[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 34 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 34 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.
 15.-19.08.2016, Summer School: 4th Annual
Summer School on Sustainable Climate Risk Management, Penn State/USA

. (new) 16.08.2016
 , Webinar: Future Voices in
Direct Air Capture, Webinar

.   22.-25.08.2016, Conference: The Synergy of
Science and Industry: Biochar's Connection to Ecology, Soil, Food, and
Energy, Corvallis/USA

.
 30.08.2016, (Extended Deadline) Call for
papers: Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research

.

31.8.-03.09.2016, 4S/EASST Session: Tackling climate change by other means:
opening up geoengineering governance

. (new) 02.09.2016
  (Deadline), Job: Senior Post-doctoral Research
Associate - Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain framework for Enhanced
Rock Weathering

.
 11.09.2016, Lecture: Into the Great Wide
Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate Geoengineering, Berkeley City
Club/USA

. (new) 16.09.2016
  (Deadline),
Job: Senior Post Doctoral Research Associate - Modelling Enhanced Weathering
Geochemistry

.
 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal
Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and Internationally,
Arizona State University/USA

.   28.-30.09.2016, Conference:
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

.
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

New Publications

. Sugiyama, Masahiro; et al. (2016)
 : Public attitudes to
climate engineering research and field experiments. Preliminary results of a
web survey on students' perception in six Asia-Pacific countries

. Shearer, Christine; et al. (2016)
 :
Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale
atmospheric spraying program

. Oeste, Franz Dietrich; et al.
 (2016): Climate
engineering by mimicking the natural dust climate control. The Iron Salt
Aerosols method

. Kashimura, Hiroki; et al. (2016)
 : Shortwave radiative
forcing and feedback to the surface by sulphate geoengineering

. Rayner, Steve (2016)
 : What
might Evans-Pritchard have made of two degrees?

. Sonntag, Sebastian; et al. (2016)
 :
Reforestation in a high-CO2 world-Higher mitigation potential than expected,
lower adaptation potential than hoped for

 

Selected Media Responses

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : Can NYC become a leader in
carbon removal?

. The Week
 : Climate scientists are now relying on a terrifying
assumption

. Video
 : MIT Media
Lab Forbidden Research

. FCEA Blog
 : The international human right to science and its application to
geoengineering research and innovation

. Green Biz

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 33 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 33 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.
 11.08.2016, Lecture: Is There
a Safe Way to Use Geo-Engineering to Address Climate Change?, San
Fancisco/USA

.
 15.-19.08.2016, Summer School: 4th Annual
Summer School on Sustainable Climate Risk Management, Penn State/USA

.   22.-25.08.2016, Conference: The Synergy of
Science and Industry: Biochar's Connection to Ecology, Soil, Food, and
Energy, Corvallis/USA

.
 30.08.2016, (Extended Deadline) Call for
papers: Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research

.

31.8.-03.09.2016, 4S/EASST Session: Tackling climate change by other means:
opening up geoengineering governance

.
 11.09.2016, Lecture: Into the Great Wide
Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate Geoengineering, Berkeley City
Club/USA

.
 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal
Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and Internationally,
Arizona State University/USA

.   28.-30.09.2016, Conference:
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

.
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

New Publications

. Newton, Robert; et al. (2016)
 : White
Arctic vs. Blue Arctic. A case study of diverging stakeholder responses to
environmental change

 

Selected Media Responses

. APSIA

: Member Story - Going between science and policy

. ETC Group
 : Activities at World Social Forum 2016

. Bloomberg
 : The 'Forbidden Research' That Tantalizes
Some Scientists

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : What can 45Q do for negative emissions?

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas

[CE News]

  
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-107/ 

Laakso, Anton; Korhonen, Hannele; Romakkaniemi, Sami; Kokkola, Harri (2017): 
Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using 
seasonally varying injection areas. In: Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., S. 1–25. 
DOI: 10.5194/acp-2017-107 .

" Abstract. Stratospheric sulfur injections have often been suggested as a cost 
effective geoengineering method to prevent or slow down global warming. In 
geoengineering studies these injections are commonly targeted to the equator, 
where the intensity of the solar radiation is highest. However, it may not be 
the most optimal aerosol injection strategy because the radiative forcing 
concentrating over the equator decreases the meridional temperature gradient. 
In this study we employ alternative aerosol injection scenarios to investigate 
if the resulting radiative forcing can be optimized to be zonally more uniform 
without decreasing the global efficacy. We used a global aerosol-climate model 
together with an Earth system model to study the radiative and climate effects 
of stratospheric sulfur injection scenarios with different injection areas. 
According to our simulations, varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would 
result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the equator, 
but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing. 
Compared to the case of equatorial injections, in the optimized injection 
scenario where the maximum sulfur production from injected SO2 followed the 
maximum of solar radiation, the shortwave radiative forcing decreased by 27 % 
over the equator (between the latitudes between 20° N and 20° S) and increased 
by 15 % over higher latitudes. Compared to the continuous injections to 
equator, in summer months the radiative forcing was increased by 17 % and 14 % 
and winter months decreased by −14 % and −16 % at northern and southern 
hemispheres respectively. However, these forcings do not translate into very 
significant changes in temperatures. Based on ESM simulations, changes in 
forcing would lead only to 0.05 K warmer winters and 0.05 K cooler summers at 
the northern hemisphere which is roughly 3 % of the cooling resulted from solar 
radiation management scenarios studied here. At the same time the meridional 
temperature gradient was better maintained. "

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 6 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 6 of 2017


Upcoming Events

·
 08.02.2017, Workshop:
Carbon Dioxide Removal/Negative Emissions Technologies (FCEA), Berkeley /
USA

·(new) 16.02.2017 
, Panel Discussion: Launch of Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Initiative
(C2G2)

·(new) 23.-28.04.2017
 , Conference: EGU General Assembly - CE
relevant sessions, Vienna / Austria

·
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

·  23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

·(new) 27.08.-01.09.2017
 , Conference: Good Hope
For Earth Sciences - Session on Geoengineering, Cape Town / South Africa

·  09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·  28.02.2017, Call
for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017: Critical
Global Discussions

·(new) 12.03.2017
 , Call
for Abstracts: Good Hope for Earth Sciences - Session on Geoengineering

·  17.03.2017, Call for Abstracts:
Studies of Volcanism

 

Jobs

· (
 no deadline) Job: Program Assistant, Carnegie Climate
Geoengineering Governance Initiative

 

New Publications

·Fridahl, Mathias (2017)
 :
Socio-political prioritization of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

·Kärcher, Bernd (2017)
 : Cirrus Clouds
and Their Response to Anthropogenic Activities

 

Political Papers

· Global Priorities Project (2017)  :
Existential Risk Diplomacy and Governance

 

Projects

· Carnegie Council (2017)
 : Carnegie Climate Geoengineering
Governance (C2G2) Initiative

· Geoengineering Research Governance Project
 : Request for
public comments and guidelines

 

Selected Media Responses

·ETC Group  :
2016: The Year that Wasn't Normal

·Climate Home
 : Global geoengineering rulebook could be ready by
2020s

·EOS Editor's Vox
 : Good Night Sunshine: Geoengineering Solutions to Climate
Change?

·Phys.org
 :
Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study

·UCAR Atmos News
 :
Turbocharging science. New supercomputer triples Earth system science
capability with greater efficiency

·Whyy Radio
 : Is geoengineering an answer to climate change?

·Treehugger
 : Beyond
organic: Carbon farming is a pathway to climate stabilization and resilient
soils

·PRWeb  :
Carnegie Council Announces Launch of Carnegie Climate Geoengineering
Governance Initiative (C2G2)

 

 

-- 
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 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 4 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 4 of 2017


Upcoming Events

.

24.01.2017, Symposium: Science Council of Japan Auditorium, Tokyo / Japan

.

01.02.2017, Webinar: Restoring the Carbon Balance

.
 08.02.2017, Workshop:
Carbon Dioxide Removal/Negative Emissions Technologies (FCEA), Berkeley /
USA

.
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

.  23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

.  09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

.  28.02.2017, Call
for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017: Critical
Global Discussions

.(extended deadline)
 29.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

.(new) 17.03.2017  , Call for
Abstracts: Studies of Volcanism

 

Jobs

. (
 no deadline) Job: Program Assistant, Carnegie Climate
Geoengineering Governance Initiative

 

New Publications

.Earth's Future special issue
 : Crutzen
+10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research

.Smit, Erika C. (2015) 
: Geoengineering. Issues of Accountability in International Law

 

Selected Media Responses

.Geoengineering Monitor
 : On eve of Trump
inauguration, White House report calls for geoengineering research

.Patreon  :
Weather Control and Geoengineering

.Space.com
 : Geoengineering Earth's Atmosphere: How It Could Affect
Astronomy

.Berkeley Engineering
 : One
big reflective band-aid

.Nextbigfuture Blog
 : Now that climate scientists know that emissions will not be kept
below what would be a less than 2 degree global change level will
geoengineering get serious attention

.EconoTimes
 : Don't fall into the trap of restarting last
decade's 'climate wars'

.the guardian
 : 'A cat in hell's
chance' - why we're losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C

.Project Syndicate
 : Geoengineering Climate Change

.Yale environment 360
 : How Far Can Technology Go To Stave Off Climate Change?

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale atmospheric solar photocatalysis

[CE News]

de_Richter, Renaud; Ming, Tingzhen; Davies, Philip; Liu, Wei; Caillol,
Sylvain (2017): Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale
atmospheric solar photocatalysis. In: Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science 60, S. 68–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecs.2017.01.001.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360128516300569

 

Large-scale atmospheric removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) including
methane, nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting halocarbons could reduce global
warming more quickly than atmospheric removal of CO2. Photocatalysis of
methane oxidizes it to CO2, effectively reducing its global warming
potential (GWP) by at least 90%. Nitrous oxide can be reduced to nitrogen
and oxygen by photocatalysis; meanwhile halocarbons can be mineralized by
red-ox photocatalytic reactions to acid halides and CO2. Photocatalysis
avoids the need for capture and sequestration of these atmospheric
components. Here review an unusual hybrid device combining photocatalysis
with carbon-free electricity with no-intermittency based on the solar
updraft chimney. Then we review experimental evidence regarding
photocatalytic transformations of non-CO2 GHGs. We propose to combine
TiO2-photocatalysis with solar chimney power plants (SCPPs) to cleanse the
atmosphere of non-CO2 GHGs. Worldwide installation of 50,000 SCPPs, each of
capacity 200 MW, would generate a cumulative 34 PWh of renewable electricity
by 2050, taking into account construction time. These SCPPs equipped with
photocatalyst would process 1 atmospheric volume each 14–16 years, reducing
or stopping the atmospheric growth rate of the non-CO2 GHGs and
progressively reducing their atmospheric concentrations. Removal of methane,
as compared to other GHGs, has enhanced efficacy in reducing radiative
forcing because it liberates more °OH radicals to accelerate the cleaning of
the troposphere. The overall reduction in non-CO2 GHG concentration would
help to limit global temperature rise. By physically linking greenhouse gas
removal to renewable electricity generation, the hybrid concept would avoid
the moral hazard associated with most other climate engineering proposals.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 5 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 5 of 2017


Upcoming Events

.

