinity might save coccoliths, pteropods, etc from an acidic grave. Let's find out with a mesoscale live ocean test. In contrast to iron exps, perhaps Greenpeace will supply the ship and cheering section this time. No? Regards, Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:43 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Hi Greg, Two comments here: Limestone dissolution can be a very slow reaction, even in CaCO3- undersaturated upwelling seawaters. (Much slower than the rate of limestone dissolution in normal rainwater, for example) Adding limestone powders to the upwelling seawaters may in fact take away a significant portion of phosphorus through adsorption, therefore reduce the availability of a critical nutrient for surface ocean primary production. David. On Sep 26, 10:49 am, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: There is a delay if air capture is the objective - limestone dissolution takes place in the subsurface waters and alkalinity is generated, which can effect air capture only when upwelling finally brings it in contact with air. Gas diffusion rate and CO2 dissolution rate will then also affect the air capture rate. Alternatively, I'm suggesting let's use limestone, silicates, or some other cheap base to mop up some of the excess CO2 naturally present in surface/subsurface upwelling water before it degasses, thus reducing ocean CO2 emission to the atmosphere. This at least avoids the air--ocean CO2 uptake rate limitations. It would seem easier/faster to chemically mop up excess CO2 in solution prior to degassing (ocean CO2 emissions reduction) than to chemically enhance CO2 transfer from gas to liquid (air capture). A detailed comparison of the two concepts re air CO2 stabilization under realistic ocean physics and starting chemistry would be an interesting paper. For starters, assuming an air pCO2 of 390 uatms and upwelling ocean pCO2 of 450 uatms, one would need to chemically drive ocean pCO2 to below 390 before net air capture is effected. In contrast one has to only chemically reduce ocean pCO2 to below 450 to reduce some ocean CO2 emissions (over natural) and to 390 to have zero net CO2 emissions from that ocean parcel. -G On 9/26/11 9:25 AM, Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org wrote: Actually this option does not look too bad on first sight - low cost, low tech, so that's a good start, and the chemistry looks right too. Biggest problem is the delay of approx 100y before the results come through, if I read the paper right. That's a long time for us to have to wait. Also if we change our minds, its a long lead time for reversal. Go for Mg silicate weathering on land / intertidal zones, and the CO2 drawdown is immediate, operating on a decadal time scale. Re the kinetics of Mg silicate, they are unfavourable if carried out in a chemistry lab. Carried out in nature and enhanced by activity of fungi, bacteria, roots, digestive systems of worms and higher animals, etc, it's a great deal faster - the biospheric enhancement factor speeds it up by several orders of magnitude. Oliver. On Sep 26, 4:09 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: And to round out the options, let¹s not forget Harvey¹s limestone-rain-in-the-ocean method:http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/documents/harvey_08_co2_mitigation. .. While billed as (eventual) air capture, I view this as ocean CO2 capture bomb upwelling areas with limestone to consume the excess CO2(aq) prior to degassing to air. Don¹t forget that the ocean emits in gross 300 GT CO2/yr. If we can cut that by 1% it would have a huge effect on air CO2. No? Humbly, Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Caldeira, Socolow, et al. weigh in
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/reactions-to-a-new-plan-for-co2-progress/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RE: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Thanks, David, for the info. Certainly agree that limestone dissolution only works in undersaturated, sub-surface waters, which Harvey goes to some lengths to locate and model for carbonate dissolution. As for P, I doubt carbonate rain would have much of a effect on surface ocean P since there is precious little there anyway. What happens at depth could be a different story. Easy enough to test: take some seawater with measurable P, mix in calcite powder, and see what happens to dissolved P. As for P inhibition of calcite dissolution, sample or make calcite undersaturated seawater, add or remove P, add calcite, measure differences in resulting alkalinity or DIC in the preceding treatments. Even better, let's just rain calcite powder into a likely spot in the ocean and measure vertical profiles of P, DIC, alkalinity, etc and compare to Berner et al models (and Harvey's!). A paleo example: following the PETM event carbonate rain rate went from zero to huge numbers while there was not much change in organic C accumulation, so something in surface waters was getting enough P to make the OC despite high carbonate rain, if that is your concern. Another idea: certainly inhibition of carbonate precipitation in the ocean is a major player in setting ocean water column and atmospheric C levels. To what extent have these inhibitors (P, Mg, organics, etc) varied in the past, (how) have they affected C levels, and might we want to investigate purposely modulating these inhibitors to manage ocean/air C in the future? -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:23 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Greg, Phosphate ions are known to have a strong affinity for the reactive sites of calcite and inhibit the dissolution (BERNER MORSE, 1974; MORSE BERNER, 1979) as well as precipitation (MUCCI, 1986) reactions of calcite in seawater. It is conceivable that the settling fine limestone (calcite) particles would scavenge the dissolved phosphate ions in the upwelling seawater. Furthermore, let’s not forget that calcite dissolution can only happen in seawater that is undersaturated with respect to calcite; and most surface seawaters are in fact supersaturated with respect to calcite. Adding limestone to a CaCO3-undersaturated upwelling seawater body may reduce its degree of undersaturation, it could not make it supersaturated with respect to calcite. Mixing with the CaCO3- supersaturated surface seawater and/or CO2 degassing and/or primary productivity (plus temperature and pressure change) will make it supersaturated with respect to calcite (and aragonite). In view of the slow calcite dissolution reaction rate in seawater (there are lots of studies and data on this), I doubt the effectiveness of this scheme. BERNER R. A. and MORSE J. W. (1974) Dissolution kinetics of calcium carbonate in seawater. IV. Theory of calcite dissolution. Amer. J. Sci. 274. 108-134. MORSE J. W. and BERNER R. A. (1979) The chemistry of calcium carbonate in the deep oceans. In Chemical Modeling-Speciation, Sorption. Solubility and Kinetics in Aqueous Systems (ed. E. JENNE), pp. 499-535. ACS Symposium Series 93. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. MUCCI A. (1986) Growth kinetics and composition of magnesian calcite overgrowths precipitated from seawater: Quantitative influence of orthophosphate ions. Gmchimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 50, pp. 2255-2265. Cheers, David. On Sep 27, 1:00 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Thanks David. I defer to Harvey's paper as to the particle size and rain rate needed to effect limestone dissolution at depth. Slow kinetics can always be countered by increased particle surface area (at a cost). I wasn't aware of the P story - reprints? On the other hand elevating pH might reduce trace metal solubility - good or bad for phytos? E.g., Cu vs Fe? The added alkalinity might save coccoliths, pteropods, etc from an acidic grave. Let's find out with a mesoscale live ocean test. In contrast to iron exps, perhaps Greenpeace will supply the ship and cheering section this time. No? Regards, Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 11:43 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Hi Greg, Two comments here: Limestone dissolution can be a very slow reaction, even in CaCO3- undersaturated upwelling seawaters. (Much slower than the rate of limestone dissolution in normal rainwater, for example) Adding limestone powders to the upwelling seawaters may in fact take away a significant portion of phosphorus through
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Thanks, Tom. I think we all can agree that the volume of CaCO3 undersaturation in the subsurface ocean is vast, it is a very effective consumer (60-80%) of natural carbonate rain, and hence is a massive (re)generator of carbonate alkalinity that can in turn consume ocean and atmospheric CO2. It follows that adding additional CaCO3 to the undersaturated regions of the ocean, especially particles of high surface area/volume, will generate additional (new) alkalinity and CO2 consuming potential. The only question then is can this occur in shallow enough water (e.g., upwelling areas) such that its communication with and effect on the atmosphere occurs on a time scale shorter than the usual 1kyr involved in thermohaline ventilation of deep water. In this regard the subsurface N Pacific Ocean, being first up for such ventilation, would seem to hold the most promise. Then there is the CaCO3-challenged Southern Ocean. Or am I off base? Anyway, if you don't like the rates afforded by natural seawater carbonate undersaturation, there is a relatively straightforward way to change this: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x Regards, Greg On 9/28/11 6:18 PM, wig...@ucar.edu wig...@ucar.edu wrote: Regardless of possible inhibiters, I think that kinetic limitations make this an unlikely possibility. See ... Plummer, L.N. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1976: The dissolution of calcite in CO2-saturated solutions at 25°C and 1 atmosphere total pressure. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 40, 191202. Plummer, L.N., Wigley, T.M.L. and Parkhurst, D.L., 1978: The kinetics of calcite dissolution in CO2-water systems at 560°C and 0.01.0 atm CO2. American Journal of Science 278, 179216. Tom. On 9/28/2011 1:44 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Thanks, David, for the info. Certainly agree that limestone dissolution only works in undersaturated, sub-surface waters, which Harvey goes to some lengths to locate and model for carbonate dissolution. As for P, I doubt carbonate rain would have much of a effect on surface ocean P since there is precious little there anyway. What happens at depth could be a different story. Easy enough to test: take some seawater with measurable P, mix in calcite powder, and see what happens to dissolved P. As for P inhibition of calcite dissolution, sample or make calcite undersaturated seawater, add or remove P, add calcite, measure differences in resulting alkalinity or DIC in the preceding treatments. Even better, let's just rain calcite powder into a likely spot in the ocean and measure vertical profiles of P, DIC, alkalinity, etc and compare to Berner et al models (and Harvey's!). A paleo example: following the PETM event carbonate rain rate went from zero to huge numbers while there was not much change in organic C accumulation, so something in surface waters was getting enough P to make the OC despite high carbonate rain, if that is your concern. Another idea: certainly inhibition of carbonate precipitation in the ocean is a major player in setting ocean water column and atmospheric C levels. To what extent have these inhibitors (P, Mg, organics, etc) varied in the past, (how) have they affected C levels, and might we want to investigate purposely modulating these inhibitors to manage ocean/air C in the future? -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:23 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Greg, Phosphate ions are known to have a strong affinity for the reactive sites of calcite and inhibit the dissolution (BERNER MORSE, 1974; MORSE BERNER, 1979) as well as precipitation (MUCCI, 1986) reactions of calcite in seawater. It is conceivable that the settling fine limestone (calcite) particles would scavenge the dissolved phosphate ions in the upwelling seawater. Furthermore, let’s not forget that calcite dissolution can only happen in seawater that is undersaturated with respect to calcite; and most surface seawaters are in fact supersaturated with respect to calcite. Adding limestone to a CaCO3-undersaturated upwelling seawater body may reduce its degree of undersaturation, it could not make it supersaturated with respect to calcite. Mixing with the CaCO3- supersaturated surface seawater and/or CO2 degassing and/or primary productivity (plus temperature and pressure change) will make it supersaturated with respect to calcite (and aragonite). In view of the slow calcite dissolution reaction rate in seawater (there are lots of studies and data on this), I doubt the effectiveness of this scheme. BERNER R. A. and MORSE J. W. (1974) Dissolution kinetics of calcium carbonate in seawater. IV. Theory of calcite dissolution. Amer. J. Sci. 274. 108-134. MORSE J. W. and BERNER
[geo] Speaking of air capture
