[geo] Volcanoes and climate - Cole-Dai - 2010 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Poster's note : 3 years old, but directly relevant, and hasn't made the list yet. I've recently posted some later analyses to the list which may supercede some of the core analysis referred to in this paper. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.76/abstract Abstract Of the natural forcings causing short-term climatic variations, volcanism, along with its climatic impact, is perhaps the best understood. The primary net result of the impact is the reduced receipt of solar energy at Earth's surface due to the scattering of incoming solar radiation by secondary sulfate aerosols formed from volcanic sulfur. The quantitative effects can be measured in energy-balance-based climate models, which require validation using high-quality paleoclimatic and paleovolcanic data. An important advancement in the effort to understand the role of volcanism in climate change in the recent decade is the significant improvement in paleovolcanic records from polar ice cores, represented by long records with unprecedented temporal accuracy and precision, and by the potential to identify climate-impacting stratospheric eruptions in the records. Other improvements include (1) the investigation of long-term relationship between eruptions (including super-eruptions) and climate variations, beyond an eruption's radiative impact of up to a few years; (2) a better understanding of the response to volcanic perturbation of feedback mechanisms in the climate system; and (3) the limited role of volcanic eruptions in the era of human-induced greenhouse warming. Urgent research/investigation is needed to evaluate the geoengineering proposition to counteract greenhouse warming by injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which is based on the significant cooling effects of stratospheric volcanic eruptions, and its serious unintended consequences. WIREs Clim Change 2010 1 824–839 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.76 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: [off-topic] Romm post criticizing allowable CO2 emissions budget concept
People give up a resource, of any kind and with any burden, only under a few conditions (not in any order): 1 - rigorously enforced government mandate, be it taxes or regulations (but remember prohibition which failed as no viable option was offered) 2 - buy out, 3 - existence of a preferable alternative, based on economic, political, cultural, religious or some other respected driver but not education or moral suasion, or distant future gains or costs as these are deeply discounted. No one knows when that last tree is cut that makes the forest unsustainable (not as is commonly stated, the very last tree) and so there is much argument and righteous justification. The future is almost always sacrificed for the present. The start point for change is on the ground not in pronouncements or policy documents. Demonstrated performance promotes acceptance. The issue to be addressed is how to harness the not insignificant knowledge, skills and contacts of this group to promote tangible engineering. Mike Trachtenberg On Oct 1, 2013, at 3:28 PM, David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com wrote: it might be that for the middle classes of the industrial world that climate change is really a secondary issue and they'll still have their TV sets and their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and life would go on - thus spake Ken Caldeira, discussing his Sept 2012 Scientific American article in a video produced by himself. He says in the video the article is his answer to a question posed to him by Sci-Am editors, i.e. what would happen if we burned ALL the fossil fuels available and dumped that CO2 into the atmosphere? What if Pachauri produced a 4 minute video discussing the new Working Group I AR5 report using this do nothing about your fossil fuel addiction and a hundred years from now people just like you might still be watching TV and eating their McBurgers worrying about something else concept, saying the IPCC thought this could be one way things might turn out, after civilization burned ALL the fossil fuels? Those who promote the carbon budget approach are doing so in reaction to a previous effort which had not roused civilization to act decisively. Almost everyone used to sign on to calls for civilization to act to reduce GHG emissions by a certain percentage by a certain date. An example of a fairly recent call like this, for approximately 50% reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 is the G8 +5 Academies Joint Statement. Similar calls date back to at least 1988. The criticism is, politicians and everyone else might think they could expand emissions right up until 2049 and then deal with the problem. Civilization is certainly continuing to expand its emissions. Hence the push by some to try a different approach. Schellnhuber, who is central in the German discussion about what that country should do about climate change, has been promoting this relatively new carbon budget approach. He is, according to Caldeira if I understand him correctly, one of these dangerous noise makers. Why is it that Germany seems so far ahead of the US when it comes to taking nationally coordinated action aimed at limiting emission of GHG? The principal adviser to Chancellor Merkel on climate change has been prescribing a recipe for disaster that can only encourage politicians to delay concrete action now. Presumably, Merkel has been ignoring her climate adviser. An example of the way Schellnhuber presents the carbon budget concept was recorded, i.e. when he gave the keynote and the closing remarks at the 4 degrees conference in Australia. He thought the approach had advantages. Obviously, since it is a fact that civilization is recarbonizing its energy system notwithstanding the total of everything Germany and every other country is doing, this approach could also be a flop. Enter Caldeira. He offers his idea, i.e. it is imperative that we frame the issue differently again. Fine. Not one more emitted molecule of CO2 is allowable, we must say, while driving our motorcycles to work or as we fly to the next scientific conference. We must preach that everyone should believe that when I emit CO2, I am transgressing against nature and future generations, period. Maybe it will work. However, condemning the sincere efforts of others who have better results in their own countries to show for their efforts, just because nothing so far anywhere is good enough, in the way Caldeira has, goes too far. Ease up on those acid filled beakers was a caption under a Far Side cartoon of scientists fighting each other in a lab. On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:16:49 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly enough that I just can't resist temptation. (He was responding to the Romm post, i.e.