01.02.2017, Webinar: Restoring the Carbon Balance

.
 08.02.2017, Workshop:
Carbon Dioxide Removal/Negative Emissions Technologies (FCEA), Berkeley /
USA

.
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

.  23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

.  09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

.  28.02.2017, Call
for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017: Critical
Global Discussions

.  17.03.2017, Call for Abstracts:
Studies of Volcanism

 

Jobs

. (
 no deadline) Job: Program Assistant, Carnegie Climate
Geoengineering Governance Initiative

 

New Publications

.Reynolds, Jesse L. (2017)
 : Book Review. Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and
Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, edited by Christopher J. Preston

.Gannon, Kate Elizabeth (2015)
 : '40 Million Salmon Might Be
Wrong'. Ecological Worldviews and Geoengineering Technologies: The Case of
the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation

.de_Richter, Renaud; et al.
 (2017):
Removal of non-CO2 greenhouse gases by large-scale atmospheric solar
photocatalysis

.Oeste, Franz Dietrich; et al.
 (2017): Climate engineering by
mimicking natural dust climate control. The iron salt aerosol method

.Coffman, D
 'Maris; Lockley,
Andrew (2017): Carbon dioxide removal and the futures market

.Smit, Erika C. (2015) 
: Geoengineering. Issues of Accountability in International Law

 

Selected Media Responses

.Laboratory News
 : Accidental carbon capture a
real success

.Center For Carbon Removal
 : Leaders in Carbon Removal: Wil Burns

.GOXI Blog  : Carbon
Mining

.Aeon
 : Welcome to Terra Sapiens

.Mail
 & Guardian: Governments remain silent about bids to
geoengineer the climate

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 3 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 3 of 2017


Upcoming Events

·

24.01.2017, Symposium: Science Council of Japan Auditorium, Tokyo / Japan

·

01.02.2017, Webinar: Restoring the Carbon Balance

·
 08.02.2017, Workshop:
Carbon Dioxide Removal/Negative Emissions Technologies (FCEA), Berkeley /
USA

·
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

·  23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

·  09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

·
 22.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·  28.02.2017, Call
for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017: Critical
Global Discussions

 

Jobs

·(new) (no deadline
 ) Job: Program Assistant, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering
Governance Initiative

·

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

·Szerszynski, Bronislaw (2016)
 : Coloring Climates:
Imagining a Geoengineered World

·Curvelo, Paula; Guimarães Pereira, Ângela (2016)
 :
Geoengineering: Reflections on Current Debates

·Gabriel, Corey J.; et al. (2017)
 : The G4Foam Experiment.
Global climate impacts of regional ocean albedo modification

·Kravitz, Ben; et al. (2017)
 : Understanding How Climate Engineering Can Offset
Climate Change. Sixth Meeting of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison
Project; Oslo, Norway, 21–22 June 2016

·Seipp, Charles A.; et al.
 (2016):
CO2 Capture from Ambient Air by Crystallization with a Guanidine Sorbent

 

Political Papers

·U.S. Global Change Research Program (2017)
 : National Global
Change Research Plan 2012–2021 [see press review below]

 

Selected Media Responses

·[press review]
  US Global Change Research
Program in favor of CE research

·Sci Tech Forum  : Wild
Ideas for Stopping Climate Change

·Transition Studies
 : Ethics of Climate Change and Climate
Engineering

·The Global Energy
 & Environmental Law Podcast: Climate Geoengineering
and Its Governance

·Russ George Blog
 : Social Engineering The Planet In The Name Of Climate
Change

·Undark
 : The Measure of a Fog: Geoengineering

·Medium
 : Geoengineering and the WEF

·Center for Carbon Removal

[geo] Mercury News: Commentary: Need portfolio approach to climate risk

[CE News]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_30240559/commentary-need-portfolio-approach-cl
imate-risk-east-bay

 

 

Commentary: Need portfolio approach to climate risk (East Bay Times)

By G. Leonard Baker Jr. and Gernot WagnerEast Bay Times guest commentary

Posted:   08/13/2016 09:00:00 AM PDT





Climate science isn't settled. Stating otherwise does a disservice to
science -- and to sensible climate policy. To be clear, there is a strong
scientific consensus that the world is warming, that humans are to blame and
that the consequences will be grave. 

But "consensus" does not equal "certainty." And in any case, saying so does
little to advance the debate. No science is certain, and neither is much
else in life.

We cope with life based on probabilities. We buy homeowners' insurance
though our houses probably won't burn down. We buy stocks and bonds because
we think the odds favor a good investment return; no one expects investment
returns to be guaranteed.

If more than 95 percent of scientists agree that we're headed for
catastrophic warming, and if you're a skeptic, how certain are you that
they're wrong? Would you bet everything? Wouldn't it make sense to consider
the likely range of outcomes and buy some insurance? In addition to
wholesale efforts to cut carbon emissions, the smartest insurance we can buy
today is research into a range of technologies that could directly combat
dangerous warming.

Most talk of climate change focuses on the midpoint of a range of outcomes.
Reaching 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
supposed to lead to two degrees Centigrade of global average warming. Two
degrees, in turn, is supposed to lead to certain predicted sea-level rises,
crop failures, heat waves and other extreme weather events. 

Every one of these predictions involves a probability distribution. The
range of reasonable possibilities is fairly wide. We might get lucky, and
things might be better than we expect. Or we might get unlucky.

The best climate insurance is mitigating carbon emissions. And indeed, we
must reduce net emissions to zero to have any hope of stabilizing the
world's climate. But we cannot stop there.

Climate change is a bathtub problem. It is the carbon dioxide already in the
atmosphere -- the tubful of it -- that is causing the problems, rather than
the annual inflow of emissions. Even if the entire world were to decide
today to be as aggressive as possible to reduce carbon dioxide, trash
trillions of dollars of capital stock and consumer durables like cars in the
process, and somehow instantly create the industrial capacity and technology
to supply all energy carbon-free overnight, global average temperatures and
sea levels would still rise for decades and even centuries because of the
carbon that's already there.

It is this already committed climate change that all but demands an entirely
different insurance approach. Fortunately, science -- and nature -- have
shown us the way. Volcanoes cool the planet by throwing tiny particles into
the upper atmosphere that reflect sunlight back into space -- thus modifying
the Earth's albedo.

Models suggest that we can put reflective particles into the stratosphere
and achieve the same cooling effect, which could protect us from the worst
impacts of climate change. The good news is that we can do this with
existing technology, at a fairly cheap cost, and deploy it quickly. No one
believes solar geoengineering is a climate change cure-all. And, like almost
all innovations, it has known and unknown side effects. For one thing, it
doesn't deal with ocean acidification. For another, we don't yet know enough
about its effects on atmospheric ozone, for example, or on rainfall, or how
it might help one region and hurt another.

But we do know several things. First, we might find a way to make this
technology a several-decade bridge to a zero-carbon future that would save
the planet. Second, such a cheap technology could be deployed by an
individual state, or even a non-state actor. Third, we know that the
governance problems for doing this are complex; no one knows who should
decide and what should be decided. Fourth, neither efficacy nor risk is well
enough understood; there is plenty of further research to be done.

Finally, we know that this is a "third rail" issue. Because of this, little
research is going on and discussions about governance are just beginning.
Ironically, many of the stumbling blocks to research on the topic appear to
be on the political left. Much like outright climate denial on the right
lacks a portfolio approach to climate action, ignoring the scenarios that
might lead to a need for albedo modification is a kind of denial on the
left.

Albedo modification cannot be the sole fallback plan for climate action. But
it might be part of our portfolio of options, and we need all the options we
can get. This means researching the topic -- now, so we'll have some answers
by the time we need them. 

G. Leonard Baker 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 35 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 35 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.   22.-25.08.2016, Conference: The Synergy of
Science and Industry: Biochar's Connection to Ecology, Soil, Food, and
Energy, Corvallis/USA

.
 30.08.2016, (Extended Deadline) Call for
papers: Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research

.

31.08.-03.09.2016, 4S/EASST Session: Tackling climate change by other means:
opening up geoengineering governance

.
 02.09.2016 (Deadline), Job: Senior Post-doctoral
Research Associate - Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain framework for
Enhanced Rock Weathering

.
 11.09.2016, Lecture: Into the Great Wide
Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate Geoengineering, Berkeley City
Club/USA

.
 16.09.2016
(Deadline), Job: Senior Post Doctoral Research Associate - Modelling
Enhanced Weathering Geochemistry

.
 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal
Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and Internationally,
Arizona State University/USA

.   28.-30.09.2016, Conference:
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

.
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

. 06.01.2017
 , Presentation: An
Economic Anatomy of Climate Management Technologies and Policies,
Chicago/USA

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

New Publications

. Kreidenweis, Ulrich; et al. (2016)
 :
Afforestation to mitigate climate change. Impacts on food prices under
consideration of albedo effects

. Buck, Holly Jean (2016)
 :
Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies. Social barriers and
social implications

. Himmelsbach, Raffael (2016)
 : Review
of "Experiment earth. Responsible innovation in geoengineering"

. Royal Society of Chemistry Environmental Chemistry Group (Ed.)
(2016)  : ECG
Bulletin

 

Selected Media Responses

. Univ. of Melbourne Blog
 : Climate hacking - the
last resort you've probably never heard of

. Mercury News
 : Commentary: Need portfolio approach to climate risk

. Jamaica Gleaner
 : New climate change programme raises concern -
Mahlung

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : Science Special - Wetland Restoration

. Geoengineering Monitor
 : Resistance to
Geoengineering: A Timeline

. Carbon Brief
 : IPCC special report to
scrutinise 'feasibility' of 1.5C climate goal

. the guardian
 : Time to listen to the
ice scientists about the Arctic death spiral

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : Event Recap: Future Voices in

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 37 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 37 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

· (new) 07.-08.09.2016
 , Workshop: Low Environmental Impact SRM Experiments, Potsdam
/ Germany

·
 11.09.2016, Lecture: Into the Great Wide
Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate Geoengineering, Berkeley City
Club/USA

· (new) 13.09.2016
 , Panel discussion: Solar Geoengineering and
International Affairs: An Introduction, Cambridge / USA

·
 16.09.2016
(Deadline), Job: Senior Post Doctoral Research Associate - Modelling
Enhanced Weathering Geochemistry

· (new) 19.09.2016
 , Lecture: The Competing Imaginaries of
Solar Geoengineering, Cambridge / USA

·
 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal
Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and Internationally,
Arizona State University/USA

·   28.-30.09.2016, Conference:
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

· (new) 06.12.2016
 ,
Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a right?,
Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

New Publications

· Davis, Nicholas A.; et al. (2016)
 : Changes in the width of
the tropical belt due to simple radiative forcing changes in the GeoMIP
simulations

· Blaustein, Richard (2016)
 : United Nations Seeks to Protect High-Seas Biodiversity

· Sanz-Perez, Eloy S.; et al. (2016)
 : Direct Capture
of CO2 from Ambient Air

· Clingerman, Forrest; O'Brien, Kevin J. (Eds.) (2016)
 : Theological and Ethical
Perspectives on Climate Engineering: Calming the Storm

 

Selected Media Responses

· Medium
 :
Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of
Multi-Millennial Global Warming

· Our Energy Policy
 : Is Bioenergy with CCS Critical to the Paris Agreement?

· The Japan Times
 : Record heat
in 2016 nudges Earth toward Paris ceiling

· Pacific Standard
 : Bracing Ourselves for the Climate Tipping Point

 

To unsubscribe please send short message to
 i...@climate-engineering.eu or use the
web interface.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 38 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 38 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·  

 13.09.2016, Panel discussion: Solar Geoengineering and International Affairs: 
An Introduction, Cambridge / USA

·  

 16.09.2016 (Deadline), Job: Senior Post Doctoral Research Associate - 
Modelling Enhanced Weathering Geochemistry

·  

 19.09.2016, Lecture: The Competing Imaginaries of Solar Geoengineering, 
Cambridge / USA

·  

 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United 
States and Internationally, Arizona State University/USA

·   28.-30.09.2016, Conference: 
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

· (new) 30.09.2016 

 , (Deadline) Job: PhD student with a degree in physics, chemistry, 
environmental sciences or a related field for a three-year position. Topic: 
Stratospheric Ozone Loss in Midlatitudes in Summer − a Potential Risk of 
Climate Engineering?