Carbon cycle: A dent in carbon's gold standard Matthias Cuntz Nature 477, 547–548 (29 September 2011) doi:10.1038/477547a Published online 28 September 2011 The global uptake of carbon by land plants may be greater than previously thought, according to observations based on the enigmatic Keeling curve of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. See Letter p.579 Estimates of how much carbon is taken up each year by the world's land plants are derived mainly from models of the carbon cycle. Worldwide measurements of terrestrial carbon exchange have yielded an estimate1 of this global carbon uptake as 123 ± 8 petagrams carbon per year (Pg C yr−1; 1 Pg is 1015 g). This is so close to earlier estimates derived from models and biomass production that 120 Pg C yr−1 can be taken as carbon's 'gold standard'. But Welp and colleagues2 remind us, on page 579 of this issue, that we should not be complacent — land ecosystems might be taking in considerably more carbon than we thought. Our atmosphere is a perfect blender. Changes in its levels of trace gases — such as carbon dioxide — reveal variations in the total influx and uptake of its constituents. So if you measure the carbon exchange of a forest ecosystem, for example, you get the net exchange of all the carbon taken up by the trees for photosynthesis and all the carbon released by the trees and soils through respiration. These gross-exchange fluxes — photosynthesis and respiration — are much larger than the net ecosystem exchange that is actually measured. On the global scale, the net flux is only a few per cent of the gross fluxes. Because small changes in photosynthesis and respiration can have big consequences for the net carbon uptake of terrestrial ecosystems, the interplay between photosynthesis and respiration must be well described in carbon-cycle models if they are to reliably project into the future. It is, however, almost impossible to measure individual components on scales larger than the size of a leaf, let alone on a regional or continental scale. This is where Welp et al.2 take advantage of the composition of oxygen isotopes in CO2 — the chemical signature of which changes if one 16O oxygen atom in CO2 is replaced by a heavier 18O atom. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and exchanges its oxygen with water's oxygen to equilibrium, so CO2 is tagged by the water it comes into contact with. Different waters have distinct isotopic compositions owing to evaporation processes in soils and leaves — the lighter molecules evaporate faster, and the heavier ones fall behind. As a result, the oxygen isotopic composition in CO2 is very sensitive to photosynthesis and respiration: more photosynthesis means more 18O, and hence higher oxygen-isotope ratios in the atmosphere. Using an impressive 30-year record of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, Welp et al.2 assess the mean atmospheric residence time for oxygen atoms in CO2. Their 11 time series were started in the 1970s by the late Charles Keeling, alongside the famous record of total atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa in Hawaii (Fig. 1). Welp et al. identified a strong correlation between the observed interannual variability of the oxygen isotopes and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Such a correlation has previously been established for the isotopic composition of water3 and, consequently, is now found in the oxygen isotopes of CO2 as well. From the mean residence time of the oxygen atoms in CO2, Welp et al. arrive at a best guess of global productivity of 150–175 Pg C yr−1 — some 25–45% more than the gold standard. Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and isotope composition measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. a, Keeling curve of CO2 concentrations since the 1980s (ref. 7). Dots are single measurements or daily averages; line indicates the long-term trend. b, Carbon-isotope composition of the CO2 at Mauna Loa. Here, δ13C is the deviation of the 13C/12C ratio from a standard value. Because the carbon cycle is the major influence on both CO2 concentrations and 13C/12C ratios, the curves in a and b correlate well with each other (that is, the downward trend in b mirrors the upward trend in a and so do the seasonal variations). c, The oxygen-isotope composition of the CO2 is influenced not only by the carbon cycle, but also by the water cycle, and so does not correlate simply with CO2 concentration; δ18O is the deviation of the 18O/16O ratio from a standard value. Welp and colleagues2 find that the interannual variations in δ18O correlate with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (arrows indicate El Niño events). Their analysis of the oxygen-isotope data also provides a new estimate of global carbon uptake on land. p.p.m., parts per million. (Data are publicly available on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography website8.) Full size image (155 KB) This inference hinges on a set of assumptions and estimates. It depends, for example, on how many
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
That would work for me a la crop liming IF: 1) soil acids other than carbonic acid are such that CO2 is not emitted to the air from the acid limestone reaction, and 2) the hardness of the resulting runoff is within environmental standards. How about limestoning the mouths of rivers to mop up excess dissolved CO2 - there are no hardness standards for discharge to the ocean. Then again, by the time rivers discharge to the ocean they've probably pretty much degassed and equilibrated with air pCO2. -Greg On 9/29/11 10:35 AM, David Zhong shaojun.zh...@gmail.com wrote: Would it be more effective (and perhaps simpler) if the limestone is distributed to a large area of land (ideally in regions with heavy wet precipitation and with organic matter rich soil) instead of the upwelling regions of the ocean? After all, limestone dissolution in normal rainwater (pH 5.6, ionic strength ~ 0) is much faster than in seawater (pH 7.6, ionic strength ~ 0.7) and natural CO2 exchange (or flux) between soil and atmosphere is on the same order as that between ocean and atmosphere? Just a thought. David. On Sep 29, 9:12 am, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Thanks, Tom. I think we all can agree that the volume of CaCO3 undersaturation in the subsurface ocean is vast, it is a very effective consumer (60-80%) of natural carbonate rain, and hence is a massive (re)generator of carbonate alkalinity that can in turn consume ocean and atmospheric CO2. It follows that adding additional CaCO3 to the undersaturated regions of the ocean, especially particles of high surface area/volume, will generate additional (new) alkalinity and CO2 consuming potential. The only question then is can this occur in shallow enough water (e.g., upwelling areas) such that its communication with and effect on the atmosphere occurs on a time scale shorter than the usual 1kyr involved in thermohaline ventilation of deep water. In this regard the subsurface N Pacific Ocean, being first up for such ventilation, would seem to hold the most promise. Then there is the CaCO3-challenged Southern Ocean. Or am I off base? Anyway, if you don't like the rates afforded by natural seawater carbonate undersaturation, there is a relatively straightforward way to change this:http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x Regards, Greg On 9/28/11 6:18 PM, wig...@ucar.edu wig...@ucar.edu wrote: Regardless of possible inhibiters, I think that kinetic limitations make this an unlikely possibility. See ... Plummer, L.N. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1976: The dissolution of calcite in CO2-saturated solutions at 25°C and 1 atmosphere total pressure. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 40, 191202. Plummer, L.N., Wigley, T.M.L. and Parkhurst, D.L., 1978: The kinetics of calcite dissolution in CO2-water systems at 560°C and 0.01.0 atm CO2. American Journal of Science 278, 179216. Tom. On 9/28/2011 1:44 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Thanks, David, for the info. Certainly agree that limestone dissolution only works in undersaturated, sub-surface waters, which Harvey goes to some lengths to locate and model for carbonate dissolution. As for P, I doubt carbonate rain would have much of a effect on surface ocean P since there is precious little there anyway. What happens at depth could be a different story. Easy enough to test: take some seawater with measurable P, mix in calcite powder, and see what happens to dissolved P. As for P inhibition of calcite dissolution, sample or make calcite undersaturated seawater, add or remove P, add calcite, measure differences in resulting alkalinity or DIC in the preceding treatments. Even better, let's just rain calcite powder into a likely spot in the ocean and measure vertical profiles of P, DIC, alkalinity, etc and compare to Berner et al models (and Harvey's!). A paleo example: following the PETM event carbonate rain rate went from zero to huge numbers while there was not much change in organic C accumulation, so something in surface waters was getting enough P to make the OC despite high carbonate rain, if that is your concern. Another idea: certainly inhibition of carbonate precipitation in the ocean is a major player in setting ocean water column and atmospheric C levels. To what extent have these inhibitors (P, Mg, organics, etc) varied in the past, (how) have they affected C levels, and might we want to investigate purposely modulating these inhibitors to manage ocean/air C in the future? -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:23 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Greg, Phosphate ions are known to have a strong affinity for the reactive sites of calcite and inhibit
RE: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Agree that if your only acid is carbonic then CO2 will be consumed, assuming CaCO3 doesn't reprecipitate. If the soil acidity is caused by other acids then you lose CO2 e.g.: H2SO4 + CaCO3 --- CaSO4 + H2O + CO2. All farmers care about is losing acidity when they limestone. In our current state of enlightenment one would hope that by now some Ph.D. ag student has measured the CO2 consequences as well as water hardness issues of crop limestoning, but I'm not holding my breath.* -Greg *but look what I found in a brief google search: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v40_3_07/documents/article17web_West_McBride_aglimeCO2_emis.pdf Based on our best estimate, the application of 20–30 Tg of aglime in the U.S., consisting of 80% limestone and 20% dolomite, would have resulted in a net 4.4–6.6 Tg CO2 emissions in 2001. Guess we need more work to figure out how to convert this into a net CO2 sink. Keep me posted. Meantime, back to the ocean? - G From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Wigley [wig...@ucar.edu] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:06 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results It's a long time since I did anything in this field, so this is some ad hoc thinking. Soil PCO2 is much higher than in the atmosphere. An old paper on this is ... Drake, J.J. and Wigley, T.M.L., 1975: The effect of climate on the chemistry of carbonate groundwater. Water Resources Research 11, 958–962. Adding CaCO3 will add Ca++ and HCO3- to the soil/groundwater. The dissolution will reduce soil PCO2. So the flux of CO2 from soil to atmosphere will decrease. But won't the bugs just work harder to keep the soil PCO2 about the same? The climate/soilPCO2 relationship in the above paper suggests that this is what will happen. So the net effect is probably small. Tom. + On 9/29/2011 5:14 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: There's a large literature on and practice of crop soil limestoning. In the context of CO2, my concerns would be added CO2 release from reaction of limestone with soil or precipt strong acids, and added downstream and groundwater hardness via dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 addition. The latter can be a big deal for communities that have to use the water, the potential for CaCO3 reprecipitation and scaling will go up, above that naturally present in the water, esp in limestone regions. For this reason it would be important to somehow keep the water below CaCO3 saturation. This goes away with disposal in seawater, which is why doing this close to a river mouth might be the best thing. Anyway, we eagerly await the results of your (backyard?) experiments. G On 9/29/11 3:29 PM, David Zhongshaojun.zh...@gmail.com wrote: Greg, This might not be a bad idea. CO2 emission to the atmosphere through soil respiration is estimated at about 60 GtC/a. Cutting down 10% of this natural emission will give us about 6 GtC/a. For comparison, current anthropogenic carbon emission to the atmosphere is about 8 GtC/a. To capture 6 GtC/a of carbon emission from soil respiration requires mining and grinding a minimum of 50 Gt of CaCO3 per year (i.e., 6/12X100). For comparison, current coal mining is estimated at about 25 Gt/a. Limestone is certainly more abundant and wide spread than coal. Using your estimate of limestone mining and grinding and transportation cost of about $5/ton, the annual total cost would be about $250 billion. Spreading 50 Gt of limestone to 10% to 20% of the land (or about 15-30 million km2, about 0.3 to 0.15 kg CaCO3 per m2 per year) where soil respiration is most intensive would probably be sufficient to “capture” 6 GtC/a. Compared to “limestoning the ocean” scheme, this “limestoning the soil scheme would cut CO2 emission to the atmosphere immediate, instead of waiting for years or tens or hundreds of years. As for your two concerns, I am sure that if the soil system is overloaded with limestone, the end product of limestone dissolution would be dissolved bicarbonate ions instead of carbon dioxide. Limestone landscapes are found all over the continents and people have been living happily in limestone regions for generations. I doubt that the hardness of the resulting runoff of a “limestoning the soil scheme will be any worse than that of the watershed of a limestone region. I am sure that there will be some other environmental and/or ecological “side effects” or risks. But I am also sure that any or every “solution” to such a planetary scale problem will carry risks. The question is, are these risks manageable? What do you think? David On Sep 29, 11:14 am, Rau, Gregr...@llnl.gov wrote: That would work for me a la crop liming IF: 1) soil acids other than carbonic acid are such that CO2 is not emitted to the air from the acid limestone reaction, and 2
Re: [geo] BPC Task Force on Climate Remediation Research - Webcast
Once at the website I get a server not found message? I assume that's 10AM EDT. - Greg On 10/4/11 6:36 AM, Jane Flegal fleg...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/multimedia/2011/09/29/geoengineering-clim ate-remediation kWEBCAST: Geoengineering: Research on Climate Remediation Oct. 4, 2011 EVENT DETAILS The webcast will begin here at 10:00AM on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. We recommend the use of the following internet browsers for this webcast: Google Chrome, Internet Explorer or Safari. Only the latest version of Firefox is acceptable. The player will also work on iPads, iPhones and Android devices. -- 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] UK Guardian blogger weighs in
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering/print Big names behind US push for geoengineering Posted by John Vidal Thursday 6 October 2011 07.04 EDT A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profits British scientists have pulled back from geoengineering projects but the US is forging ahead. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty Images UK scientists last week postponed one of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for climate change. The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 60 global groups wrote to the UK government and the resarch groups behind the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to critics. Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as climate remediation, the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent technologies, a coalition of willing countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding. So what is the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent views, it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to make war on Iran. Their specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator. Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people as Boeing's chief scientist working on ways to find new solutions to world's most challenging problems. There are signs of cross US-UK pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently wrote for the Guardian: I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary. But he cautioned: what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research. It also includes several of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the ill-fated star wars weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented ideas to stop hurricanes forming. In sum, this coalition of US expertise is a group of people which smell vast potential future profits for their institutions and companies in geo-engineering. Watch out. This could be the start of the next climate wars. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RE: [geo] Re: Arctic methane