[geo] Arctic microbial community dynamics influenced by elevated CO2 levels
Poster's note : of relevance to OIF, although sadly not done in the Southern Ocean. Nevertheless it shows that OIF might do some odd stuff in a high CO2 world, and we can't assume things will work as expected when rolled out in a panic mid-century. http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/719/2013/bg-10-719-2013.html Arctic microbial community dynamics influenced by elevated CO2 levels Abstract. The Arctic Ocean ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification (OA) related alterations due to the relatively high CO2 solubility and low carbonate saturation states of its cold surface waters. Thus far, however, there is only little known about the consequences of OA on the base of the food web. In a mesocosm CO2-enrichment experiment (overall CO2 levels ranged from ~ 180 to 1100 μatm) in Kongsfjorden off Svalbard, we studied the consequences of OA on a natural pelagic microbial community. OA distinctly affected the composition and growth of the Arctic phytoplankton community, i.e. the picoeukaryotic photoautotrophs and to a lesser extent the nanophytoplankton thrived. A shift towards the smallest phytoplankton as a result of OA will have direct consequences for the structure and functioning of the pelagic food web and thus for the biogeochemical cycles. Besides being grazed, the dominant pico- and nanophytoplankton groups were found prone to viral lysis, thereby shunting the carbon accumulation in living organisms into the dissolved pools of organic carbon and subsequently affecting the efficiency of the biological pump in these Arctic waters. Citation: Brussaard, C. P. D., Noordeloos, A. A. M., Witte, H., Collenteur, M. C. J., Schulz, K., Ludwig, A., and Riebesell, U.: Arctic microbial community dynamics influenced by elevated CO2 levels, Biogeosciences, 10, 719-731, doi:10.5194/bg-10-719-2013, 2013. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research
Jesse and Andrew: 1. Thanks for the lead on the Winickoff-Brown article. They referenced an article (no fee) by Long and Scott that I thought was also very good at http://www.issues.org/29.3/long.html . Not enough, though, in either paper on separating Geo into SRM and CDR. 2. Reading both papers, I didn't see discussion of national vs international. The latter looks quite difficult, but could perhaps be based on a national model that neither paper referenced: a Congressional Office. I was, while on sabbatical, an early employee of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA was headed by a 12 member board consisting of three from each house of Congress and each party. The various administrations paid attention and helped. After 20 years, it was killed by Newt Gingrich in 1994 as a budget-saving gesture for Congress. I think a big mistake as OTA did good work and probably saved a lot of money over the years. The GAO and the CRS are good, but can't do the deep work for Congress that OTA did. 3. I suggest that resurrecting OTA (needs a new name) would have many of the features that the four authors were after. Might work similarly for the UN, but not as obvious how to have a balanced governing board. Ron On Oct 6, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: This article is now available in pdf at http://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/GeoE-ISSUES-Advisory-Committee.pdf A short teaser is below. Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research Even talking about research on geoengineering stirs controversy. Creating an effective mechanism for such discussions will be an essential prerequisite to any scientific work. SUMMER 2013 79 Nobody likes geoengineering. But whether your basic response is revulsion or resignation, the idea is getting increasing attention, and we need to develop a better way of talking about it. The most prominent scheme, known as solar radiation management (SRM), would aim to reduce global warming by spraying aerosols into the stratosphere or whitening clouds, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space. Even strong advocates of geoengineering research acknowledge the many risks involved. The physical risks include possible shifts in global precipitation patterns and increased droughts and floods in the world’s most vulnerable regions. The political risks include the possibility that geoengineering technologies will provide a welcome excuse to avoid difficult measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (continues) On 23 September 2013 09:07, J.L. Reynolds j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl wrote: Time for a Government Advisory Committee on Geoengineering Research Winickoff, David E. Brown, Mark B. Issues in Science and Technology Summer 2013 Even talking about research on geoengineering stirs controversy.Creating an effective mechanism for such discussions will be an essential prerequisite to any scientific work. http://www.scribd.com/doc/170204286/Time-for-a-Government-Advisory-Committee-on-Geoengineering-Research - Jesse L. Reynolds, M.S. PhD Candidate European and International Public Law Tilburg Sustainability Center Tilburg University, The Netherlands Book review editor, Law, Innovation, and Technology email: j.l.reyno...@uvt.nl http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=j.l.reynolds -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