·  

 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689 Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate 
Engineering

·  
 
06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a 
right?, Newcastle / UK

·  

 12.-16.12.2016, AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·   
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management 
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·  

 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the Anthropocene, Special Issue of 
'Organization'

 

New Publications

· Vaughan, Naomi E.; Gough, Clair (2016) 

 : Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver

· Rockström, Johan; et al. (2016) 
 : The world's 
biggest gamble

· Schrogl, K.-U.; Summerer, L. (2016) 
 : Climate 
engineering and space

· Mohan, V. (2016) 
 : 
Combining Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) - A Review

· Markusson, Nils; et al. (2016) 
 : Contrasting medium and 
genre on Wikipedia to open up the dominating definition and classification of 
geoengineering

 

Selected Media Responses

· Mashable 

 : Geoengineering is a bonkers plan, but it may be needed to tackle global 
warming

· Science Daily 

 : Seeing the forest for the trees: World's largest reforestation program 
overlooks wildlife

· the guardian 

 : Our best shot at cooling the planet might be right under our feet

· UCAR Atmos News 

 : The 2-degree goal and the question of geoengineering

· Forest News 

 : Q & A: Lessons from Ethiopia for forest landscape restoration

· Forests News 

 : Q: Lessons from Latin America for forest landscape restoration

· Forests News 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 39 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 39 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·  

 19.09.2016, Lecture: The Competing Imaginaries of Solar Geoengineering, 
Cambridge / USA

·  

 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United 
States and Internationally, Arizona State University/USA

·   28.-30.09.2016, Conference: 
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

·  

 30.09.2016, (Deadline) Job: PhD student with a degree in physics, chemistry, 
environmental sciences or a related field for a three-year position. Topic: 
Stratospheric Ozone Loss in Midlatitudes in Summer − a Potential Risk of 
Climate Engineering?

· (new) 18.10.2016 

 , Workshop: Creating an Ecosystem for a Carbon Balanced Planet, San Francisco 
/ USA

·  

 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689 Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate 
Engineering

·  
 
06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a 
right?, Newcastle / UK

·  

 12.-16.12.2016, AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·   
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management 
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·  

 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the Anthropocene, Special Issue of 
'Organization'

 

New Publications

· Geden, Oliver (2016) 
 : The Paris Agreement 
and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking

· McLaren, Duncan; et al. (2016)  : 
Public conceptions of justice in climate engineering. evidence from secondary 
analysis of public deliberation (in press)

· Lockley, Andrew; Coffman, D’Maris (2016) 
 : Distinguishing morale hazard from moral 
hazard in geoengineering

· Moriyama, Ryo; et al. (2016) 
 : The cost of 
stratospheric climate engineering revisited

 

Selected Media Responses

· taz 
 : If one 
knows that damaging then it must be forbidden (German)

· Center for Carbon Removal 
  
Newsletter Sept 15

· Oxford Martin Opinion 
 : CO2 capture may be our 
only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast

· Climate Central 

 : CO2, Climate Change Seen As Waste Disposal Challenge

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Hubert, Anna-Maria; et al. (2016): Geoengineering. Code of conduct for geoengineering

[CE News]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/537488a.html?WT.ec_id=N
ATURE-20160922

=52357585=MjA1NzcwMjE4MQS2=1003755044
d=MTAwMzc1NTA0NAS2

 

Hubert, Anna-Maria; Kruger, Tim; Rayner, Steve (2016): Geoengineering. Code
of conduct for geoengineering. In Nature 537 (7621), p. 488–488. DOI
10.1038/537488a.

Code of conduct for

geoengineering

Geoengineering is central

to scenarios that limit global

warming to 2 °C — for example,

by removing carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere or

increasing the planet’s albedo

(see Nature 527, 436–438; 2015).

However, the environmental

and social implications of

such technology are holding

back research. Developing an

international code of conduct

could resolve this conundrum

by ensuring that geoengineering

proposals are subject to societal

scrutiny and oversight. The code would provide

flexible governance for a

wide range of projects, along

with general principles

and procedures to guide

responsible research and to

inform regulatory processes for

technologies as they develop

(see go.nature.com/2ceitmv). As well as encouraging early

cooperation and coordination

of research, equity and

sustainable development in

the spirit of the 2015 Paris

climate agreement, the code

should promote precaution, risk

assessment, public participation

and transparency.

Anna-Maria Hubert University

of Calgary, Canada.

Tim Kruger, Steve Rayner

University of Oxford, UK.

annamaria.hub...@ucalgary.ca

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 36 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 36 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 31.08.2016, (Extended Deadline) Call for
papers: Crutzen +10: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research

·

31.08.-03.09.2016, 4S/EASST Session: Tackling climate change by other means:
opening up geoengineering governance

·
 02.09.2016 (Deadline), Job: Senior Post-doctoral
Research Associate - Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain framework for
Enhanced Rock Weathering

·
 11.09.2016, Lecture: Into the Great Wide
Open? The Promise and Perils of Climate Geoengineering, Berkeley City
Club/USA

·
 16.09.2016
(Deadline), Job: Senior Post Doctoral Research Associate - Modelling
Enhanced Weathering Geochemistry

·
 28.09.2016, Lecture: The Legal
Terrain for Direct Air Capture in the United States and Internationally,
Arizona State University/USA

·   28.-30.09.2016, Conference:
Closing the Carbon Cycle: Fuels from Air, Arizona State University/USA

· (new) 24.-25.11.2016
 , Workshop: SPP 1689 Workshop on the
1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

New Publications

· Tang, M. J.; et al. (2016)
 : Heterogeneous
reaction of ClONO2 with TiO2 and SiO2 aerosol particles. Implications for
stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering

 

Selected Media Responses

· Die Welt
 : The CO2-illusion (German)

· STEPS centre Blog
 : Responsibility and geoengineering in the Anthropocene

· Slate
 : We’ve Heated Up the Planet. Can We
Cool It Back Down?

· Center for Carbon Removal
 : Recap: US Biochar Initiative - 2016
Conference

· The Verge
 : Can science succeed where politics has failed?

· ABC News
 : Plan B for climate change: Tassie
scientists looking at what to do if the worst happens

· Huffington Post
 : Technology that Could Turn the Tide on Climate
Change: Carbon Dioxide Removal

· FCEA Blog
 : Forum Discussion- Rhode Island H
7578: The Climate Geoengineering Act of 2016

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Tang, M. J.; et al. (2016): Heterogeneous reaction of ClONO2 with TiO2 and SiO2 aerosol particles. Implications for stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering

[CE News]

This has been in the newsletter but not on the list.

Best

N

---

Tang, M. J.; Keeble, J.; Telford, P. J.; Pope, F. D.; Braesicke, P.; Griffiths, 
P. T. et al. (2016): Heterogeneous reaction of ClONO2 with TiO2 and SiO2 
aerosol particles. Implications for stratospheric particle injection for 
climate engineering. In Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., pp. 1–42. DOI 
10.5194/acp-2016-756.

 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-756/

 

Abstract. Deliberate injection of aerosol particles into the stratosphere is a 
potential climate engineering scheme. Introduction of particles into the 
stratosphere would scatter solar radiation back to space, thereby reducing the 
temperature at the Earth’s surface and hence the impacts of global warming. 
Minerals such as TiO2 or SiO2 are among the potentially suitable aerosol 
materials for stratospheric particle injection due to their greater light 
scattering ability compared to stratospheric sulfuric acid particles. However, 
the heterogeneous reactivity of mineral particles towards trace gases important 
for stratospheric chemistry largely remains unknown, precluding reliable 
assessment of their impacts on stratospheric ozone which is of key 
environmental significance. In this work we have investigated for the first 
time the heterogeneous hydrolysis of ClONO2 on TiO2 and SiO2 aerosol particles 
at room temperature and at different relative humidities (RH), using an aerosol 
flow tube. The uptake coefficient, γ(ClONO2), on TiO2 was ~ 1.2 × 10−3 at 7 % 
and remaining unchanged at 33 % RH, and increased for SiO2 from ~ 2 × 10−4 at 7 
% RH to ~ 5 × 10−4 at 35 % RH, reaching a value of ~ 6 × 10−4 at 59 % RH. We 
have also examined the impacts of a hypothetical TiO2 injection on 
stratospheric chemistry using the UKCA chemistry-climate model in which 
heterogeneous hydrolysis of N2O5 and ClONO2 on TiO2 particles is considered. A 
TiO2 injection scenario with a solar radiation scattering effect very similar 
to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was constructed. It is found that compared to 
the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, TiO2 injection causes less ClOx activation and 
less ozone destruction in the lowermost stratosphere, while reduced depletion 
of N2O5 and NOx in the middle stratosphere results in decreased ozone levels. 
Overall, no significant difference in the vertically integrated ozone 
abundancies is found between TiO2 injection and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. 
Future work required to further assess the impacts of TiO2 injection on 
stratospheric chemistry is also discussed.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 46 of 2016

[CE News]

Dear Climate Engineering Group,

please find below our weekly climate engineering news review. You can find
daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal

www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html.

Thank you

The Climate Engineering Editors

 


Climate Engineering News Review for Week 46 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

· (new) 10.11.2016

, Lecture: Climate Engineering - Climate Emergency Surgery?, Kiel / Germany

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

· (updated)
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting; list of CE relevant papers here
 

· (new) 15.12.2016
 , Lecture:
Assessing and Reducing the Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Hamburg / Germany

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

· (new) 09.10.2017  , Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Jobs

· (  no deadline) Jobs
at the Center for Carbon Removal

· 25.11.2016
  (deadline), Job: Postdoctoral
Scientist Position Biogeochemical Modelling

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

· 31.12.2016

(deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern Ocean? A
transdisciplinary assessment

 

New Publications

· Keith, David W.; Irvine, Peter J. (2016)
 : Solar geoengineering could
substantially reduce climate risks—a research hypothesis for the next decade

· Caldeira, Ken; Bala, Govindasamy (2016)
 :
Reflecting on 50 years of geoengineering research

 

Selected Media Responses

· Two Degree or Not Two Degree? Blog
 : Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
Part 2

· Athens Science Observer
 : Can we SCIENCE! our way out of climate change?

· sandbag Blog
 :
Paris means negative emissions

· heute.de
 : Plant drones and cloud cover as
climate helpers (German)

· Carbon Brief

: Daily Brief: Geoengineering to alter climate change moves closer to
reality, recent pattern of cloud cover may have masked some global warming,
& more

· Global Justice Ecology Project
 : IPCC Geo-Engineering Schemes Are Not Environmental
Saviors

· cantech
 : Geoengineering will be a necessary evil, says

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 44 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 44 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

Jobs

· (  no deadline) Jobs
at the Center for Carbon Removal

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

 

New Publications

· Boyd, Philip W.; Bressac, Matthieu (2016)
 :
Developing a test-bed for robust research governance of geoengineering. The
contribution of ocean iron biogeochemistry

 

Selected Media Responses

· Anthropocene
 : Could carbon capture fuel our carbon addiction?

· New York Times
 : Can Humans Go From Unintended
Global Warming to Climate By Design?