There was a large session on methane at the last Goldschmidt Conf this Aug. http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/program/programView?period=17cpdf=1 numerous methane papers in other sessions can be found by searching methane at: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/abstractSearch e.g., http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/2035.pdf I did not attend the session, but did briefly talk to Bill Reeburgh who gave the keynote, and if I remember correctly he seemed quite adamant that natural methane oxidation would be more than adequate to handle future marine methane releases. In any case he wrote a major review on marine methane: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr050362v that is likely required reading. My own view is that the difficulties of CO2 mitigation will likely pale in comparison to attempts to safely mitigate methane above that naturally possible, but happy to have someone disprove that hypothesis. Good luck. -Greg -- 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] Biochar Nature paper
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html?WT.ec_id=EXTERNALWT.mc_id=NC1108CE061 Production of biochar (the carbon (C)-rich solid formed by pyrolysis of biomass) and its storage in soils have been suggested as a means of abating climate change by sequestering carbon, while simultaneously providing energy and increasing crop yields. Substantial uncertainties exist, however, regarding the impact, capacity and sustainability of biochar at the global level. In this paper we estimate the maximum sustainable technical potential of biochar to mitigate climate change. Annual net emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide could be reduced by a maximum of 1.8 Pg CO2-C equivalent (CO2-Ce) per year (12% of current anthropogenic CO2-Ce emissions; 1 Pg=1 Gt), and total net emissions over the course of a century by 130 Pg CO2-Ce, without endangering food security, habitat or soil conservation. Biochar has a larger climate-change mitigation potential than combustion of the same sustainably procured biomass for bioenergy, except when fertile soils are amended while coal is the fuel being offset. -- 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] Long interview
Engineering the climate is last and scariest option, says US scientist The lack of international action on cutting emissions highlights need to research geoengineering further, says Jane C S Long * Yale Environment 360http://www.e360.yale.edu/, part of the Guardian Environment Networkhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network Jane C. S. Long, associate director-at-large of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, is convinced that the only sensible way to combat climate changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change is to work toward a zero-emission energyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy system as fast as possible. But as chairwoman of the Bipartisan Policy Center's 18-member task force on geoengineeringhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering, the hydrologist and energy expert realized two fundamental things: that the world has still not come to its senses on global warming, and that science would be remiss if it didn't consider the possibility that CO2 emissions will continue to soar for decades.This scenario lies at the heart of a report issued last week by the task forcehttp://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/task-force-climate-remediation-research, composed of noted experts in climate science, social science, and foreign policy. It called for a comprehensive study of geoengineering options — including removing CO2 from the atmosphere and reflecting solar energy back into space — in case the Earth's climate crosses certain tipping points, such as a mass release of methane from the Arctic that would drastically warm the planet. * The report drew sharp criticism from some climate activists, who accused the task force of trying to put a positive marketing spin on doomsday technologies by labeling them efforts at climate remediation. But Long and her colleagues say it is best to be well informed about geoengineering options should they one day be needed. Everyone I know who works on this is scared to death of this stuff, Long said in an interview with Yale Environment 360http://e360.yale.edu/ senior editor Fen Montaigne. People aren't doing this because they think, 'Oh whoopee! We can change the Earth!' They're doing it because they just don't see any progress [on CO2 emissions] and it just seems to be getting worse and they want options on the table. Yale Environment 360: What factors led the task force to the conclusion that it was time for the U.S. government to take a serious look at whether geoengineering, or climate remediation, was possible or advisable? Jane Long: Number one, of course, is the fact that we're still producing greenhouse gases, and they are getting to be at a dangerous level and they're going higher and nobody really knows what's going to happen. The risks seem to be very large and there's a strong sense that even if we were by some magic wand able to stop emitting tomorrow, we still have a problem with a lot of unknowns. So in the long run the chance that we would hit something that was very, very difficult for both humans and ecosystems to be able to handle successfully was significant. And we felt it was prudent to start doing research. There are other factors, such as other countries beginning to look at this. Certainly the UK has and it behooves the United States to be a member of this group that's looking at it, rather than on the sidelines and just having to accept what other people do. There was definitely not a sense that we should get ready to deploy these things right now. We have to consider it, but we're not planning to do it. So the idea is just really to become informed. e360: Were you driven by a sense that these geoengineering schemes have not been subject to rigorous, coordinated studies? Long: Absolutely. What we thought was that we knew very, very little about whether these technologies could be effective, whether they were advisable, and whether they were even doable, and we were only at the very beginning of understanding that and that it would take a coordinated program by government research to get there. You weren't going to get there on the margins. You are going to have to do a coordinated, focused program. e360: One thing you make very clear is that by far the preference of the people on the panel is to lower, or mitigate, greenhouse gas emissions. But given what's happening now — we had records emissions in 2010, China and India are booming, the U.S. is not making a lot of progress — are you optimistic that the world is going to get its act together in the next 10 or 20 years to really start lowering CO2 emissions? Long: I think we will start, but we won't necessarily do it in time. I'm afraid it's going to become absolutely obvious that we have to do it. And we will start doing it for a variety of reasons. But will it change in time? I have to admit to a certain amount of pessimism. I don't think we will avoid some of
[geo] FW: US GEOTRACES Arctic planning and information events
From: ocb-all-boun...@whoi.edu [ocb-all-boun...@whoi.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Anderson [b...@ldeo.columbia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:16 AM To: ocb-...@whoi.edu Subject: [Ocb-all] US GEOTRACES Arctic planning and information events Dear colleagues, To help characterize and understand the dramatic changes occurring throughout the Arctic region, the US GEOTRACES SSC has launched a planning effort for a US Arctic GEOTRACES initiative, with a cruise tentatively planned for 2015. In preparation for this initiative, several information and planning meetings are scheduled. Initially, three events are planned to update the community as to the status of the planning process and to solicit input from attendees. The first event will be an open, informal meeting at the Fall AGU in San Francisco, on Tuesday, Dec. 6, from 7:15-8:15pm, in the San Francisco Marriott Marquis, 4th Floor, Pacific Room J. http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/sfodt-san-francisco-marriott/ The second event will be a town hall meeting at the ASLO meeting in Salt Lake City (date and time TBA). Finally, a community implementation workshop will be scheduled for the late spring-early summer time frame. Further information will be distributed via email, and posted on the US GEOTRACES web site http://www.usgeotraces.org/ when a venue has been secured. Reports from previous international and U.S. GEOTRACES Arctic planning workshops can be found at http://www.obs-vlfr.fr/GEOTRACES/libraries/documents/Arctic_Report.pdf and http://www.usgeotraces.org/documents/arcticDOC/ArcticWorkshopRpt.pdf, respectively. Anyone interested in the biogeochemical cycles of trace elements and their isotopes within the Arctic region is encouraged to attend. Please forward this announcement to colleagues who may be interested. For more information, contact David Kadko dka...@rsmas.miami.edu. _ -- 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] historical climate vs human crises
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/17296.full Abstract Recent studies have shown strong temporal correlations between past climate changes and societal crises. However, the specific causal mechanisms underlying this relation have not been addressed. We explored quantitative responses of 14 fine-grained agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic variables to climate fluctuations from A.D. 1500–1800 in Europe. Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century. We identified a set of causal linkages between climate change and human crisis. Using temperature data and climate-driven economic variables, we simulated the alternation of defined “golden” and “dark” ages in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere during the past millennium. Our findings indicate that climate change was the ultimate cause, and climate-driven economic downturn was the direct cause, of large-scale human crises in preindustrial Europe and the Northern Hemisphere. Apparent bottom line - humans do worse when climate cools. Lessons/targets for GE? Avoiding global warming is one thing, but don't think I want to be around for the next ice age either. -Greg -- 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] Recommended by etc
Another reason why we need to enhance natural CO2 conversion to ocean alkalinity (it's next natural resting place anyway), rather than expensively concentrate and riskily store molecular CO2. -G From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:16 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Recommended by etc David Suzuki: Are we digging ourselves into a hole with carbon capture and storage? Comments (2) By David Suzuki and Faisal Moola, February 24, 2009 The Alberta and federal governments are pumping billions of dollars into carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of their climate change plans. U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minster Stephen Harper also discussed this largely untested technology during the president’s recent visit to Ottawa. But is it a good strategy? Think of what that money could do if it were invested in energy conservation and renewable energy instead of prolonging our addiction to dirty and finite fossil fuels, especially from the tar sands. What is CCS? People in the oil industry found that as they drained oil from wells, they could pump CO2 back in to increase the yield. And the CO2 appeared to stay in the ground. But we have no idea what happens to this gas. Does it form a bubble under a big rock? Is it chemically bonded to its surrounding matrix? How long will it stay down there? We don’t know. We air-breathing terrestrial beings seem to have the attitude of “out of sight, out of mind”, and so we dump our garbage into the oceans or the ground or the atmosphere, as if that were a solution. I can’t overemphasize the degree of our ignorance. Until a few years ago, scientists assumed no life existed below bedrock, but miners kept reporting that bits drilled far deeper into the ground came back contaminated. Researchers later discovered bizarre forms of life almost three kilometres below the surface. The organisms are bacteria, which in some cases are embedded in rock, eking out an existence scrounging for water, energy, and nutrition. Some are thought to divide only once in a thousand years! When these organisms are brought to the surface, their DNA is unlike anything we know about bacteria aboveground. Biologists have had to invent whole new phyla to describe them. The layer of life on Earth’s surface is very thin, but these single-celled organisms go down kilometres. Now, scientists believe that protoplasm living underground are more abundant than all of the elephants, trees, whales, fish, and other life above. We have no idea how important these organisms are to the subsurface web of life. Do they play a role in movement of water and nutrients, of energy from the magma? We have no idea. I met Princeton University’s Tullis Onstott, a geologist and expert on these organisms, at a lecture I gave at Princeton last year. I told him of the plans to pump millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the ground for CCS. “What effect will that have?” I asked. “I have no idea, but the methanogens should love it,” he replied. “What are they?” I asked. “They absorb carbon dioxide and make methane,” he responded. Methane is 22 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, we could be pumping a greenhouse gas into the ground and ending up with a super-greenhouse gas instead. Has anyone even considered this possibility? Remember that Paul Mueller won a Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery in 1939 that DDT kills insects. Years after we started using it on a massive scale around the world, we learned that DDT is “biomagnified” up the food chain, harming birds, fish, and human beings. When we began to use chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in spray cans, most people didn’t even know there was an ozone layer, let alone that chlorine-free radicals from CFCs destroy ozone. And mark my words, we have no idea what genetically engineered organisms or nanotechnology will do. But if we humans are good at anything, it’s thinking we’ve got a terrific idea and going for it without acknowledging the potential consequences or our own ignorance. CCS is a simple-minded idea based on a first impression. You’d think we would have learned from the past that we shouldn’t rush to apply new technologies before we know what the long-term effects will be. Carbon capture and storage may be worth studying, but the technology’s potential should not be used as an excuse for the oil and coal industries to avoid reducing their emissions and investing in renewable energy. After all, we know that energy conservation and renewable energy will yield immediate effects of a cleaner environment. We don’t know what carbon capture and storage will cost, when it will be commercially viable, or what it will do, other than perhaps to give us a way to keep relying on finite and polluting sources of energy.
[geo] GW: Just in case there was any credible doubt
Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist who runs the blog Watts Up With That? and who had initially consulted with Muller on the Berkeley effort, took the unusual step of submitting a letter decrying its findings to lawmakers before the House hearing where Muller spoke had ended (ClimateWire, April 1). In a blog post yesterday, Watts said the Berkeley group's decision to publish its findings on the Web before they had been peer-reviewed was troubling. Like non-peer reviewed disinformation by the deniers isn't troubling/dangerous? - G SCIENCE: Koch-backed research effort finds Earth is warming Lauren Morello, EE reporter Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 The Earth's surface is warming, after all, says a team of researchers who sought to investigate claims that flawed data and methods had skewed existing analyses of global temperature trends. The work by the Berkeley Earth Project shows that, on average, global land surface temperatures have risen about 1 degree Celsius since the mid-1950s -- on par with the warming trend described by research groups at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the U.K. Meteorological Office. The Berkeley effort's leader, astrophysicist Richard Muller, said his team had taken climate skeptics' criticisms of existing research into account when they began to examine global temperature data going back to 1800. But in the end, the factors singled out by skeptics -- including some poorly sited temperature-monitoring stations -- did not have much bearing on his group's results. When we began this, I didn't know whether we would see more warming than people had previously seen, or less. I knew that some skeptics had raised legitimate issues that needed further study, said Muller, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. We've done that study now, and I think I'm surprised that the results agree with previous groups. The Berkeley group published four papers describing its work, its data and the programs it used to analyze those data yesterday on its website, berkeleyearth.org. The papers have not been peer-reviewed, but Muller's team has submitted them for publication in scientific journals. Several climate scientists said they weren't surprised that the Berkeley group's findings confirmed that the Earth is warming, something they said is supported by multiple lines of evidence -- not just the instrumental temperature records examined by Muller. Skeptics' complaints don't check out Asked whether the Berkeley Earth findings were newsworthy, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt had a simple answer: No. But Schmidt said he thought the method Muller's team devised for analyzing temperature data does seem to be interesting, though he cautioned that it had not been peer-reviewed. Similarly, Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the Berkeley findings need some good reviews. It is interesting in many respects, he said. A good aspect is the sophisticated use of statistics. A bad aspect is the overuse of statistics and not enough common sense and basic physics. Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at the North Carolina-based Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, called the Berkeley Earth analysis certainly useful, though ... not particularly novel. Having multiple research groups examine temperature records, each with its own method, helps reduce uncertainty in scientists' estimate of ongoing warming, Thorne said. I wish there were another 10 groups looking at the problem independently, he added. Meanwhile, Muller said he hopes his results will convince people who doubt whether the Earth is warming that it is indeed happening. We can't win over the deniers, he said. There are people on both sides who grossly exaggerate. But in between, there are a substantial number of properly skeptical people. I believe that work we're doing is the sort of work they're looking for. It's a case Muller makes today in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate, he writes. But reaction to the Berkeley Earth project has been mixed. Before the group released its first set of findings last spring, liberal blogger Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress questioned the Berkeley group's motives, noting that it had received funding from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which has supported efforts opposing mainstream climate change science. And when Muller testified in March before a House committee that his group's preliminary analyses supported the overall warming trend reported by mainstream climate scientists, some skeptics were enraged. Deniers remain in denial Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist who runs the blog Watts Up With That? and who had initially consulted with Muller on the Berkeley effort, took the unusual step of submitting a letter
Re: [geo] Public understanding of solar radiation
More reporting below: PUBLIC OPINION: Survey finds widespread support for geoengineering research Julia Pyper, EE reporter Published: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 A new study finds that the majority of people in America, Canada and Britain approve of more research in the nascent field of climate manipulation known as geoengineering. A full 72 percent of participants in the survey, published in Environmental Research Letters, said they supported or somewhat supported the study of solar radiation management (SRM). The technique seeks to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I think that level of support was higher than my co-authors and I were expecting, said Ashley Mercer, lead author and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Calgary in Alberta. Mercer said she became interested in SRM because of the ethical implications of the climate-manipulating practice and a lack of documented public input on the matter. The Internet-based poll of 3,105 people from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States is the first international analysis on the public perception of geoengineering and SRM. It revealed what Mercer described as a surprisingly high level of public awareness about geoengineering techniques. More than half of respondents either correctly defined the technique or the similar term climate engineering. Researchers and policymakers can no longer assume that the public is unaware of geoengineering. As this research shows, awareness is larger than expected and likely growing. Engaging with the broader public is important to help improve any future decisionmaking about SRM because these decisions involve many different values and risk trade-offs, she said. The survey data showed that the potential risks of SRM and unknown damage to the ozone layer were important drivers of public perception. Mercer admitted it was surprising that there was such widespread support for climate manipulation through SRM, which is a relatively new and possibly risky field. Ideology not a predictor of geoengineering support Indeed, the survey comes at a key time in the United Kingdom, where concerns over the social aspects of geoengineering have delayed the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. SPICE, which was set to run a test project this month, aims to reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere from a balloon half a mile in the air. Mercer said the broad support of SRM could reveal a limitation of the survey, which did not ask participants to describe which aspects of geoengineering research they supported. For instance, some people may support computer modeling but have concerns with something deployed in the real world. Asking more detailed questions may be the focus of future research, she said. But what Mercer and her co-authors could determine was that among the minority who did not support SRM, the largest predictor was the value that we should not be manipulating the Earth in this way, and not necessarily a political leaning. Some reports have suggested that opposition to geoengineering is associated with environmentalists, but our results do not support this view, said co-author professor David Keith of Harvard University in a statement. We found that geoengineering divides people along unusual lines. Support for geoengineering is spread across the political spectrum. The survey showed that a number of people who identify as environmentalists do not support SRM, said Mercer. Seeing human-influenced climate change as a significant issue was not an apparent predictor of support, she added. Meanwhile, a number of self-identified conservatives do support the practice. But the opposite also proved to be true, where you would expect environmentalists don't think enough is being done to address climate change so they may support SRM, and where conservatives are unsupportive because they don't want the government to be involved, said Mercer. While politics did not predict whether someone would oppose SRM, the strongest opposition to geoengineering practices came from those who identify as politically conservative. That's because they are distrustful of government and other elite institutions, and ... doubt the very idea that there is a climate problem, said Keith. The data shows that the debate over geoengineering breaks down in many ways, but to be more specific, more research is necessary, said Mercer. I think this is the first in a line of many studies that will show that SRM intersects with people's political and environmental attitudes in surprising ways. On 10/24/11 3:19 PM, David Keith david_ke...@harvard.edu wrote: Folks Here is our public perception paper and the associated press release. Public understanding of solar radiation management, A M Mercer, D W Keith
Re: [geo] GW: Just in case there was any credible doubt
The confession (warning, not peer reviewed ;-) -G The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism; There were good reasons for doubt, until now. Richard A. Muller. Wall Street Journal (Online). New York, N.Y.:Oct 21, 2011. Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be. As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming. The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world. Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, most of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming. We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo's temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can't be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction. Moreover, the three major temperature analysis groups (the U.S.'s NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K.'s Met Office and Climatic Research Unit) analyze only a small fraction of the available data, primarily from stations that have long records. There's a logic to that practice, but it could lead to selection bias. For instance, older stations were often built outside of cities but today are surrounded by buildings. These groups today use data from about 2,000 stations, down from roughly 6,000 in 1970, raising even more questions about their selections. On top of that, stations have moved, instruments have changed and local environments have evolved. Analysis groups try to compensate for all this by homogenizing the data, though there are plenty of arguments to be had over how best to homogenize long-running data taken from around the world in varying conditions. These adjustments often result in corrections of several tenths of one degree Celsius, significant fractions of the warming attributed to humans. And that's just the surface-temperature record. What about the rest? The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that's in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate. Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer. Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at to solicit even more scrutiny. Our work covers only land temperature--not the oceans--but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one. We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater
[geo] Speaking of aerosols...
Anyone thought of using the aerosol data described below for extrapolating the effects of intentional aerosol loading? -Greg CLIMATE: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming Paul Voosen, EE reporter Published: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY, Hawaii -- At nightfall, 11,000 feet up, under the summit of a looming volcano, the black lava moonscape cools as the sun's tropical heat escapes upward. Settling, subsiding, some of the world's purest air -- a sample of the entire central Pacific atmosphere -- descends on the dusk, cloaking Mauna Loa in stillness. That's when John Barnes flips on his emerald-tinged laser and shoots it into the sky. While it can reach up 60 miles, the primary target of Barnes' laser is the stratosphere, the cold, cloudless layer that sits atop the planet's bustling weather -- home of commercial jets and the ozone hole. The laser's concentrated 20 watts, a green beam visible miles away from the volcano, reflect off any detritus in its path, these wisps of evidence collected by the observatory's three large mirrors. Barnes has kept a lonely watch for 20 years. Driving the winding, pothole-strewn road to this government-run lab, he has spent evening after evening waiting for the big one. His specialty is measuring stratospheric aerosols, reflective particles caused by volcanoes that are known to temporarily cool the planet. Only the most violent volcanic eruptions are able to loft emissions above the clouds, scientists thought, and so Barnes, after building the laser, waited for his time. For nearly 20 years, John Barnes has fired his green laser into the skies above Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano, monitoring particles suspended high above the weather. At night, the beam is visible for miles. Photo courtesy of John Barnes. He waited. And waited. And waited. To this day, there hasn't been a major volcanic eruption since 1991, when Mount Pinatubo scorched the Philippines, causing the Earth to cool by about a half degree for several years. But Barnes diligently monitored this radio silence, identifying the background level of particles in the stratosphere. And then, sitting in his prefab lab four years ago, not far from where Charles Keeling first made his historic measure of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, Barnes saw something odd in his aerosol records. I was just updating my graph, and I noticed that, 'Hey, this is increasing,' Barnes said during a recent interview. It was unexpected. Where were these particles coming from, without a Pinatubo-style eruption? No one had seen that before, he said. Barnes had uncovered a piece of a puzzle that has provoked, frustrated and focused climate scientists over the past half decade. It is a mystery that has given cover to forces arrayed against the reality of human-driven global warming. And it is a question that can be easily stated: Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet's temperature stall for the past decade? If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it's not increasing, Barnes said. There's a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn't we warm up? The question itself, while simple sounding, is loaded. By any measure, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest in modern history. However, 1998 remains the single warmest year on record, though by some accounts last year tied its heat. Temperatures following 1998 stayed relatively flat for 10 years, with the heat in 2008 about equaling temperatures at the decade's start. The warming, as scientists say, went on hiatus. The hiatus was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required. For some scientists, chalking the hiatus up to the planet's natural variability was enough. Temperatures would soon rise again, driven up inexorably by the ever-thickening blanket thrown on the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. People would forget about it. But for others, this simple answer was a failure. If scientists were going to attribute the stall to natural variability, they faced a burden to explain, in a precise way, how this variation worked. Without evidence, their statements were no better than the unsubstantiated theories circulated by climate skeptics on the Internet. It has always bothered me, said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Natural variability is not a cause. One has to say what aspect of natural variability. Trenberth's search has focused on what he calls missing energy, which can be thought of as missing heat. The heat arriving and leaving the planet can be measured, if crudely, creating a budget of the
RE: [geo] White roof snag
A worldwide conversion to white roofs, they found, could actually warm the Earth slightly due a complex domino effect. Although white surfaces are cooler, the increased sunlight they reflect back into the atmosphere by can increase absorption of light by dark pollutants such as black carbon, which increases heating. So by analogy, increased snow/ice cover would actually warm the Earth slightly ? I don't think so, but please clue me in. - Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Salter [s.sal...@ed.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 4:22 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] White roof snag Hi All See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/27/white-roofs-global-warming and Jacobson, M., Ten Hoeve, J. (2011). Effects of Urban Surfaces and White Roofs on Global and Regional Climate. Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00032.1http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00032.1 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/~shshttp://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs -- 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] GE: Bad medicine?