· Phys.org
 : A reliance on negative emissions technologies is locking in carbon
addiction

 

Political Papers

· Committee on Climate Change (2016)
 : UK
climate action following the Paris Agreement

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 49 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 49 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

· (new) 30.11.2016
 , Lecture: What is the
impact of climate change and geoengineering on photovoltaic electricity
output?, Leeds / UK

· (new) 01.12.2016
 , Lecture: Climate Engineering: A Problem Solved or a Problem
Magnified?, Amsterdam / NL

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

· (new) 07.12.2016
 , Lecture: Exploring Ethics: Ethics of Climate
Change and Climate Engineering, San Diego / USA

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting; list of CE relevant papers
 here

·
 15.12.2016,
Lecture: Assessing and Reducing the Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Hamburg /
Germany

· (new) 15.12.2016
 , CfP: Call
for abstracts for a special issue of “Climate Policy” on “Policy instruments
for limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C”

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·   09.-12.10.2017, Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Jobs

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

· (new) 15.12.2016

(deadline), Job: Project Scientist at IASS and Graz in CEMICS

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

·

31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

·

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

· Jones, C. D.; et al. (2016)
 :
Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions

· Irvine, Peter J.; et al.
 (2016):
Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

 

Selected Media Responses

· PNAS  : Core
Concept: Can bioenergy with carbon capture and storage make an impact?

· Tagesspiegel
 : Mitigating emissions is not enough (German)

· FCEA Blog
 : What
has social science research on the public perception of climate engineering
done? And what can it do? – Holly Buck

· Blog Picture Science
 : Big Picture Science – Weather
Vain: Alan Robock / Weather Modification

· InTeGrate
 : Ocean Sustainability and Geoengineering (material for teaching)

· Resilience
 : Climate Change Policy and The Super-Hero Syndrome

· New Scientist

[geo] ): Core Concept. Can bioenergy with carbon capture and storage make an impact?

[CE News]

Venton, Danielle (2016): Core Concept. Can bioenergy with carbon capture and 
storage make an impact? In Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113 (47), pp. 13260–13262. 
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1617583113.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/47/13260.full

 

Even the most optimistic models of climate change suggest a sobering reality: 
Making a significant dent in carbon emissions may require removing carbon from 
the atmosphere, not just mitigating it. “The math tells us we need 
carbon-removal processes of some kind,” says Julio Friedmann, Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy at the US Department of 
Energy. 

Switchgrass is among the feedstocks being considered for new BECCS initiatives. 
Image courtesy of Shutterstock/hjochen.

One approach gaining traction in recent years is generating bioenergy along 
with carbon capture and storage, known by the acronym “BECCS.” Some argue that 
BECCS occupies a key role in the global plan to fight climate change. Although 
regarded as one of the most viable, cost-effective negative emissions 
technologies, there are still multiple major challenges to its widespread 
implementation. 

At its most basic, BECCS involves growing plant material, burning that material 
for energy, capturing the CO2 emitted during combustion, and storing it 
underground. More advanced versions include gasifying easy-to-grow feedstocks, 
such as switchgrass, generating biofuels with algae, or even using municipal 
solid waste as a feedstock. BECCS has been discussed as a promising idea for 
years, even before a demonstration project. “It’s a modeler’s construct, not an 
engineer’s one,” says Roger D. Aines, Fuel Cycle Innovations Program Leader at 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. 

 

  Next Section


Cutting Carbon and Costs


One of the earliest mentions of BECCS in the literature came from Robert H. 
Williams of Princeton University. In 1998, when the concept was relatively new, 
Williams wrote a chapter for a book published by the United Nations University 
Press called Eco-Restructuring: Implications for Sustainable Development ( 
 1). He proposed using 
biomass, combined with carbon capture and sequestration, for energy generation, 
and calculated that the process could reduce the impacts of global warming. “In 
the case of biomass grown on a sustainable basis,” he wrote, “net lifecycle 
emissions with sequestering would be strongly negative” ( 
 1,  
 2). 

What sets BECCS apart, potentially, is the use of a relatively clean fuel 
source to mop up CO2 emissions already in the atmosphere. An analysis by Daniel 
Sanchez, of the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Daniel Kammen, of the 
University of California, Berkeley, suggests the advantage of using biomass 
over coal could be significant. These researchers calculate that producing a 
megawatt-hour of electricity with coal and capturing 90% of the CO2 produced 
would still emit the equivalent of 182 kilograms of CO2 (also noted as 182 
kgCO2eq). Using a biomass system based on switchgrass—a prairie tall-grass 
native to the United States—in an integrated gasification-combined cycle plant 
would actually remove 883 kgCO2eq from the atmosphere ( 
 3). Although no 
commercial power plants are currently using switchgrass, Sanchez chose it 
because it’s among the ideal scenarios for BECCS, those based on nonfood 
feedstocks that require relatively little fertilizer or water. 

But BECCS faces serious cost challenges. In 2014 (the latest year available), 
power from wood and biomass cost an average of $4.2 per million Btu (MBtu), 
according to the US Energy Information Administration ( 
 4). For much of 2016, the 
costs of natural gas generation have been under 2 MBtu (although those costs 
remain volatile; in September it was under 3 MBtu) ( 
 5). Not only is biomass a 
relatively more expensive form of electricity than natural gas, but the costs 
of capturing and storing carbon are still fairly high. That’s especially true 
for bioenergy systems. In its BECCS fact sheet, the Center for Carbon Removal 
estimates that it costs $100 to capture a ton of CO2 for a biomass plant. For a 
comparable fossil fuel plant, capturing carbon costs just $60 a ton ( 
 6). 

As carbon capture and removal is a relatively new technology, costs are likely 
to come down with more development. The National Energy Technology Laboratory 
in Pennsylvania and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are among the 
centers working on improving BECCS through innovations, like advanced biofuels, 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 48 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 48 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting; list of CE relevant papers
 here

·
 15.12.2016,
Lecture: Assessing and Reducing the Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Hamburg /
Germany

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·   09.-12.10.2017, Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Jobs

·
 25.11.2016 (deadline), Job:
Postdoctoral Scientist Position Biogeochemical Modelling

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

·

31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

· 18.01.2017

(deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow at Harvard

 

New Publications

· McGrail, B. Peter; et al. (2016)
 : Field Validation
of Supercritical CO 2 Reactivity with Basalts

· Parker, Andy; Geden, Oliver (2016)
 : No
fudging on geoengineering

· McLaren, Duncan (2016)
 : Mitigation
deterrence and the ‘moral hazard’

· Markusson, Nils; et al. (2017)
 : The
political economy of technical fixes. A case from the climate domain

· Quaas, Johannes; et al. (2016)
 : Regional
climate engineering by radiation management: Prerequisites and prospects

· Moore, John C.; et al (2016)
 : Will China
be the first to initiate climate engineering?

· Greene, Charles; et al. (2016)
 : Marine Microalgae. Climate, Energy, and Food
Security from the Sea

· Robock, Alan (2016)
 : Albedo
Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections. More Research Needed

· Lawrence, Mark G.; Crutzen, Paul J. (2016)
 : Was
breaking the taboo on research on climate engineering via albedo
modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative?

· Rabitz, Florian (2016)
 : Going
rogue? Scenarios for unilateral geoengineering

· Harding, A.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2016)
 : Solar
geoengineering economics. From incredible to inevitable and half-way back

· Geden, Oliver; Schäfer, Stefan (2016)
 :
»Negative emission« as a climate political challenge (German)

· Visioni, Daniele; et al. (2016)
 : Sulfate

[geo] Sulfate geoengineering. A review of the factors controlling the needed injection of sulfur dioxide

[CE News]

Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina (2016): Sulfate
geoengineering. A review of the factors controlling the needed injection of
sulfur dioxide. In Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., pp. 1-15. DOI
10.5194/acp-2016-985 .

" Sulfate geoengineering has been proposed as an affordable and
climate-effective means for temporarily offset the warming produced by the
increase of well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHG). This climate engineering
technique has been planned for a timeframe of a few decades needed to
implement global inter-governmental measures needed to achieve stabilization
of the atmospheric content of WMGHGs (CO2 in particular). The direct
radiative effects of sulfur injection in the tropical lower stratosphere can
be summarized as increasing shortwave scattering with consequent
tropospheric cooling and increasing long- wave absorption with stratospheric
warming. Indirect radiative effects are related to induced changes in the
ozone distribution, stratospheric water vapor abundance, formation and size
of upper tropospheric cirrus ice particles and lifetime of longlived
species, namely CH4 in connection with OH changes through several
photochemical mechanisms. A direct comparison of the net effects of WMGHG
increase with direct and indirect effects of sulfate geoengineering may help
fine-tune the best amount of sulfate to be injected in an eventual
realization of the experiment. However, we need to take into account large
uncertainties in the estimate of some of these aerosol effects, such as
cirrus ice particle size modifications."

Link  

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Solar geoengineering economics. From incredible to inevitable and half-way back

[CE News]

Harding, A.; Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2016): Solar geoengineering economics.
>From incredible to inevitable and half-way back. In Earth's Future. DOI
10.1002/2016EF000462.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000462/abstract

 

Solar geoengineering technologies are unique in many ways, and the economic
incentives they could unleash are just as interesting. Since their
introduction as a potential alternative, economists have been intrigued by
the potential of these technologies to dramatically alter the way we think
about climate policy. As our scientific understanding of the technologies
evolve, so does the way economists think about them. In this paper, we
document the evolution of economic thinking around these technologies since
before [2006] until today and provide some fruitful areas for further
research.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] The evidence for deploying Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in the UK

[CE News]

Energy Technologies Institute (2016): The evidence for deploying Bioenergy
with CCS (BECCS) in the UK. With assistance of Geraldine Newton-Cross,
Dennis Gammer. Loughborough. Available online at
http://www.eti.co.uk/insights/the-evidence-for-deploying-bioenergy-with-ccs-
beccs-in-the-uk.

 

Bioenergy technologies when combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
can deliver negative emissions (net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere)
whilst producing energy in the form of electricity, heat, gaseous and liquid
fuels.

Negative emissions provide important emissions 'headroom' as the UK
transitions towards a low-carbon energy system, since the additional
'breathing space' afforded by negative emissions reduces the need for rapid
emissions reductions in sectors such as heavy duty transport and aviation
which are more difficult and expensive to decarbonise. Evidence from ESME,
the ETI's peer-reviewed energy system modelling environment, suggests that
by the 2050s, BECCS could deliver c.-55 million tonnes of net negative
emissions per annum (approximately half our emissions target in 2050),
whilst meeting c.10% of the UK's future energy demand. This would reduce the
cost of meeting the UK's 2050 GHG emissions target by up to 1% of GDP.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 47 of 2016

[CE News]

Dear Climate Engineering Group,

please find below our weekly climate engineering news review. You can find
daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal

www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html.

Thank you

The Climate Engineering Editors

 


Climate Engineering News Review for Week 47 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting; list of CE relevant papers
 here

·
 15.12.2016,
Lecture: Assessing and Reducing the Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Hamburg /
Germany

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·   09.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Jobs

· (  no deadline) Jobs
at the Center for Carbon Removal

·
 25.11.2016 (deadline), Job:
Postdoctoral Scientist Position Biogeochemical Modelling

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

·

31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

 

New Publications

· Lackner, Klaus S. (2016)
 : The promise of
negative emissions

 

Political Papers

· MCC (2016)
 : Betting on
negative emissions

· Fern (2016)
 : Report of the seminar 'Negative Emissions' facilitated by Fern

· Energy Technologies Institute (2016)
 : The evidence for deploying Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) in
the UK

· Pasztorf, Janos; et al. (30.10.2016)
 : Briefing Paper on Climate Engineering

 

Selected Media Responses

· Geoengineering Monitor
 : Responses to: The Trouble with Negative Emissions

· The Ends Report
 : Biomass negative emissions technology
‘could be commercially viable’

· TU Delft
 : TU Delft students design new aircraft for last resort option of
geoengineering

· Climate Action Network
 : The Danger and Opportunities of 1.5°C for Smallholder
Agriculture

· FCEA Blog
 : Commentary: A
Response to “Five Solar Geoengineering Tropes That Have Outstayed Their
Welcome”

· Financial Times
 :
Scientists grapple with geoengineering plans

· Carbon Brief

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 45 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 45 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

Jobs

· (  no deadline) Jobs
at the Center for Carbon Removal

·   01.12.2016
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

 

New Publications

· Reynolds, Jesse L.; et al.
 (2016): Five solar geoengineering
tropes that have outstayed their welcome

· Boyd, Philip W. (2016)
 :
Development of geopolitically-relevant ranking criteria for geoengineering
methods

· Woolf, Dominic; et al. (2016)
 : Optimal bioenergy power
generation for climate change mitigation with or without carbon
sequestration

· Yang, Huiyi; et al. (2016)
 :
Potential negative consequences of geoengineering on crop production. A
study of Indian groundnut

· MacMartin, Douglas G.; et al. (2016)
 :
Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols. What don't we know after a
decade of research?