“Who will decide there is a need, that climate engineering is an “appropriate medicine”? The conditions for making such a technological wager legitimate, democratic, and equitable must be explicit. For we are naive to assume the decision to administer a medicine by a physician is based on efficacy and safety alone. And we will pay the price if we fail to acknowledge that there are limits to knowledge and ignore the lessons of history.” Most scientific bodies (“doctors”) have decided the earth is sick and needs “medicine”. Conventional remedies aren’t working. A variety of potential technological solutions (“medicines”) have been proposed and need to be tested to determine risk/benefit. Yes, even the best governed scientific endeavors will not be able to identify all risks, any better than we can imperfectly predict risk/benefit in medicine. So given that we will never have perfect knowledge, shall we just let the patient die for fear that science cannot provide a better outcome? If not, what are we waiting for? -G Legitimate Conditions for Climate Engineering Richard Owen University of Exeter, U.K. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (21), pp 9116–9117 DOI: 10.1021/es2033185 Publication Date (Web): October 10, 2011 Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society On September 13th scientists announced preparations were underway for the first UK field trial of climate engineering feasibility.(1) JavaScript:void(0); The proposed trial will be modest: it will pump water through a 1 km high balloon-tethered hose, to assess the feasibility of reflective particle injection high into the atmosphere, mimicking the temperature-reducing effects of volcanic eruptions. But it has stimulated considerable debate about whether research in this controversial field should be undertaken at all, and if so the conditions under which it is acceptable to proceed. Responding, the President of the UK’s Royal Society, Paul Nurse, replied that there should be research on both the efficacy and safety of geoengineering:(2) JavaScript:void(0); “One would not take a medicine that had not been rigorously tested to make sure that it worked and was safe. But, if there was a risk of disease, one would research possible treatments and, once the effects were established, one would take the medicine if needed and appropriate. Similarly we need controlled testing of any technologies that might be used in the future”. His comments, and specifically this analogy to pharmaceuticals, raise important questions concerning the conditions under which we decide to deploy controversial technologies such as solar radiation management. Pharmaceuticals indeed go through a rigorous testing process before they are authorized for use (“data before market”), but this is because we know the harmful effects to look for and there are well-established test methods to quantify these, built up over decades of knowledge and incorporated into trials of efficacy and safety. We do not have this for the emerging science of climate engineering and are therefore compelled to proceed under conditions of ignorance. The response is that we should establish strong research governance processes, developing and then employing tests of efficacy and safety before any decision to deploy (i.e., proceed with caution) in the same way we have built up understanding of pharmaceutical efficacy and safety over time and incorporated this into the tests required of medicines before use. This is to be recommended. The Limits of Knowledge There is however an important caveat to this approach. Despite our best intentions, it may only be once deployment has actually occurred that any nasty surprises surface. The history of nasty surprises is long, from CFCs to asbestos.(3) JavaScript:void(0); Indeed surprises such as thalidomide were a major driver of regulation for pharmaceuticals, which in turn strives to ensure these effects do not occur again. But this happens after the fact. Regulation is often blind to that which it has not encountered before. Such unanticipated effects might not emerge for solar radiation management, but this will always be a gamble for which the probabilities can never be known, a point acknowledged by the Royal Society in 2009. The unintended side effects of many well-intentioned innovations have not been predicted. Here there is an analogy with pharmaceuticals: despite tests, who could have predicted that the birth control pill would cause environmental endocrine disruption?(4) JavaScript:void(0); The argument is that research can help us rule out the technology, on the basis of efficacy, safety or both. But what happens if it is not ruled out? What if, after careful consideration of risks and feasibility, solar radiation management becomes a serious option? Who then would be prepared to place a bet for which the stakes can never be fully known? Perhaps the seriousness of climate change
RE: [geo] Re: White roof snag
Chris, Re my original snow question, you say: It is not a corallary to the Jacobson result that putting snow beneath dark aerosols will warm climate. Snow, like roofs, is bright, so it is understandable why one might think this. However snow, unlike roofs, melts when you warm the overlying atmosphere. So BC unambiguously and in all models (including Jacobson's) destroys snow. This would seem like a testable hypothesis: Everything else being equal, do the temperature records show warmer temps in snow covered regions downstream versus upstream of anthro aerosol loading? Does satellite data show that snow cover recedes faster downstream versus upstream of anthro aerosols? Another point is that BC doesn't destroy snow unless the temp rises above 0 deg C. If the T = -10 and BC warms it to -9, no snow is lost(?) T effects on sublimation? So regions where the BC effect would be most pronounced would be those (lower altitude/latitude, later season) on the cusp of 0 deg C. Perhaps I should take a meteorology course. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Zender [zen...@uci.edu] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 9:46 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: White roof snag It is helpful to frame the Jacobson results on white roofs in terms of direct and indirect effects. The unambiguous effect of white roofs is to increase the direct radiative forcing of any aerosols above. To be precise, brighter surfaces increase absorption by overlying aerosols and thus increase net positive, or reduce net negative, direct radiative forcing by tropospheric aerosols. This alteration of the direct forcing of overlying aerosols is in addition to, and of the opposite sign as, the direct albedo forcing by the brighter surface. Brighter surfaces (including snow) always have this two-sided radiative effect. Regarding Oliver's question about whether people have looked at this in terms of how dark aerosols above brightened clouds may degrade the cooling effects of the clouds: All studies of cloud-brightening that include interactive black carbon (BC) aerosol have already accounted for the compensating effects of BC heating. The direct heating effect of BC (i.e., warming by BC itself), and its semi-direct effect on clouds (i.e., changes in cloud existence/properties/lifetime due to BC) are automatically accounted for by most climate models. This includes the studies from Phil Rasch's group. These days it is actually more difficult to perform an experiment that neglects cloud/aerosol direct and semi-direct effects. BC aerosol tends to be trapped in the boundary layer where it is emitted, and very little BC lofts above clouds (this is why atmospheric BC has smaller forcing efficacy than most other aerosols and gases). Hence BC has negligible impact on the cooling from cloud-brightening. This is doubly true because sensible cloud-brightening strategies, like Salter/Latham, aim for pristine clouds. These are, almost by definition, predominantly in regions anti-correlated with BC. Two more points worth making about the Jacobson results: 1. It is not a corallary to the Jacobson result that putting snow beneath dark aerosols will warm climate. Snow, like roofs, is bright, so it is understandable why one might think this. However snow, unlike roofs, melts when you warm the overlying atmosphere. So BC unambiguously and in all models (including Jacobson's) destroys snow. 2. That the _net effect_ of the brighter roofs is warmer climate is a model-dependent response to the direct, semi-direct, and indirect radiative forcing of BC. Different models will have different responses to these effects. Crop-brightening experiments show that brighter fields cool climate (in the presence of current distributions of BC, which are not strongly correlated with agriculture). I'm not familiar with any studies of roof-brightening besides Jacobson's. His result is plausible. Given the wide variety of equally plausible aerosol indirect effects, it is not surprising to me that some models might find a non-intuitive warming due to brighter roofs. Jacobson's results show that geoengineering research is simply climate research by another name. The same numerical experiment needs to be performed in other models before the result can be considered robust. I think the jury will remain out on this longer than it will on Conrad Murray. Sitting in an airport with nothing better to do, Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this
[geo] Those Arctic micro-geoengineers
Thawing microbes could control the climate As the Arctic permafrost melts over the coming decades, long-frozen microorganisms will thaw out and start feasting on the soil. The first have already begun to wake up – and early signs are that they will have a major impact on how Earth's climate changes. As the Arctic permafrosthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925374.500-arctic-permafrost-set-to-disappear-over-next-century.html thaws, runaway global warminghttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125713.300-climate-change-one-degree-and-were-done-for.html may ensue, because the huge amounts of organic carbonhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026855.000-arctic-tundra-releases-annual-methane-burp.html the permafrost contains will escape into the atmospherehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity.html. To find out how the permafrost's microorganisms will respond to a thaw, Janet Janssonhttp://esd.lbl.gov/about/staff/janetjansson/ of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, and colleagues collected three cores from permafrost soil in central Alaska. Back in the lab, they thawed samples of each core and kept them at 5 °C. For the first two days the melting ice released lots of methane that had been trapped when it formed, but the rate then quickly dropped. That's because soil microorganisms thawed out, and although some began making methane that added to the emissions, others consumed it and converted it into carbon dioxide instead. It's a very rapid response, Jansson says. Her team took samples of DNA from the permafrost as it warmed up, allowing them to track how the microbial population changed. Many studies have examined the gases that escape from thawing permafrost, but we knew little about how the microbes within influence the process, says Torben Christensenhttp://lucci.lu.se/people_christensen.html of Lund University in Sweden. The permafrost ecosystem is almost entirely unexplored. Most of the microorganisms in permafrost have never been cultivated, and more than 90 per cent are unidentified, Jansson says. Chilly microbes Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17625-as-arctic-ocean-warms-megatonnes-of-methane-bubble-up.html, although it does not stay in the atmosphere as long. Jansson says a release of CO2 is still bad news, but preferable to methane. It's long been known that methane-munching microorganisms will get to work in thawing permafrost, Christensen says. At least 50 per cent of the gross production of methane will be oxidised. In other words, consumed. The question is, will the methane-eaters be able to consume the bulk of the gas once the permafrost starts melting in a big way? Christensen says that will depend on what happens to the water table. Higher water tables mean more methane and fewer microorganisms to eat it, while lower water tables mean the opposite. No laughing matter Also adding to our worries are indications that thawing permafrost may release large quantities of nitrous oxidehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo803 – aka laughing gas – which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than methanehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125695.000-nitrous-oxide--no-laughing-matter-for-forests.html, and damages the ozone layerhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17698-laughing-gas-is-biggest-threat-to-ozone-layer.html into the bargain. As the team's permafrost samples thawed they saw no boost in the levels of microbes that produce nitrous oxide reductase, an enzyme that converts nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen. Without this boost, the nitrous oxide could escape. Christensen has set up a monitoring system to track greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, and is increasingly tracking nitrous oxide as well as CO2 and methane. It may be a player, he says. Journal reference: Naturehttp://www.nature.com/nature/index.html, DOI: 10.1038/nature10576 -- 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] Advice to GE decision makers: More BAU?
“It [the report*] recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, to use only if clearly needed. Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says.” *http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/report-release-geoengineering-for-decision-makers Given that energy efficiency, carbon-free energy sources, and climate research (as a mitigation strategy?) have clearly failed to stabilize CO2 (despite many $B’s in investment in these technologies, emission rate up a record 6% last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels) and will likely continue to fail ( http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf), how about hedging our bet and fund CDR and SRM RD equally with the preceding approaches? Otherwise, might it be a wee bit risky to wait on RD until GE becomes “clearly needed”? And who is going to decide this? If “... decisionmakers later in the century could find themselves in a situation where geoengineering is the only recourse to truly dangerous climate change, then why should we now deliberately throttle GE research if it might ultimately prove essential in preserving earth habitability? -Greg Rau TECHNOLOGY: Geoengineering may now be required as a 'Plan B' for climate change -- study Lauren Morello, EE reporter Published: Thursday, November 10, 2011 Faced with the risk that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions may not succeed in staving off dangerous climate change, governments should begin research now to determine whether geoengineering approaches are a viable Plan B, argues a new report from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Several of the best climate studies suggest that stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases below the level that risk dangerous climate change will require a social mobilization and technological transformation at a speed and scale that has few if any peacetime precedents, says the analysis, released today. If correct ... decisionmakers later in the century could find themselves in a situation where geoengineering is the only recourse to truly dangerous climate change. The report echoes similar recommendations from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Government Accountability Office, the U.K. Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. But it places a sharper emphasis on the idea that geoengineering should not be considered a substitute for emissions reductions or a primary strategy to fight climate change. Always consider geoengineering issues in a broader contact of climate change management, which includes emissions reduction as the primary strategy and adaptation strategy as the secondary strategy, the Wilson Center report says. It recommends that policymakers consider geoengineering as a third strategy, to use only if clearly needed. Likewise, governments should not fund geoengineering research at the expense of research and development of energy efficiency measures, carbon-free energy sources, climate science research or adaptation efforts, the report says. -- 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] Biochar Review
Technical, Economical, and Climate-Related Aspects of Biochar Production Technologies: A Literature Review Sebastian Meyer*http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es201792c#cor1†, Bruno Glaser‡, and Peter Quicker§ Bioenergy Unit, Ecofys, 81243 München, Germany Soil Biogeochemistry, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06120 Halle, Germany Unit of Technology of Fuels, RWTH Aachen, 52062 Aachen, Germany Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (22), pp 9473–9483 DOI: 10.1021/es201792c Publication Date (Web): September 30, 2011 Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society E-mail: seppme...@gmx.netmailto:seppme...@gmx.net; phone: 0049-176-23595765. Abstract [cid:image003.jpg@01CCA2B0.1CC4DFF0]javascript:void(0); For the development of commercial biochar projects, reliable data on biochar production technologies is needed. For this purpose, peer-reviewed scientific articles on carbonization technologies (pyrolysis, gasification, hydrothermal carbonization, and flash carbonization) have been analyzed. Valuable information is provided by papers on pyrolysis processes, less information is available on gasification processes, and few papers about hydrothermal and flash carbonization technologies were identified. A wide range of data on the costs of char production (between 51 US$ per tonne pyrolysis biochar from yard waste and 386 US$ per tonne retort charcoal) and on the GHG balance of biochar systems (between −1054 kg CO2e and +123 kg CO2e per t dry biomass feedstock) have been published. More data from pilot projects are needed to improve the evaluation of biochar production technologies. Additional research on the influence of biochar application on surface albedo, atmospheric soot concentration, and yield responses is necessary to assess the entire climate impact of biochar systems. Above all, further field trials on the ability of different technologies to produce chars for agricultural soils and carbon sequestration are essential for future technology evaluation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] FW: Open for comment: U.S. Global Change Research Program strategic plan
In case you missed this, draft strategic plan for climate measurement and prediction for informing decision makers is announced below. Since the document does bring up climate science as servicing adaptation and mitigation, e.g.*, might it be appropriate to insert language on GE and how climate science could inform GE research/implementation and visa versa? Just a thoughtGreg *”Building from basic scientific understanding of global change and the associated vulnerabilities to key societal areas, it is possible to identify a research agenda for the two major and interlinked categories of global change responses: adaptation and mitigation. In the next decade, USGCRP and its member agencies will advance the development of actionable knowledge to support decision making about effective adaptation and mitigation responses.” *”Efforts to mitigate climate change focus on reducing emissions of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Options include the capture and sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions, altered agricultural and forestry practices, more efficient use of energy, and a transition to low-carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, and nuclear.” -- Forwarded Message From: UCS Science Network sciencenetw...@ucsusa.org Reply-To: UCS Science Network sciencenetw...@ucsusa.org Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:37:53 -0800 To: r...@llnl.gov r...@llnl.gov Subject: Open for comment: U.S. Global Change Research Program strategic plan http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=z-Gu1QxYFzoRt3yW9M6atQ http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=q_bi861B3U2n4use73mwqQ http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ogYFaU-mWcHzdgeTUGOH7w ACTION ALERT Open for Comment: U.S. Global Change Research Program 2012-2021 Strategic Plan Dear Greg, The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has released their draft strategic plan for 2012-2021 http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=2GmWxPiJh9DFIXCTYfvAxA (pdf). The draft plan is open for public comment through November 29, 2011. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. This role as a coordinating body is extremely valuable to ensuring the federal government researches, assesses, and develops authoritative documents on global climate change. Currently, they are coordinating the next National Climate Assessment due out in 2013. We encourage you to review the draft strategic plan and submit your comment, with particular emphasis on the need to ensure an open and transparent process and the importance of effective communication of their reports to both policy makers and the public to inform decisions. Submit Your Comment Via the USGCRP Website http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=GHtm7bw1cgicp9kSts0vwg Comments may also be sent to strategicplancomme...@usgcrp.gov. Click here for guidelines for submission of comments http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=dSg0CY5qA3SFKBIjrpcieQ . Deadline: November 29, 2011 Sincerely, Jean Sideris Outreach Coordinator UCS Climate Energy Program Submit Your Comment Today Read the USGCRP 2012-2021 draft strategic plan http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=5a2BsmntwH9RyWx7Gj9wpw (pdf) and submit your comment today http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=06fcXy9U1I_EQC6W9DabGQ . Deadline is November 29, 2011. Related Links USGCRP Draft Strategic Plan http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=i_Vill6meOXPNXRWMaAgnw (pdf) More about the USGCRP http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=fcgFb9biv024dw66pbipAw National Climate Assessment http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=vVF_Fpnqri-yS_t6leGbdg Tell A Colleague Please encourage your colleagues to sign up http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=sYnqvOJGNQylXWlZ3MUWrg and help increase our effectiveness in creating a healthy environment and a safer world. CLICK HERE http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=tXWwen7nJ0utctARy7wmnw . The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=-9z3Mxyisekl-DaBYm83zQ Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Telephone: 800-666-8276 | Fax: 617-864-9405 sciencenetw...@ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org To stop receiving emails from UCS about climate change, click here to update your interests http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=mS6KdYjBI-sTqsZaHkgDKA . About UCS http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=zwcI_8_7rl8B9DXY9Fn-5A | Take Action http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=rOanE9sksb0Dg-coy4bBQA | Donate http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=wT0C4x9QSBNMa7nYGNMtrw | Contact Us http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=ZyNeXGVhldPdSzWlMSuzuQ | Privacy Policy http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=PPuIwC6bEEb0nasF80_6QQ | Unsubscribe http://action.ucsusa.org/site/CO?i=U12Z9nC3oCDa6d9RQ2WfKYU_0BI574aCcid=1785 | Update Your Profile
[geo] Reminder
Dear NACP investigators' community: I strongly encourage you to comment on the draft US Global Change Research Program Strategic Plan for 2012-2021. The public comment period ends on Tuesday, 29 November, 2011. This document is intended to guided federal research in global change for the next decade, thus it is critically important to the NACP and all carbon cycle research in the U.S. This document is quite unusual compared to past strategic plans. The current draft is almost entirely focused on process, and almost entirely devoid of scientific content. The reference list, for example, is exceptionally short, and the document provides little to no specific scientific guidance for a research agenda in any field of climate change research. I find this disturbing. The goals of the current plan, for example, are generic to any scientific endeavor: * Goal 1: Advance Science: Advance scientific knowledge of the integrated natural and human components of the Earth system * Goal 2: Inform Decisions: Provide the scientific basis to inform, and enable timely decisions on adaptation and mitigation * Goal 3: Sustained Assessments: Build sustained assessment capacity that improves the nation's ability to understand, anticipate, and respond to global change impacts and vulnerabilities * Goal 4: Communicate and Educate: Advance communications and education to broaden public understanding of global change, and empower the workforce of the future The implementation plan is exceptionally generic. The 2008 update to the strategic plan, in comparison, had 5 scientific goals with associated research elements (listed below). It also mentioned 'cross cutting approaches' that were similar to the 4 areas that are now listed as the primary goals of the new draft plan. Within each of the 5 scientific goals, an attempt was made to describe the state of the science and to present a substantive research agenda for the coming years. I am concerned that the current draft plan is so weak in scientific detail that it will not motivate a strong US global change research program. Your comments can make a considerable difference. Whatever your opinion, please take a look at this draft (and perhaps compare to the past strategic plans), and take the time to send in your thoughts. Carbon cycle science in the US currently benefits from an active and engaged Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group (CCIWG) and Science Steering Group (CCSSG), a new US Carbon Cycle Science Plan, and a relatively strong and organized NACP research community. All of these are due in part to past USGCRP strategic plans that have called out carbon cycle science as an area of scientific need. While the current draft does not rule out carbon cycle science as an important area of research, it also, in my opinion, does not strongly promote any specific research agenda. You can find the draft report and submit comments at: http://strategicplancomments.globalchange.gov/ I have included some links and info concerning the past strategic plan below. Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! Ken Davis Professor of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State University and Co-chair, NACP Science Steering Group More information on the strategic planning process: http://www.globalchange.gov/component/content/article/67-themes/153-strategic-planning Link to past USGCRP strategic plans: http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/strategic-plan-2003 2008 USGCRP strategic plan goals (then called the Climate Change Science Program - CCSP), approaches, and program elements are listed below for your information: GOALS: • CCSP Goal 1: Improve knowledge of the Earth’s past and present climate and environment, including its natural variability, and improve understanding of the causes of observed variability and change. • CCSP Goal 2: Improve quantification of the forces bringing about changes in the Earth’s climate and related systems. • CCSP Goal 3: Reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s climate and related systems may change in the future. • CCSP Goal 4: Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and managed ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global changes. • CCSP Goal 5: Explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability and change. In working toward these strategic goals, CCSP employs four core approaches, including: • Scientific Research: Plan, sponsor, and conduct research on changes in climate and related systems. • Observations: Enhance observations and data management systems to generate a comprehensive set of variables needed for climate-related research. • Decision Support: Develop improved science based resources to aid decisionmaking. • Communications: Communicate results to domestic and international scientific and stakeholder communities, stressing
[geo] That darn permafrost methane
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/30215740.htm#.TthZQQuuESg.email ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2011) — As global temperatures continue to rise at an accelerated rate due to deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, natural stores of carbon in the Arctic are cause for serious concern, researchers say. In an article scheduled to be published Dec. 1 in the journal Nature, a survey of 41 international experts led by University of Florida ecologist Edward Schuur shows models created to estimate global warming may have underestimated the magnitude of carbon emissions from permafrost over the next century. Its effect on climate change is projected to be 2.5 times greater than models predicted, partly because of the amount of methane released in permafrost, or frozen soil. We're talking about carbon that's in soil, just like in your garden where there's compost containing carbon slowly breaking down, but in permafrost it's almost stopped because the soil is frozen, Schuur said. As that soil warms up, that carbon can be broken down by bacteria and fungi, and as they metabolize, they are releasing carbon and methane, greenhouse gases that cause warmer temperatures. As a result of plant and animal remains decomposing for thousands of years, organic carbon in the permafrost zone is distributed across 11.7 million square miles of land, an amount that is more than three times larger than previously estimated. The new number is mainly based on evidence the carbon is stored much deeper as the result of observations, soil measurements and experiments. We know the models are not yet giving us the right answer -- it's going to take time and development to make those better, and that process is not finished yet, Schuur said. It's an interesting exercise in watching how scientists, who are very cautious in their training, make hypotheses about what our future will look like. The numbers are significant, and they appear like they are plausible and they are large enough for significant concern, because if climate change goes 20 or 30 percent faster that we had predicted already, that's a pretty big boost. The survey, which was completed following a National Science Foundation-funded Permafrost Carbon Network workshop about six months ago, proposed four warming scenarios until 2040, 2100 and 2300. Researchers were asked to predict the amount of permafrost likely to thaw, how much carbon would be released, and what amount would be methane, which has much more warming potential than carbon dioxide. The occurrence of carbon in northern soils is natural and the chemical does not have an effect on climate if it remains underground, but when released as a greenhouse gas it can add to climate warming. However, humans could slow warming temperatures as the result of greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, which are what speed up the process of permafrost thaw. Even though we're talking about a place that is very far away and seems to be out of our control, we actually have influence over what happens based on the overall trajectory of warming. If we followed a lower trajectory of warming based on controlling emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, it has the effect of slowing the whole process down and keeping a lot more carbon in the ground, Schuur said. Just by addressing the source of emissions that are from humans, we have this potential to just keep everything closer to its current state, frozen in permafrost, rather than going into the atmosphere. The survey shows that by 2100, experts believe the amount of carbon released will be 1.7 to 5.2 times greater than previous models predict, under scenarios where Arctic temperatures rise 13.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Some predicted effects of global warming include sea level rise, loss of biodiversity as some organisms are unable to migrate as quickly as the climate shifts and more extreme weather events that could affect food supply and water resources. This new research shows that the unmanaged part of the biosphere has a major role in determining the future trajectory of climate change, said Stanford University biology professor Christopher Field, who was not involved in the study. The implication is sobering. Whatever target we set for atmospheric CO2, this new research means we will need to work harder to reach it. But of course, limiting the amount of climate change also decreases the climate damage from permafrost melting. When carbon is released from the ground as a result of thawing permafrost, there is no way of trapping the gases at the source, so action to slow its effect must be taken beforehand. If you think about fossil fuel and deforestation, those are things people are doing, so presumably if you had enough will, you could change your laws and adjust your society to slow some of that down, Schuur said. But when carbon starts being emitted from the permafrost,
[geo] GE: Love/hate (cont.)