· Thomson, Giles; Newman, Peter (2016)
 : Geoengineering in the Anthropocene
through Regenerative Urbanism

· Baatz, Christian; Ott, Konrad (2016)
 : Why Aggressive Mitigation Must Be Part of Any Pathway to Climate Justice

· Burns, William C. G. (2016)
 : The Paris Agreement and
Climate Geoengineering Governance. The Need for a Human Rights-Based
Component

 

Selected Media Responses

· the guardian
 : Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ‘I think the things you
might think up in a bar’

· Science Daily
 : New
biochar model scrubs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

· ABC Science Show
 : Geoengineering
becoming more necessary as emissions increase and temperatures continue to
rise

· Common Dreams
 : With Sights Set on COP22, Group Offers
Roadmap for 'Fair Future' in Warming World

· Bloomberg
 : Magical Thinking Won’t Stop Climate Change

· Cornell Chronicle
 : New model suggests scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere

· Harvard Blog
 : Engineering the Earth to Fight Climate Change

 

Political Papers

· Friends of the Earth
 : Paris Climate
Agreement Demands a Radical Transformation Rather Than Risky Technologies
for Climate Protection

· NAS  : Developing a
Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration

 

Projects

· NERC

[geo] AGU-Programm

[CE News]

Hi,

 

I made a list of probably all CE/geoengineering-relevant events on the AGU
Fall Meeting. In case I missed something, please contact me directly. (this
address or motok...@googlemail.com)

 

Best

Nils

 

 

· GC21J
 : Negative
Emissions: Staying Below 2°C I

o   GC21J-01 
Negative Emissions: The need, the potential, and the risks (Invited)

o   GC21J-02 
Net Ecosystem Production and Actionable Negative Emissions Strategies 

o   GC21J-03 
Seeing the forest beyond the carbon

o   GC21J-04 
Defining the ‘negative emission’ capacity of global agriculture deployed for
enhanced rock weathering

o   GC21J-05 
Negative Emissions: Distilling the Hope From the Hype - An Overview of
Preposed Techniques to Remove Greenhouse Gases from the Atmosphere (Invited)

o   GC21J-06 
NEOTEC: Negative-CO2-Emissions Marine Energy With Direct Mitigation of
Global Warming, Sea-Level Rise and Ocean Acidification

o   GC21J-07 
Carbon Dioxide Removal from Air using Seafloor Peridotite

o   GC21J-08 
Translating climate model implications on carbon removal into policy action

· GC23C
 : Negative
Emissions: Staying Below 2°C II Posters

o   GC23C-1243 
A Commercialization Roadmap for Carbon-Negative Energy Systems

o   GC23C-1244 
The Economics of Carbon Dioxide Removal: The Case against Free Disposal

o   GC23C-1245 
Carbon Dioxide Removal and the futures market

o   GC23C-1246 
The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP) Initial
Results and Future Experiment Designs

o   GC23C-1247 
Modeling Effects of Bicarbonate Release on Carbonate Chemistry and pH of the
North Sea: A Pilot Study for Atmospheric CO2 Reduction

o   GC23C-1248 
Novel Determination of the Orientation of Calcite on Mineral Substrates 

o   GC23C-1249 
Calcite Dissolution Kinetics

o   GC23C-1250 
Carbon Dioxide Removal by Salty Aerosols

o   GC23C-1251 
Mineral Carbonation Feasibility, an Economic Approach

o   GC23C-1252 
Achieving Negative CO2 Emissions by Protecting Ocean Chemistry

o   GC23C-1253 
Aligning Existing USG RDD Funding Objectives with those of an Emerging
Marine Based CCUS Industrial Sector...or...Vice Versa

· GC33B
 :
Multidisciplinary Assessments of Radiation Management Geoengineering I
Posters

o   GC33B-1223 
Engineering assessment of in situ sulfate production onboard aircraft at
high altitude

o   GC33B-1224 
Heterogeneous production and loss of HOx by airborne TiO2 particles and
implications for climate change mitigation strategies

o   GC33B-1225 
Insights on the Feasibility, Modeling and Field Testing of Cirrus Cloud
Thinning from Satellite Remote Sensing

o   GC33B-1226 
Effects of Solar Geoengineering on Meridional Energy Transport and the ITCZ

o   GC33B-1227 
A continuous latitudinal energy balance model to explore non-uniform climate
engineering strategies

o   GC33B-1228 
A Possible Strategy for the Use of Solar Climate Engineering

o   GC33B-1229 
Combining aerosol injection at several different latitudes to optimize the
climate response to geoengineering

o   GC33B-1230 
Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss?

o   GC33B-1231 

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 43 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 43 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·
 18.10.2016,
Workshop: Creating an Ecosystem for a Carbon Balanced Planet, San Francisco
/ USA

· (new) 19.10.2016
 , Seminar:
New Challenges in Governing Geoengineering, Cambridge / USA

·
 20.10.2016, Lecture:
ETH Science Talks – Critical Thinking, Climate Engineering, and Oxygen
Homeostasis and Disease

·
 24.-25.11.2016, Workshop: SPP 1689
Workshop on the 1.5°C Target and Climate Engineering

·

06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a
right?, Newcastle / UK

·
 12.-16.12.2016,
AGU Fall Meeting with various CE sessions

·  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago/USA

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

 

Jobs

· (  no deadline) Jobs
at the Center for Carbon Removal

· (new) 01.12.2016 
(deadline), Job: Tenure-track in climate sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology

·  
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith
Group

 

New Publications

· Anderson, K.; Peters, G. (2016)
 : The trouble with
negative emissions

· Zhao, Liyun; et al. (2016)
 : Glacier evolution
in high mountain Asia under stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection
geoengineering

 

Selected Media Responses

· the guardian
 : The gap between
ambition and action in tackling global warming

· University of Bristol Law School Blog
 : Maximising the Legitimacy
of the EU’s Regulation of Geoengineering Research

· Socialist Action
 : Geoengineering the Climate: An Act of Mad Desperation

· Motherboard  :
The Sky, Falling

· LawSci Forum
 : Solar Climate Engineering and Intellectual
Property

· Washington Post
 : We’re placing far too much hope in pulling
carbon dioxide out of the air, scientists warn

· the guardian
 : UK must focus on carbon
removal to meet Paris goals, climate advisers urge

· Daily Mail
 : Greenhouse gas
removal technologies needed to meet climate goals, experts warn

· Süddeutsche Zeitung
 :
The 1.5-Degree-Question (German)

· CSC
 : Will geoengineering save us from a certain doom?

 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Researchers Propose New Biochar Technique to Scrub Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

[CE News]

I hope this has not been posted. It introduces a new (?) acronym
"Biochar-Bioenergy System" BCBES. - But I cannot find a paper on that.

Nils

 

 

http://cornellsun.com/2016/11/28/researchers-propose-new-biochar-technique-t
o-scrub-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

 

Researchers Propose New Biochar Technique to Scrub Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide

By Sam Nadell

Three million years ago, there were no humans, global temperatures were
possibly four degrees celsius warmer and sea levels were high enough to
cover most of modern-day Manhattan. This was also the last time in geologic
history that global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels exceeded 400
parts per million (ppm), a benchmark that was permanently and ominously
passed once again in 2016.

Carbon emissions, largely as a result of burning fossil fuels, are not
likely to halt anytime soon. Some scientists have started organizing backup
plans; most notably, finding a way to grab some of this atmospheric carbon
and store it in the Earth.

"The critical thing at this point in time is to reduce emissions as rapidly
as we are able to do so. However, in the event that we cannot, as a global
community, manage to reduce emissions fast enough, we will still end up with
a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere that we need to deal with," said Dr.
Dominic Woolf, soil and crop sciences, and lead author of a recent study
that focussed on a new way to sequester more CO2 into the Earth and out of
the atmosphere.

Leaderboard 1

"We need a plan B, because it looks like we may not get there fast enough or
quick enough. Plan B is how we get that carbon back down out of the
atmosphere," Woolf said.

Dawit Solomon, a soil scientist at Cornell University, investigates the
carbon accumulated in Liberian soil due to indigenous agricultural
practices.

Plan B, in Woolf's case, is to use a "Biochar-Bioenergy System" . BCBES
involves using a technique called pyrolysis, the burning of plant material
in the absence of oxygen. By doing so, half of the original carbon in the
plant remains in the leftover biomass, now called biochar.

BCBES has been proposed by Woolf and other researchers as a substitute for
"Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage" , a similar method of carbon
sequestration that captures CO2 from plants through combustion.

Leaderboard 2

Although BECCS may be a more effective way to remove and store CO2, there
are several advantages to using BCBES instead. A bioenergy capture system
requires a large carbon transportation network and therefore a lot of
capital for infrastructure, while a biochar system could be implemented in
more remote areas.

Biochar can also be added to infertile soils in order to increase
agricultural productivity, which could be used to offset some of the costs
associated with BCBES.

"Plants already draw down 10 times as much carbon as we're emitting at the
moment globally," Woolf said.

Under normal conditions, approximately 90 percent of that carbon would be
returned to the Earth or atmosphere through burning or plant decay over a
three year period. Pyrolysis, on the other hand, releases 50 percent of
plant carbon instantly, but stores the rest in biochar for a significantly
longer duration.

Woolf suggests using BCBES and BECCS in tandem for now, transitioning to
using BECCS once it becomes more economically viable. Other carbon
sequestration techniques, such as reforestation or direct carbon capture,
either require too much land and money to implement or are too
under-developed to be used immediately.

However, Woolf stresses that the main goal right now must be to reduce CO2
emissions and said that these proposed techniques are not a panacea for the
warming climate. Keeping CO2 levels under 450 ppm is critical, as scientists
have warned that crossing that threshold will likely have irreversible
effects on the environment. In order to do so, Woolf urges that "we've got
to move rapidly and drastically as a global effort."

"By 2100, our key driving motivation must be to keep any change that does
happen within manageable levels and the more we can mitigate, the better it
is. And it's clear that bioenergy-biochar systems will have a role to play
in that," he said. "The less we manage to reduce emissions, the larger the
role these other technologies will have to have. But we shouldn't see them
as a get-out or a substitute for reducing emissions."

 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 50 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 50 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·  
 
06.12.2016, Lecture: Geoengineering climate change: do two wrongs make a 
right?, Newcastle / UK

·  

 07.12.2016, Lecture: Exploring Ethics: Ethics of Climate Change and Climate 
Engineering, San Diego / USA

· (new) 08.12.2016 

 , Seminar: Solar Geoengineering Seminar at Harvard, Cambridge / USA

·  

 12.-16.12.2016, AGU Fall Meeting; list of CE relevant papers  

 here

·  

 15.12.2016, Lecture: Assessing and Reducing the Risks of Solar Geoengineering, 
Hamburg / Germany

·   
15.12.2016, CfP: Call for abstracts for a special issue of “Climate Policy” on 
“Policy instruments for limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C”

·   
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management 
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

·  

 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the Anthropocene, Special Issue of 
'Organization'

· (new) 23.-28.07.2017  , 
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling, 
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

·   09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate 
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Jobs

·  
 
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Project Scientist at IASS and Graz in CEMICS

·   
15.12.2016 (deadline), Job: Post-Doctoral Economics Fellow at the Keith Group

·  

 31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern 
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

·  
 
18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow at 
Harvard

 

New Publications

· Heyen, Daniel (2016) 
 : Strategic 
Conflicts on the Horizon. R Incentives for Environmental Technologies

· Smith, Pete; et al. (2016) 

 : Preliminary assessment of the potential for, and limitations to, terrestrial 
negative emission technologies in the UK

· A step up for geoengineering (2016) 
 

· Matzner, Nils; Herrenbrück, Robert (2016) 
 : Simulating 
a Climate Engineering Crisis. Climate Politics Simulated by Students in Model 
United Nations

· van Hemer, Mieke (2016) 
 : 
Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research. The case of 
Paul Crutzen’s back-of-the-envelope calculation on solar dimming with sulfate 
aerosols

 

Projects

· Frontiers Research Topic 

 : ELSI Aspects of Geoengineering

 

Policy Papers

· ETC Group (2016) 

 : Geoengineering at COP 13 of the CBD. Briefing for delegates

· Columbia Climate Center (2016) 
 : 
A 5˚C Arctic in a 2˚C World. Challenges and Recommendations for Immediate 
Action from the July 21-22, 2016 Workshop

 

Selected Media Responses

· IASS Blog 
 : 
COP22 and Beyond – 

[geo] Research for assessment, not deployment of Climate Engineering. The German Research Foundation's Priority Program SPP 1689

[CE News]

Oschlies, Andreas; Klepper, Gernot (2017): Research for assessment, not
deployment of Climate Engineering. The German Research Foundation's Priority
Program SPP 1689. In: Earth's Future. DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000446.

"The historical developments are reviewed that have led from a bottom-up
responsibility initiative of concerned scientists to the emergence of a
nationwide interdisciplinary Priority Program on the assessment of Climate
Engineering (CE), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Given the
perceived lack of comprehensive and comparative appraisals of different CE
methods, the Priority Program was designed to encompass both solar radiation
management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) ideas, and to cover the
atmospheric, terrestrial and oceanic realm."

Link  

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 1 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 1 of 2017


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

. (new) 13.01.2017
 , Lecture: Climate Engineering:
When Humans Enter the Domain of God(s), Amsterdam / NL

.
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

.   23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

.   09.-12.10.2017, Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

.
 22.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

.   28.02.2017,
Call for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017:
Critical Global Discussions

 

Jobs

.

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

. Oschlies, Andreas; Klepper, Gernot (2017)
 :
Research for assessment, not deployment of Climate Engineering. The German
Research Foundation's Priority Program SPP 1689

. Grunwald, Armin (2016)
 : Technology to Combat Climate Change: the Hermeneutic
Dimension of Climate Engineering

. Desch, Steven J.; et al.
 (2016):
Arctic Ice Management

. MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben (2016)
 : Dynamic climate emulators
for solar geoengineering

 

Selected Media Responses

. Podcast
 : A Beginner's Guide to Geoengineering
with Janos Pasztor

. We make money not art
 : Albedo Dreams. Experiments in DIY climate manipulation

. EcoWatch
 : 18 Signs That Show We've Reached the Tipping Point

. Jewish World
 : Climate change timely topic for
CGOH Brotherhood: Dr. Randy Simon shares his expertise

. Business Recorder
 : 'More research needed
in Solar Radiation Management,' says Andy Parker, SRMGI

. Motherboard
 : The
Five Most Revolutionary Scientific Trends to Look Out For In 2017

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : 2016: Carbon removal gains traction with
policymakers

. Center for Carbon Removal
 : A "Secret Master Plan"
for Direct Air Capture?

. The Daily Beast
 : Science Can't Save the Earth This Time

. Gizmodo
 : Geoengineering Could Be a Disaster for Astronomy

. Scientific American
 : The Search Is on for Pulling Carbon from the Air

. Independent

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 2 of 2017

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 2 of 2017


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·(new) 09.01.2017, Lecture: Climate Engineering, The Antropocene, and
The Wild, Kiel / Germany (Leibnitzstraße 1, R.106a, no online info
available)

·
 13.01.2017, Lecture: Climate
Engineering: When Humans Enter the Domain of God(s), Amsterdam / NL

·(new) 24.01.2017
 ,
Symposium: Science Council of Japan Auditorium, Tokyo / Japan

·(new) 01.02.2017

, Webinar: Restoring the Carbon Balance

·(new) 08.02.2017
 , Workshop: Carbon Dioxide
Removal/Negative Emissions Technologies (FCEA), Berkeley / USA

·
 15.-16.06.2017, Workshop:
The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the
Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

·  23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

·  09.-12.10.2017, Conference: Climate
Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

·
 22.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

·
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

·  28.02.2017, Call
for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017: Critical
Global Discussions

 

Jobs

·

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

·Low, Sean (2016)
 : The Futures
of Climate Engineering

·Suarez, Pablo; van Aalst, Maarten K. (2016)
 :
Geoengineering. A humanitarian concern

·Ryngaert, Cedric (2016)
 : Climate
Change Mitigation Techniques and International Law. Assessing the
Externalities of Reforestation and Geoengineering

·Sanderson, Benjamin M.; Knutti, Reto (2016)
 : Delays in US mitigation could rule out Paris targets

 

Selected Media Responses

·Video  :
Youtube Playlist of CE Videos

·Center for Carbon Removal
 : 2017 New Year Updates

·The Economic Times
 : 2017: Climate focus shifts as Trump moves in, China charges ahead

·The Capitolocene Blog
 : Against the geoengineering techno-fix

·Environmental Guru
 : 5
Ways Geo-Engineering Can Solve Climate Change

·Suttgarter Nachrichten
 : How to
turn back the climate?

·Motherboard
 :
Geoengineering Schemes Could Block View of the Night Sky, Astronomers Warn

·Poughkeepsie Journal
 : Artist aims to ignite dialogue on
climate change

·ars technica
 : How much would it cost to geoengineer thicker Arctic sea ice?

-- 
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 

[geo] Technology to Combat Climate Change: the Hermeneutic Dimension of Climate Engineering

[CE News]

Grunwald, Armin (2016): Technology to Combat Climate Change: the Hermeneutic
Dimension of Climate Engineering; In: The hermeneutic side of responsible
research and innovation. London: ISTE, Ltd.; Wiley. (chapter 8)

"The example of climate engineering, which has been an object of discussion
for several years, refers to how we handle climate change and is therefore
very different in character from the other fields of RRI presented in this
book. Nonetheless, climate engineering exhibits similar challenges for the
RRI debate because of the relevance of temporally far-reaching and thus
extremely uncertain technology futures. If the debate over responsibility is
conducted in a consequentialist manner with reference to the presumable
consequences of climate engineering, it too is threatened by epistemological
nirvana (
 Chapter 3). Consideration of the technology futures of
climate engineering from a hermeneutic perspective leads to a corresponding
result."

Link
 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering News Review for Week 52 of 2016

[CE News]

Climate Engineering News Review for Week 52 of 2016


Upcoming Events and Deadlines

.  
06.01.2017, Presentation: An Economic Anatomy of Climate Management
Technologies and Policies, Chicago / USA

. (new) 15.-16.06.2017
 , Workshop: The Politics
and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies: Between the Paris
Agreement and the Anthropocene, Utrecht / The Netherlands

.   23.-28.07.2017,
Conference: Radiation Management Climate Engineering: Technology, Modeling,
Efficacy, and Risks (Gordon Research Conference), Sunday River Newry / USA

.   09.-12.10.2017, Conference:
Climate Engineering Conference 2017 (CEC17), Berlin / Germany

 

Calls and deadlines

.
 22.01.2017, Call for
Papers: The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies:
Between the Paris Agreement and the Anthropocene (workshop in Utrecht)

.
 28.02.2017, Call for Papers: Organizing and the
Anthropocene, Special Issue of 'Organization'

.   28.02.2017,
Call for Session Proposals for the Climate Engineering Conference 2017:
Critical Global Discussions

 

Jobs

.

31.12.2016 (deadline), Job: PhD opportunity: Geoengineering the Southern
Ocean? A transdisciplinary assessment

.

18.01.2017 (deadline), Job/fellowship: Apply to be an Environmental Fellow
at Harvard

 

New Publications

. Corry, Olaf (2016)
 : Globalising
the Arctic Climate: Geoengineering and the Emerging Global Polity

. Isla, Ana; von Werlhof Claudia (2017)
 : Mother Earth Under Threat. Ecofeminism, the
Land Question, and Bioengineering

. Lo, Y. T. Eunice; et al. (2016)
 : Detecting sulphate aerosol
geoengineering with different methods

. MacCracken, Michael C. (2016)
 : The
Rationale for Accelerating Regionally Focused Climate Intervention Research

. Gasparini, Blaž; et al. (2016)
 : Is increasing ice
crystal sedimentation velocity in geoengineering simulations a good proxy
for cirrus cloud seeding?

. Köhler, Peter (2016)
 : Using
the Suess effect on the stable carbon isotope to distinguish the future from
the past in radiocarbon

 

Selected Media Responses

. Green European Journal
 : The Paris
Climate Plan Is on Life Support: Can Negative Emissions Deliver on Global
Climate Ambitions?

. Scientific American
 : What's Next for Climate Action?

. ETC Group
 : UN Convention still says "No" to manipulating the climate

. The Times
 : Trump, Tillerson and
the theory of engineering a fix for climate change

. NPR
 : A Planet With
Brains? The Peril And Potential Of Self-Aware Geological Change

. Chemistry World
 : Atmospheric limestone dust
injection could halt global warming

. New Atlas
 : Antacid for
the atmosphere could cool down planet Earth

. IPS Press Service
 : New Technologies in Debate in Biodiversity Conference

. Real News
 : Dependence on Negative 

[geo] Is increasing ice crystal sedimentation velocity in geoengineering simulations a good proxy for cirrus cloud seeding?

[CE News]

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-1109/

 

Gasparini, Blaž; et al. (2016): Is increasing ice crystal sedimentation 
velocity in geoengineering simulations a good proxy for cirrus cloud seeding? 

 

Abstract. The complex microphysical details of cirrus seeding with ice 
nucleating particles (INP) in numerical simulations are often mimicked by 
increasing ice crystal sedimentation velocities. So far it has not been tested 
whether these results are comparable to geoengineering simulations in which 
cirrus clouds are seeded with INP. We compare simulations where the ice crystal 
sedimentation velocity is increased at temperatures colder than −35 °C with 
simulations of cirrus seeding with INP using the ECHAM-HAM general circulation 
model. The radiative flux response of the two methods shows a similar behaviour 
in terms of annual and seasonal averages. Both methods decrease surface 
temperature but increase precipitation in response to a decreased atmospheric 
stability. Moreover, simulations of seeding with INP lead to a decrease in 
liquid clouds, which counteracts part of the cooling due to changes in cirrus 
clouds. The liquid cloud response is largely avoided in a simulation where 
seeding occurs during night only. Simulations with increased ice crystal 
sedimentation velocity, on the contrary, lead to counteracting mixed-phase 
cloud responses. The increased sedimentation velocity simulations induce a 30 % 
larger surface temperature response, due to their lower altitude of maximum 
diabatic forcing compared with simulations of seeding with INP particles. They 
can counteract up to 60 % of the radiative effect of CO2 doubling with a 
maximum net top-of-the-atmosphere forcing of  2.2 W m−2.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Summer School in Bejing: Geoengineering the Climate

[CE News]

(I think this has not been on the list yet.)