The final report grew out of three days of talks in a quiet country retreat last March, the climax of a yearlong dialogue spanning experts in 22 countries. Quiet indeed. - Greg U.N. Climate Conference: Geoengineering Could Save Earth -- Or Destroy It ARTHUR MAX 12/ 2/11 12:29 PM ET React DURBAN, South Africa — Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning sun shades over the Earth? At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth – and what would happen if it did. A report released late Thursday in London and discussed Friday at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that – in theory – reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strike's the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect. Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise. But no one knows what the side effects would be. They could be physical – unintentionally changing weather patterns and rainfall. Even more difficult, it could be political – spurring conflict among nations unable to agree on how such intervention, or geoengineering, will be controlled. The idea of solar radiation management has the potential to be either very useful or very harmful, said the study led by Britain's Royal Society, the Washington-based Environmental Defense Fund and TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world based in Trieste, Italy. Environmentalist Silvia Ribeiro, of the Canada-based ETC-Group, said geoengineering should be outlawed before it gets off the ground. Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact, she said. The final report grew out of three days of talks in a quiet country retreat last March, the climax of a yearlong dialogue spanning experts in 22 countries. It was prompted in part by the failure of a 20-year U.N. negotiating process to take decisive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, responsible for climate change. The slow progress of international climate negotiations has led to increased concerns that sufficient cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may not be achieved in time to avoid unacceptable levels of climate change, the report said. But geoengineering is not an alternative to climate action, said John Shepherd, a British oceanographer from the University of Southampton who was a lead author of the report. Nobody thought this provides a justification for not reducing carbon emissions, Shepherd said in a telephone interview from London. We have to stick with Plan A for the time being, and that could be a very long time indeed, he said. This would buy time for people to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees temperatures rising as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, swelling the seas with melted glacial water and disrupting climate conditions around the globe. Releasing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere would mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, lowering global temperature about 0.5 Centigrade (0.9 Fahrenheit), which can last for a year or two when it occurs naturally. But deliberately tinkering with nature to counter global warming can only be a stopgap measure, and is fraught with danger, the report said. Action such as spraying sulfur into the air or brightening clouds with sea water to reflect more sunlight would have to be sustained indefinitely because there would be a large and rapid climate change if it were terminated suddenly, the report said. Hazy skies could alter weather patterns and agriculture, replacing one source of climate change with another. Years of study are required to calculate the environmental impacts, but the bigger questions are political. Who would decide where and when to conduct experiments, and where to set the global thermostat? What would happen if a country acted on its own without an international agreement? Would it discourage efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions? Notions of manipulating the climate to impede global warming have been on the fringe of scientific discussion for some time, but is moving increasingly toward the mainstream. In the United States, a group of 18 U.S. experts from the
[geo] Durban: Same ineffective solutions offered despite record CO2?
Only by reducing our CO2 emissions and enhancing the protection of oceans to strengthen their ability to recover, can we effectively address this issue. [from article pasted below] Haven't these guys heard of CDR, and no, there will be zero ability for many marine species to recover once fatal pH and carbonate saturation state tolerances are crossed. Betting on CO2 emissions reductions to keep us from this threshold appears increasingly dubious (despite all of our concerns, we set a record for CO2 emissions increase last year). Thus, we need to seriously consider/fund research on enhanced, post-emission CO2 removal from air, especially enhancing weathering reactions that can convert air CO2 to ocean alkalinity, doubly helping avoid/correct the damage being done to ocean chemistry and biology. If we are truly concerned about the fate of the ocean, why isn't the preceding being advocated by our representatives in high profile meetings setting global CO2 management and RD policy? -Greg Greg H. Rau, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz (off-campus) L-103 Carbon Management Program LLNL 7000 East Ave Livermore, CA 94550 Tel 925 423 7990 Cell 510 363 1519 r...@llnl.gov http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/286677 WARNING OVER OCEAN ACIDITY LEVELS Geoengineering solutions to climate change cannot stop the increasing acidity of the oceans, conserv Large scale geoengineering solutions to climate change will not reverse rising acidity in the oceans which damages marine life, conservationists have warned. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) issued a call at the UN climate talks in Durban for countries to urgently address the issue of ocean acidification, caused by greater levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The oceans absorb around a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans put into the atmosphere each year, the IUCN said, but the gas dissolving into the seas causes the water to become more acidic. The IUCN said the acidity of the world's oceans had increased by 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and could continue at an unprecedented rate in the coming decades. But while ocean acidification has the same cause as climate change - increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere - not all the solutions for global warming will help the situation faced by the seas, the International Ocean Acidification Reference User Group warned. Efforts to reflect the sun's rays, through putting aerosols or even mirrors into the atmosphere, will not reduce levels of CO2 or protect the oceans. Dr John Baxter, of Scottish Natural Heritage and deputy chairman of the Reference User Group which supports work in a number of regions and countries including the UK, said: Geoengineering solutions, such as reflecting solar radiation, which are often suggested to deal with climate change, will not address the progressive acidification of the ocean. Both climate change and acidification need to be taken into account when designing solutions to these challenges. And Professor Dan Laffoley, marine vice chairman of the IUCN's world commission on protected areas and chairman of the Reference User Group, said: The increasing amounts of carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere every day are changing our oceans, steadily increasing their acidity and dramatically affecting marine life. Only by reducing our CO2 emissions and enhancing the protection of oceans to strengthen their ability to recover, can we effectively address this issue. He urged negotiators and ministers in Durban and at next summer's environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro to mark 20 years since the original Earth Summit in Brazil to acknowledge the problem and take appropriate action to tackle it. -- 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] Is it time yet to seriously evaluate post-emissions mitigation?
NYTimes editorial December 16, 2011 Beyond Durban Startling new evidence that global carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than ever did little to increase the urgency of the climate talks in Durban, South Africa, which concluded earlier this week. Once again, the world’s negotiators kicked the can down the road. Even as delegates from nearly 200 countries were meeting, the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists, reported that emissions from carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, the main greenhouse gas, had jumped 5.9 percent in 2010, the sharpest one-year rise on record. The report also said that carbon emissions cumulatively had risen by an astonishing 49 percent since 1990, higher than any previous estimate. Nobody had expected great progress from Durban, the 17th in a series of habitually quarrelsome and mostly unproductive gatherings since the same countries met in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro under the auspices of the United Nations and agreed to address the gradual warming of the earth. Yet the underwhelming response to the genuinely bad news in the new report shows again how far world leaders are from making the hard decisions necessary to control the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. And it left them further than ever from achieving their stated goal of keeping average global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — a commonly accepted threshold beyond which the planet’s climate patterns could be seriously destabilized. There were a few modest successes. One was an agreement to set up a “green fund” to help poor nations deal with climate change and reduce deforestation, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. More important, with the United States applying much of the pressure, China and India consented to participate in any future agreement limiting emissions and play by the same rules as everyone else. Those two nations are huge producers of greenhouse gases and, until now, have disclaimed responsibility for reducing them. The latest figures show that China and India each had emission increases of about 10 percent since 2009. Since 1990, China’s emissions have tripled; India’s nearly so. Along with all other developing countries, China and India refused to sign on to the legally binding reduction targets agreed to by industrialized nations at the Kyoto conference in 1997. This time they agreed in principle to work toward a new international agreement “applicable to all parties.” The negotiators said they hoped to have such a pact in place by 2015, but, even if that miracle occurred, ratification by member nations would not occur until 2020 at the earliest. The question now is what to do about rising emissions in the next decade. Though Durban has kept the collective process alive, the work of actually cutting emissions will fall to individual nations, especially the big emitters, to take the initiative. In America, the Obama administration has proposed huge increases in automobile efficiency, as well as tough clean air regulations that will mothball a lot of coal-fired power plants. Additional progress may occur in states like California with ambitious programs to encourage energy efficiency and alternative fuels. As for China, one can only hope that its dreadful pollution problems will drive it to new technologies and cleaner fuels, and that other nations will find it in their interest to do the same. What the latest data tell us is that the atmosphere cannot keep waiting for a grand bargain. -- 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] Another Stern warning
A more stringent target, say consistent with an 80 per cent chance of meeting the 2 degree goal, would have an even smaller budget of 500-600bn tonnes [cumulative CO2 emitted globally, 2010 – 2050] …the proven reserves of the world’s top 100 listed coal companies and top 100 listed oil and gas companies could produce 745bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than half of the entire greenhouse gas budget for the next 40 years. National oil companies … have far bigger proven reserves. It is hard to believe that these companies, with a combined value of $7.42tn, are banking on an imminent deployment of carbon capture and storage, which prevents carbon dioxide from being emitted from the burning of fossil fuels. -Stern Perhaps they're banking on GE? - Greg A profound contradiction at the heart of climate change policy By Nicholas Stern December 8, 2011 Financial Times As the negotiations at the UN climate change summit in Durban reach the critical stage, we must not overlook a fundamental contradiction between the way global fossil fuel reserves are evaluated and long-term policy goals. By ignoring this contradiction, companies and markets, as well as governments, are undermining management of the huge risks that rising levels of greenhouse gases pose to their survival. At Cancùn last December, countries attending the last climate change summit agreed on curbing annual greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid global warming of more than 2 centigrade degrees from the mid-19th century, which would carry unacceptably large risks. Scientists warn that achieving about a 50 per cent chance of meeting the 2 degree goal requires cutting global annual emissions from the current level of about 48bn tonnes a year of carbon dioxide equivalent, to about 44bn tonnes in 2020, less than 35bn tonnes in 2030 and less than 20bn tonnes in 2050. It is cumulative emissions that are important and such paths are consistent with a total emissions budget of 1,200bn to 1,400bn tonnes between 2010 and 2050. A more stringent target, say consistent with an 80 per cent chance of meeting the 2 degree( goal, would have an even smaller budget of 500-600bn tonnes. More than two-thirds of current annual emissions of greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide produced by the burning of coal, oil and gas. But according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, proven reserves of fossil fuels, the big majority owned by nation states, would, if burned, produce 2.8tn tonnes of carbon dioxide, about double the carbon budget for the 50-50 chance of meeting the 2 degrees target. Of this total, the proven reserves of the world’s top 100 listed coal companies and top 100 listed oil and gas companies could produce 745bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than half of the entire greenhouse gas budget for the next 40 years. National oil companies, often not listed, have far bigger proven reserves. Companies probably have substantial further potential reserves, and there are billions of dollars committed to searching for more, including tar sands and shale gas. It is hard to believe that these companies, with a combined value of $7.42tn, are banking on an imminent deployment of carbon capture and storage, which prevents carbon dioxide from being emitted from the burning of fossil fuels. So are they assuming countries will not meet their pledges for reducing emissions, and that we will carry on with “business as usual”? If this is the case, the resulting rise in atmospheric concentrations could eventually mean, with a substantial probability, global warming of 5 degrees or more, to temperatures not seen on Earth for more than 30m years. That would probably transform where and how people could live and lead to the migration of hundreds of millions, as well as to conflict and severe economic decline. There is therefore a profound contradiction between declared public policy and the valuations of these listed companies, based on their fossil fuel reserves, which appear to assume that the world will not get anywhere near its targets for managing climate cha( nge. This contradiction is important. It means that the market has either not thought hard enough about the issue or thinks that governments will not do very much – or somewhere between the two. This presents problems for markets’ assessment of risk; for governments’ credibility; and for regulators, whose approach appears to contradict their own governments’ policies. This argument makes no prediction of where the world may go. It points to a logical contradiction between what many governments are saying and what markets appear to believe – implying severe risks both to the markets themselves and to the environments that shape lives and livelihoods across the world. We should recognise that this kind of tension affects not only producers of fossil fuels, but also the industries that use them intensively and the fiscal position of governments holding large
[geo] Carbon Time Bomb in the Arctic
Joe Romm weighs in on Arctic carbon: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/ Sent from my iPad -- 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] More from PNAS
This came to my attention via Adam Cherson. More from our esteemed colleagues at the PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/51/20277 Unfortunately, subscription required. Can anyone out there facilitate distribution of the whole story (link or pdf) to the masses? Thanks, happy holidays, and wishing the globe a lower carbon footprint in '12. Greg Geoengineering: The good, the MAD, and the sensible Hans Joachim Schellnhuber1 + Author Affiliations Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegraphenberg A31, 14412 Potsdam, Germany After the collapse of international climate policy in Copenhagen in December 2009, the tale of geoengineering, promising end-of-the-chimney fixes for anthropogenic global warming, has become increasingly popular (1). This is essentially a tale of two fairies (2): the rather wicked one conjures up solar radiation management (SRM), and the tolerably good one delivers CO2 removal through schemes like industrial “air capture” (IAC). Unfortunately, a study by House et al. (3) pours lots of cold water on the hot IAC stuff. Most notably, the authors maintain that the total systems costs of IAC (factoring in all pertinent processes, materials, and structures) might well be on the order of $1,000 (US$) per ton CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. This is tantamount to forecasting a financial tsunami: for making a tangible contribution to global warming [and ocean acidification (4)] reduction, several Gt CO2 should be “scrubbed” every year in the last third of the 21st century (see below), thus generating a multitrillion-dollar IAC bill. House et al. arrive at their important cost estimate by blending existing bits of scientific and technical information into a convincing common-sense analysis. The take-home message is that the energetic and economic challenges of IAC systems design and implementation have probably been underestimated by previous studies promoting that climate-fix option (5–7). The House et al. argument rests on five cognitive pillars, namely (i) an evaluation of the pertinent Sherwood-plot approach to dilute streams (8); (ii) a realistic thermodynamic efficiency assessment of the processes involved in IAC; (iii) a rough quantification of the power costs for IAC, which can achieve significant carbon negativity only by tapping nonfossil energy sources; (iv) an analogy assessment of the work required for chemical removal of trace gases from mixed streams, exploiting rich empirical data available for SO2 and … -- 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] Further thoughts on Arctic methane
http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/29/should-we-fear-the-methane-time-bomb/ Should We Fear the Methane Time Bomb? by MARLO LEWIS on DECEMBER 29, 2011 in BLOG, FEATURES A favorite doomsday scenario of the anti-carbon crusade hypothesizes that global warming, by melting frozen Arctic soils on land and the seafloor, will release billions of tons of carbon locked up for thousands of years in permafrost. Climate havoc ensues: The newly exposed carbon oxidizes and becomes carbon dioxide (CO2), further enhancing the greenhouse effect. Worse, some of the organic carbon decomposes into methane, which, molecule for molecule, packs 21 times the global warming punch of CO2 over a 100-year time span and more than 100 times the CO2-warming effect over a 20-year period. The fear, in short, is that mankind is fast approaching a “tipping point” whereby outgassing CO2 and methane cause more warming, which melts more permafrost, which releases even more CO2 and methane, which pushes global temperatures up to catastrophic levels. In a popular Youtube video, scientists flare outgassing methane from a frozen pond in Fairbanks, Alaska. A photo of the pond, with methane bubbling up through holes in the ice, appears in the marquee for this post. Are we approaching the End of Days? New York Times science blogger Andrew Revkin ain’t buying it (“Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas – Apocalyplse Not,” 14 Dec. 2011), nor does his colleague, science reporter Justin Gillis (“Artic Methane: Is Catastrophe Imminent?“ 20 Dec. 2011). Revkin excerpts a recent paper on the subject published by the American Geophysical Union: [T]he authors found that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years, adding to the 25 meters of already thawed soil. Forecasting the expected future permafrost thaw, the authors found that even under the most extreme climatic scenario tested this thawed soil growth will not exceed 10 meters by 2100 or 50 meters by the turn of the next millennium. The authors note that the bulk of the methane stores in the east Siberian shelf are trapped roughly 200 meters below the seafloor . . . Revkin also checked in with Ed Dlugokencky, a top methane researcher at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, who told him: [B]ased on what we see in the atmosphere, there is no evidence of substantial increases in methane emissions from the Arctic in the past 20 years. Gillis addresses the most alarming aspect of the ‘methane time bomb’ scenario — the risk that global warming will melt billions of tons of frozen methane formations known as hydrates and clathrates on the seafloor. He reports: While examples can already be found of warmer ocean currents that are apparently destabilizing such deposits—for example, at this site off Spitsbergen, an island in the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic—the scientists explained that a pervasive ocean warming sufficient to destabilize a lot of methane hydrates would almost certainly take thousands of years. And even if that happened, many scientists say that the methane released would largely be consumed in the sea (by bacteria that specialize in eating methane) and would not reach the atmosphere. That is what seems to be happening off Svalbard. “I think it’s just dead wrong to talk about ‘Arctic Armageddon,’ ” said William S. Reeburgh, an emeritus scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who spent decades studying such matters and says the likely consumption of methane within the ocean should not be underestimated. “Most of this methane is never going to see the atmosphere.” And now for my two cents. The Arctic was warmer than present for thousands of years during both the Holocene Climate Optimum (roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago) and the Last Interglacial Period (roughly 130,000 to 100,000 years ago). The chart below, from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (chapter 6, p. 462), shows that most places above 30N experienced greater-than-present warmth during the Holocene Optimum. Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger,* writing in World Climate Report, note that the IPCC chart does not show the full extent of Holocene Optimum Arctic warmth. The IPCC’s data for North Eurasia comes from a paper by UCLA’s Glen McDonald. Chip and Pat quote the paper’s abstract: Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the
[geo] Analysts slash CO2 price forecasts
I'm no economist, but isn't this an amazing market disconnect? The need for CO2 mitigation highest ever, the market value of mitigation plummets. So much for market and policy driven CO2 response. Lack of effective PR, lobbying, and outreach I think is to blame, an no, this is not the primary job of scientists. It apparently takes Madison Ave, K Str, PACs, and lots of money and/or a major climate crisis (by which time it's probably too late). May we have a more successful year in '12. Greg [http://www.reuters.com/resources/images/logo_reuters_media_us.gif]http://www.reuters.com Analysts slash CO2 price forecasts as slowdown seen - pollhttp://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKTRE7BS0R320111229 Thu Dec 29 16:54:30 UTC 2011 By Jeff Coelho LONDON (Reuters) - Analysts have slashed their average price forecasts for European Union and U.N. carbon for next year and beyond as prospects of a slowing global economy and permit oversupply concerns persist, a Reuters poll showed on Thursday. Analysts cut their average forecasts for prices of EU Allowances (EUAs) in the first half of 2012 by 30 percent to 9.33 euros ($12.08) a tonne versus a poll a month earlier. Forecasts for EUA prices in the 2013-2020 trading period, known as the third phase, were reduced by nearly a third to 16.16 euros a tonne. Carbon prices have lost about half their value this year, as the euro zone's fiscal crisis crippled demand in a market that many analysts say is oversupplied with hundreds of millions of EUAs and U.N.-backed credits. The benchmark front-year contract, which hit a record low of 6.30 euros on December 14, was trading under 8 euros a tonne on Thursday. Weak prices have prompted calls by some lawmakers and environmental groups to tackle the supply glut by withholding EUAs or tightening the annual cap on emissions in the third phase of the bloc's emissions trading scheme. The European Parliament's environment committee on December 20 approved a proposal to withhold 1.4 billion permits from the 2013-2020 trading period, a decision that boosted carbon prices by some 20 percent on the day. The vote was a step in the right direction, but only a preliminary step, said Isabelle Curien, a carbon analyst at Deutsche Bank. Nothing is secured yet, she said, noting the measure may never become law as it faces tougher resistance in further parliament votes next year. Other analysts were also reluctant to factor in the prospect of some kind of supply intervention in their latest price forecasts. This forecast does not include any set-aside or tightening of the cap whatsoever, said Ingo Tschach, managing director at Tschach Solutions in Germany. A final position decision on set-aside volumes would obviously increase our price forecasts. Trevor Sikorski, the head of carbon research at Barclays Capital, said the willingness by some lawmakers to tighten supply could influence the incoming EU presidency to put the issue high on the agenda. Denmark takes over the rotating EU presidency on January 1. We believe the Danish presidency of the EU starting in January may just look at this as something achievable during its time at the helm, Sikorski said in a research note last week. Finally, a reason not just to be short, he added, referring to market participants who have been expecting carbon prices to fall in recent months. Analysts also lowered forecasts for the average prices of U.N.-backed Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), with prices for the first half of 2012 lowered by 21 percent to 6.64 euros a tonne from last month's poll. For the 2013-2020, analysts cut their CER price forecasts by 30 percent to 12.47 euros. Front-year CERs were trading around 4.30 euros on Thursday. (Reporting by Jeff Coelho; additional reporting by Michael Szabo; editing by Jason Neely) This service is not intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your colleague have been used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email communication and have not been retained by Thomson Reuters. Your personal details have not been added to any database or mailing list. If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address, please subscribe at www.reuters.com/newsmailshttp://www.reuters.com/newsmails © Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011 All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Thomson Reuters and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the
Re: [geo] Re: Further thoughts on Arctic methane
Also, I haven't read the literature, but has anyone actually measured the bubbles to show that it's methane and not H2S, NxOy, CO2, etc. Granted the former are probably not going to be important on land/freshwater. The images of the undersea plumes are impressive. Would be really interesting to do some chem profiling in the water column (even just pH) to show effects of active CH4 oxidation to CO2, carbonate undersaturation, etc. Should be some major ocean acidification going on locally, with bio impacts. -Greg --- On Fri, 1/6/12, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Subject: [geo] Re: Further thoughts on Arctic methane To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Date: Friday, January 6, 2012, 3:16 AM Thanks Charlie for posting the link to Archer's article. The article says - On land, there is lots of methane in the thawing Arctic, exploding lakes and what not. This methane is probably produced by decomposition of thawing organic matter. So quite a bit of the methane being released into the atmosphere is freshly produced methane and not release of frozen methane. And so far, the sources of methane from high latitudes are small, relative to the big player, which is wetlands in warmer climes. It is very difficult to know whether the bubbles are a brand-new methane source caused by global warming, or a response to warming that has happened over the past 100 years, or whether plumes like this happen all the time. In any event, it doesn’t matter very much unless they get 10 or 100 times larger, because high-latitude sources are small compared to the tropics. This is a very important observation. The methane being released in the Arctic is visible to the naked eye and what we see is often quite dramatic - bubbles and flames from lakes but the methane being released in tropics is not visible - the silent killer. So are we just getting carried away by what we see. regards Bhaskar On Jan 5, 10:53 pm, Charlie Zender zen...@uci.edu wrote: David Archer's new piece on Methanageddon is worthwhile reading http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] FW: Goldschmidt Session 12h. Frontiers in methane biogeochemistry
Dear Friends and Colleagues, We would cordially like to draw your attention to the following Goldschmidt session: Session 12h. Frontiers in methane biogeochemistry Methane is a potent greenhouse gas which constitutes an integral part of the global carbon cycle. Although methane has been extensively studied in the past decades, open questions still linger in terms of the methane cycle across a large range of aquatic and sedimentary environments. In this context, some of the greatest unknowns pertain to our current understanding of methanogenesis, namely rates, timescales, and dominant pathways, as well as to the methanotrophic role of oxidizing agents other than sulfate. Addressing these queries will ultimately aid in pinpointing dominant methane sources and sinks, quantifying how much methane is present in the hydrosphere, and further elucidate on past, contemporary, and future methane turnover rates. In this session, we invite active discussion about state-of-the-art studies of methanogenesis and methanotrophy from the biological, geochemical, geological, paleontological, isotopic and modeling perspectives. Topics include insights into methane provenance, methanogenesis vs. methanotrophy, tools for estimating methanogenic and methanotrophic rates, geochemical signatures of these processes, and behavior/detection of methanogenic and methanotrophic communities. The abstract deadline is quickly approaching (February 1st) and we hope to convene a good number of scientists to stimulate discussion and interaction in this important topic. Happy 2012! José Mogollón (Alfred Wegener Institute) Laura Lapham (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) Mike Formolo (University of Tulsa) -- 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.
FW: [geo] FW: Goldschmidt Session 12h. Frontiers in methane biogeochemistry
Link: http://www.goldschmidt2012.org/ Under Program go to Themes then to Theme 12h -G On 1/9/12 9:23 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Dear Friends and Colleagues, We would cordially like to draw your attention to the following Goldschmidt session: Session 12h. Frontiers in methane biogeochemistry Methane is a potent greenhouse gas which constitutes an integral part of the global carbon cycle. Although methane has been extensively studied in the past decades, open questions still linger in terms of the methane cycle across a large range of aquatic and sedimentary environments. In this context, some of the greatest unknowns pertain to our current understanding of methanogenesis, namely rates, timescales, and dominant pathways, as well as to the methanotrophic role of oxidizing agents other than sulfate. Addressing these queries will ultimately aid in pinpointing dominant methane sources and sinks, quantifying how much methane is present in the hydrosphere, and further elucidate on past, contemporary, and future methane turnover rates. In this session, we invite active discussion about state-of-the-art studies of methanogenesis and methanotrophy from the biological, geochemical, geological, paleontological, isotopic and modeling perspectives. Topics include insights into methane provenance, methanogenesis vs. methanotrophy, tools for estimating methanogenic and methanotrophic rates, geochemical signatures of these processes, and behavior/detection of methanogenic and methanotrophic communities. The abstract deadline is quickly approaching (February 1st) and we hope to convene a good number of scientists to stimulate discussion and interaction in this important topic. Happy 2012! José Mogollón (Alfred Wegener Institute) Laura Lapham (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science) Mike Formolo (University of Tulsa) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