 

http://www.china-geoengineering.org/index.php?m=content
 =index=show=326=180

 

 

Geoengineering the Climate: Impacts and the Developing World Summer School
at Beijing Normal University 17-21 July 2017


Background

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is the most radical, controversial, and
rapidly acting form of geoengineering. SRM is a set of proposals to reduce
the impacts of climate change by means such as sulfate aerosol injection or
marine cloud brightening. This school will focus on interpreting and
analysing computer simulation of SRM from the international Geoengineering
Intercomparison project (GeoMIP) consortium of 12 Earth System models. We
will also investigate social and ethical aspects of SRM. The GeoMIP
simulation and data are from large computer systems that are not available
in the developing world, and inaccessible with typical internet speeds. This
the school will equip developing world researchers with the state-of-the-art
simulation results on geoengineering, and the knowledge of how to use these
results in their own studies.  
 
Teachers

John Moore, Duoying Ji, Long Cao, Ying Chen (China's geoengineering
program), Pete Irvine (Harvard University), Doug MacMartin (Cornell
University), Masa Sugiyama (Tokyo University), Andy Parker (Solar Radiation
Management Governance Initiative).

Participants 

The summer school will train researchers and advanced students with an
expertise in their local climate change impacts in the developing world.
The essential local knowledge and impact models needed for understanding and
predicting climate change scenarios have not considered geoengineering
climates. These impacts may be, for example, in the effects of large storms
or typhoons, floods, droughts, or agricultural production. The students will
be given GeoMIP data on a disk to keep.
 
Applications

Apply before March 30 by sending a 300 word explanation of your motivation
for attending, and current CV. Also indicate if travel support is needed.
For further information and applications please contact Prof. Moore's
office, linzh...@126.com.
 
Costs

We have limited travel grants available for participants who apply for
transport costs. Meals and accommodation will be provided at BNU by the
course.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Sensitivity of the radiative forcing by stratospheric sulfur geoengineering to the amount and strategy of the SO2 injection studied with the LMDZ-S3A model

[CE News]

https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-722/

 

Kleinschmitt, Christoph; Boucher, Olivier; Platt, Ulrich (2017): Sensitivity of 
the radiative forcing by stratospheric sulfur geoengineering to the amount and 
strategy of the SO2 injection studied with the LMDZ-S3A model. In Atmos. Chem. 
Phys. Discuss., pp. 1–34. DOI: 10.5194/acp-2017-722.

 

Abstract. The enhancement of the stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer has been 
proposed as a method of geoengineering to abate global warming. Previous 
modelling studies found that stratospheric aerosol injection could effectively 
compensate the warming by greenhouse gases on the global scale, but also that 
the achievable cooling effect per sulfur mass unit, i.e. the forcing 
efficiency, decreases with increasing injection rate. In this study we use the 
atmospheric general circulation model LMDZ with the sectional aerosol module 
S3A to determine how the forcing efficiency depends on the injected amount, the 
injection height and the spatio-temporal pattern of injection. We find that the 
forcing efficiency may decrease more drastically for larger SO2 injections than 
previously estimated. As a result, the net instantaneous radiative forcing does 
not exceed −2 W m−2 for continuous equatorial injections and it decreases (in 
absolute value) for the largest injection rates simulated (50 Tg S yr−1). In 
contrast to other studies, the net radiative forcing in our experiments is 
fairly constant with injection height (in a range 17 to 23 km) for a given 
amount of SO2 injected. Also spreading the SO2 injections between 30 °S and 30 
°N or injecting only seasonally from varying latitudes does not result in a 
significantly larger (i.e. more negative) radiative forcing. Other key 
characteristics of our simulations include a consequent stratospheric heating 
caused by absorption of solar and infrared radiation by the aerosol, changes in 
stratospheric dynamics, with a collapse of the quasi-biennial oscillation at 
larger injection rates, which has impacts on the resulting spatial aerosol 
distribution, size and optical properties.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] The international politics of geoengineering

[CE News]

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967010617704142

 

Corry, Olaf (2017): The international politics of geoengineering. The
feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. In Security Dialogue 48
(4), pp. 297-315. DOI: 10.1177/0967010617704142.

 

Abstract

Geoengineering technologies aim to make large-scale and deliberate
interventions in the climate system possible. A typical framing is that
researchers are exploring a 'Plan B' in case mitigation fails to avert
dangerous climate change. Some options are thought to have the potential to
alter the politics of climate change dramatically, yet in evaluating whether
they might ultimately reduce climate risks, their political and security
implications have so far not been given adequate prominence. This article
puts forward what it calls the 'security hazard' and argues that this could
be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, ultimately,
to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of geoengineering
rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a generally pacific
international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered world weather
events become something certain states can be made directly responsible for,
this may also negatively affect prospects for 'Plan A', i.e. an effective
global agreement on mitigation.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions in climate science?

[CE News]

Wood, Robert; Ackerman, Thomas; Rasch, Philip; Wanser, Kelly (2017): Could
geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions in climate
science? In: Earth's Future. DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000601

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000601/full 


Could geoengineering research help answer one of the biggest questions in
climate science?


*   Accepted manuscript online: 22 June 2017
 Full publication history
*   DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000601  View/save citation
 
*   Cited by (CrossRef): 0 articles
  Check for updates 

*
*
 


Abstract


Anthropogenic aerosol impacts on clouds constitute the largest source of
uncertainty in quantifying the radiative forcing of climate, and hinders our
ability to determine Earth's climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas
increases. Representation of aerosol-cloud interactions in global models is
particularly challenging because these interactions occur on typically
unresolved scales. Observational studies show influences of aerosol on
clouds, but correlations between aerosol and clouds are insufficient to
constrain aerosol forcing because of the difficulty in separating aerosol
and meteorological impacts. In this commentary, we argue that this current
impasse may be overcome with the development of approaches to conduct
control experiments whereby aerosol particle perturbations can be introduced
into patches of marine low clouds in a systematic manner. Such cloud
perturbation experiments constitute a fresh approach to climate science and
would provide unprecedented data to untangle the effects of aerosol
particles on cloud microphysics and the resulting reflection of solar
radiation by clouds. The control experiments would provide a critical test
of high-resolution models that are used to develop an improved
representation aerosol-cloud interactions needed to better constrain aerosol
forcing in global climate models.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Dealing with Climate Change. A Conversation with Paul N. Edwards and Oliver Geden

[CE News]

Discussion including climate modeling and CE questions.

 

--

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bewi.201701848/full 

 

Schrickel, Isabell; Engemann, Christoph (2017): Dealing with Climate Change. A 
Conversation with Paul N. Edwards and Oliver Geden. In: Ber. 
Wissenschaftsgesch. 40 (2), S. 175–185. DOI: 10.1002/bewi.201701848.

 


Dealing with Climate Change: A Conversation with Paul N. Edwards and Oliver 
Geden


*   First published: 12 June 2017 

 Full publication history
*   DOI: 10.1002/bewi.201701848  View/save citation 

 
*   Cited by (CrossRef): 0 articles Last updated 14 June 2017

*
*

 

Over the course of March 2017 we posed a number of questions on the current 
developments of climate research and politics to two of the most prominent 
authors in the field: Paul N. Edwards is a historian of science and technology 
who has worked at the intersection of politics, computers and knowledge 
infrastructures. In his recent book, A Vast Machine (2010), he has described 
the emergence of the global knowledge infrastructures of climate science in the 
historical context. He is actively involved in the debates on the Anthropocene 
– as an educator as well as a writer. Oliver Geden has a background in 
anthropology and is head of the European Union research division of the German 
Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung für Wissenschaft und 
Politik, SWP), one of Europe's largest foreign policy think tanks. Frequently 
called the ‘enfant terrible’ of German climate policy, Geden has developed a 
reputation for pointing out often overlooked strategic framings within climate 
science and policy discourses, and raises concern about their possible 
dynamics. The conversation took place via e-mails and a shared online document 
and was concluded on March 28, 2017. We made minor edits for clarity and 
readability, which were authorized by both authors.

Isabell Schrickel & Christoph Engemann: In the past years we've seen on all 
levels a tremendous rise of awareness for anthropogenic environmental change, 
its economic costs, political impacts and the threatening extreme events it may 
cause. The adoption of the Paris Agreement (PA) in 2015 indicates that the 
broad consensus on climate change also entered the macro-level political 
sphere. But we have also seen the ascendency of right-wing and science skeptic 
movements, for now culminating in the election and inauguration of the 45th US 
president. How would you draw a relationship between these events?

Oliver Geden: It all depends on the way the Trump administration will deal with 
the PA. Will they simply not adhere to the national emissions reduction pledge 
made under the Obama administration? Or will they formally withdraw from the 
Agreement maybe even from the overarching United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), since that would be the faster route to quit the PA?

With formal US withdrawal from the PA international climate policy would fall 
into deep crisis, and this would be hard to deny even for those countries 
willing to go on. We would certainly hear claims like “the global 
transformation is unstoppable” more often – but of course it is stoppable, it 
has not even really begun (with the exception of the electricity sector, which 
covers not more than a third of global emissions). Formal withdrawal means that 
everybody can see that a bottom-up climate policy regime is very vulnerable if 
the world's second largest emitter can simply decide to drop out of the game.

Without formal US withdrawal from the PA, which seems to be more likely, it 
would be much easier for international climate policymakers to deal with Trump. 
The US would still be part of the game, officially, which allows for keeping 
the mechanism of hope so well-established in 25 years of UN climate policy. 
Basically, the major post-Paris narrative would remain unchanged: Cumulative 
pledges until 2030 are not sufficient to meet 2 °Celsius, let alone 1.5 
°Celsius. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) special 
report on 1.5 °Celsius in September 2018, there will be a global dialogue how 
to ratchet-up commitments and this will lead to new pledges and to more 
progressive climate policies overall. It would be about intentions, not about 
(recent) results. And it would work in global climate policy circles, 
particularly by not pressing the Trump administration to tell exactly what 
their future plans are. You wouldn't want to know, obviously, since it could 
threaten the narrative that everything's going to be fine eventually. Even if 
Trump plays hardball climate diplomats can still hope the Trump presidency will 
last 

[geo] Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production

[CE News]

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2017-235/

 

Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary 
production 

 

Siv K. Lauvset1, Jerry Tjiputra1, and Helene Muri2 1Uni Research Climate, 
Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, Jahnebakken 5, Bergen, Norway



2University of Oslo, Department of Geosciences, Section for Meteorology and 
Oceanography, Oslo, Norway

 

Received: 06 Jun 2017 – Accepted for review: 13 Jun 2017 – Discussion started: 
14 Jun 2017

 

Abstract. Here we use an Earth System Model with interactive biogeochemistry to 
project future ocean biogeochemistry impacts from large-scale deployment of 
three different radiation management (RM) climate engineering (also known as 
geoengineering) methods: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine sky 
brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). We apply RM such that the 
change in radiative forcing in the RCP8.5 emission scenario is reduced to the 
change in radiative forcing in the RCP4.5 scenario. The resulting global mean 
sea surface temperatures in the RM experiments are comparable to those in 
RCP4.5, but there are regional differences. The forcing from MSB, for example, 
is applied over the oceans, so the cooling of the ocean is in some regions 
stronger for this method of RM than for the others. Changes in ocean primary 
production are much more variable, but SAI and MSB give a global decrease 
comparable to RCP4.5 (~ 6 % in 2100 relative to 1971–2000), while CCT give a 
much smaller global decrease of ~ 3 %. The spatially inhomogeneous changes in 
ocean primary production are partly linked to how the different RM methods 
affect the drivers of primary production (incoming radiation, temperature, 
availability of nutrients, and phytoplankton) in the model. The results of this 
work underscores the complexity of climate impacts on primary production, and 
highlights that changes are driven by an integrated effect of multiple 
environmental drivers, which all change in different ways. These results stress 
the uncertain changes to ocean productivity in the future and advocates caution 
at any deliberate attempt for large-scale perturbation of the Earth system.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential

[CE News]

Boysen, Lena R.; Lucht, Wolfgang; Gerten, Dieter (2017): Trade-offs for food 
production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon 
dioxide removal potential. In Glob Chang Biol. DOI: 10./gcb.13745.

 

  
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./gcb.13745/abstract

 

Abstract

Large-scale biomass plantations (BPs) are a common factor in climate mitigation 
scenarios as they promise double benefits: extracting carbon from the 
atmosphere and providing a renewable energy source. However, their terrestrial 
carbon dioxide removal (tCDR) potentials depend on important factors such as 
land availability, efficiency of capturing biomass-derived carbon and the 
timing of operation. Land availability is restricted by the demands of future 
food production depending on yield increases and population growth, by 
requirements for nature conservation and, with respect to climate mitigation, 
avoiding unfavourable albedo changes. We integrate these factors in one 
spatially explicit biogeochemical simulation framework to explore the tCDR 
opportunity space on land available after these constraints are taken into 
account, starting either in 2020 or 2050, and lasting until 2100. We find that 
assumed future needs for nature protection and food production strongly limit 
tCDR potentials. BPs on abandoned crop and pasture areas (~1300 Mha in 
scenarios of either 8.0 billion people and yield gap reductions of 25% until 
2020 or 9.5 billion people and yield gap reductions of 50% until 2050) could, 
theoretically, sequester ~100 GtC in land carbon stocks and biomass harvest by 
2100. However, this potential would be ~80% lower if only cropland was 
available or ~50% lower if albedo decreases were considered as a factor 
restricting land availability. Converting instead natural forest, shrubland or 
grassland into BPs could result in much larger tCDR potentials ̶ but at high 
environmental costs (e.g. biodiversity loss). The most promising avenue for 
effective tCDR seems to be improvement of efficient carbon utilization 
pathways, changes in dietary trends or the restoration of marginal lands for 
the implementation of tCDR.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Sulfate geoengineering impact on methane transport and lifetime: results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

[CE News]

Sulfate geoengineering impact on methane transport and lifetime: results from 
the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) 

 

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/11209/2017/ 

 

Daniele Visioni1,2, Giovanni Pitari1, Valentina Aquila3, Simone Tilmes4, Irene 
Cionni5, Glauco Di Genova2, and Eva Mancini1,2 1Department of Physical and 
Chemical Sciences, Università dell'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy
2CETEMPS, Università dell'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy
3GESTAR/Johns Hopkins University, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, 
3400 N Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
4National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
5ENEA, Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente, 00123 Rome, Italy

Received: 05 Jul 2017 – Discussion started: 11 Jul 2017
Revised: 07 Sep 2017 – Accepted: 11 Sep 2017 – Published: 21 Sep 2017

Abstract. Sulfate geoengineering (SG), made by sustained injection of SO2 in 
the tropical lower stratosphere, may impact the CH4 abundance through several 
photochemical mechanisms affecting tropospheric OH and hence the methane 
lifetime. (a) The reflection of incoming solar radiation increases the 
planetary albedo and cools the surface, with a tropospheric H2O decrease. (b) 
The tropospheric UV budget is upset by the additional aerosol scattering and 
stratospheric ozone changes: the net effect is meridionally not uniform, with a 
net decrease in the tropics, thus producing less tropospheric O(1D). (c) The 
extratropical downwelling motion from the lower stratosphere tends to increase 
the sulfate aerosol surface area density available for heterogeneous chemical 
reactions in the mid-to-upper troposphere, thus reducing the amount of NOx and 
O3 production. (d) The tropical lower stratosphere is warmed by solar and 
planetary radiation absorption by the aerosols. The heating rate perturbation 
is highly latitude dependent, producing a stronger meridional component of the 
Brewer–Dobson circulation. The net effect on tropospheric OH due to the 
enhanced stratosphere–troposphere exchange may be positive or negative 
depending on the net result of different superimposed species perturbations 
(CH4, NOy, O3, SO4) in the extratropical upper troposphere and lower 
stratosphere (UTLS). In addition, the atmospheric stabilization resulting from 
the tropospheric cooling and lower stratospheric warming favors an additional 
decrease of the UTLS extratropical CH4 by lowering the horizontal eddy mixing. 
Two climate–chemistry coupled models are used to explore the above radiative, 
chemical and dynamical mechanisms affecting CH4 transport and lifetime 
(ULAQ-CCM and GEOSCCM). The CH4 lifetime may become significantly longer (by 
approximately 16 %) with a sustained injection of 8 Tg-SO2 yr−1 starting in the 
year 2020, which implies an increase of tropospheric CH4 (200 ppbv) and a 
positive indirect radiative forcing of sulfate geoengineering due to CH4 
changes (+0.10 W m−2 in the 2040–2049 decade and +0.15 W m−2 in the 2060–2069 
decade).

 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Geoengineering at the 'edge of the world': exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation

[CE News]

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/geoengineering-at-the-edg
e-of-the-world-exploring-perceptions-of-ocean-fertilization-through-the-haid
a-salmon-restoration-corporation/


Geoengineering at the 'edge of the world': exploring perceptions of ocean
fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation


Working paper 28 September, 2017


Download


*
 Working-Paper-280-Gannon-Hulme (PDF)

 

This paper describes an opportunistic case study of the 2012 Haida Salmon
Restoration Corporation's ocean fertilization project. Anchored in notions
of place and identity, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation marks a
novel entry point into social research on geoengineering, which enables a
more situated engagement with ocean fertilization, in keeping with
geographical traditions.

The paper adopts an innovative design that combines ethnography with
Q-Methodology, to identify clusters of shared meaning around the way in
which contestation surrounding the geoengineering ambitions of the Haida
Salmon Restoration Corporation invoked different interpretations about the
role and nature of 'nature' and human agency. This case study suggests that
'geoengineering' will always be performed and interpreted through
contextually specific meanings and such local particularities as geography,
people, practices and place. Nevertheless, interpretative resources that
have been described in relation to a range of geoengineering technologies,
(including solar radiation management proposals), through earlier, and less
situated, social science literatures, are also traced from this place-based
experience of geoengineering.

The authors suggest that their Q-Methodology factors have some
interpretative overlap with ideal-typical 'worldview' heuristics, used to
describe contemporary Western cultural currents in earlier literatures. This
connects ocean fertilization in Haida Gwaii with debates about other
geoengineering technologies and with wider cultural meanings and literatures
that consider the human relationship with nature. They suggest that the
Q-factors may serve as useful mnemonics for helping to conceptualise some of
the deeper contested values and assumptions that drive public contestation
about geoengineering.

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[CE News]

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269

 

Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical
Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in
Social Context (Sustainability, 10).

 


Abstract 


Geoengineering-specifically stratospheric aerosol injection-is not only
risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently
ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental
social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted in
a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully
controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering
is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to
it: capitalism's inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to
accumulate capital, on the one hand, and the need to maintain a stable
climate system on the other. Substantial emissions reductions, unlike
geoengineering, are costly, rely more on social-structural than technical
changes, and are at odds with the current social order. Because of this,
geoengineering will increasingly be considered a core response to climate
change. In light of Herbert Marcuse's critical theory, the promotion of
geoengineering as a market-friendly and high-tech strategy is shown to
reflect a society that cannot set substantive aims through reason and
transforms what should be considered means (technology and economic
production) into ends themselves. Such a condition echoes the
first-generation Frankfurt School's central thesis: instrumental rationality
remains irrational.   View
Full-Text 

Keywords:   climate
engineering;  
environmental sociology;  
critical theory;
 science
and technology studies;
 solar
radiation management;
 carbon dioxide
removal;   Marcuse;

stratospheric sulfate injection;

stratospheric aerosol injection;
 albedo modification 

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] A Republican likes geoengineering. Is that middle ground?

[CE News]

Has anyone access to the following text?

 

Thanks!

Nils

 

 

A Republican likes geoengineering. Is that middle ground?

Republicans and Democrats may be taking baby steps toward an agreement on a
minor piece of climate policy.

https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072301

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols

[CE News]

Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Tuccella, Paolo; Curci, Gabriele (2018): 
Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions. 
Quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of 
stratospheric aerosols. In Atmos. Chem. Phys 18 (4), pp. 2787–2808. DOI: 
10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2787/2018/acp-18-2787-2018.html

 

Abstract. Sustained injection of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the tropical lower 
stratosphere has been proposed as a climate engineering technique for the 
coming decades. Among several possible environmental side effects, the increase 
in sulfur deposition deserves additional investigation. In this study we 
present results from a composition–climate coupled model (University of 
L'Aquila Composition-Chemistry Model, ULAQ-CCM) and a chemistry-transport model 
(Goddard Earth Observing System Chemistry-Transport Model, GEOS-Chem), assuming 
a sustained lower-stratospheric equatorial injection of 8 Tg SO2 yr−1. Total S 
deposition is found to globally increase by 5.2 % when sulfate geoengineering 
is deployed, with a clear interhemispheric asymmetry (+3.8 and +10.3 % in the 
Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the Southern Hemisphere (SH), due to +2.2 and +1.8 
Tg S yr−1, respectively). The two models show good consistency, both globally 
and on a regional scale under background and geoengineering conditions, except 
for S-deposition changes over Africa and the Arctic. The consistency exists 
with regard to time-averaged values but also with regard to monthly and 
interannual deposition changes. The latter is driven essentially by the 
variability in stratospheric large-scale transport associated with the 
quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Using an externally nudged QBO, it is shown 
how a zonal wind E shear favors aerosol confinement in the tropical pipe and a 
significant increase in their effective radius (+13 % with respect to W shear 
conditions). The net result is an increase in the downward cross-tropopause S 
flux over the tropics with dominant E shear conditions with respect to W shear 
periods (+0.61 Tg S yr−1, +42 %, mostly due to enhanced aerosol gravitational 
settling) and a decrease over the extratropics (−0.86 Tg S yr−1, −35 %, mostly 
due to decreased large-scale stratosphere–troposphere exchange of 
geoengineering sulfate). This translates into S-deposition changes that are 
significantly different under opposite QBO wind shears, with an E–W anomaly of 
+0.32 in the tropics and −0.67 Tg S yr−1 in the extratropics. Most online QBO 
schemes predict a significant change in the zonal wind periodicity, up to a 
blocked E shear condition for large enough injections, so that our results 
indicate an upper limit for the tropical increase in S deposition of 16.5 % 
relative to average conditions of unperturbed QBO periodicity and a 
correspondent extratropical S deposition decrease of 16 %.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Survey about CE News Site - please fill out

[CE News Site]

*Site News: Survey about this web site - please fill out*

We created a survey to get your feedback on the CE News Site 
(www.climate-engineering.eu). We like to aks you to answer the six 
questions and give writen feedback. Many thanks! - The survey is open 
until the 21st of October.


Link to the survey <https://de.surveymonkey.com/r/VRG325G>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] CE-related sessions at the EGU 2016

[CE News Site]

Dear group,

I am looking for CE-relevant sessions at the EGU General Assembly 2016 
in Vienna. Has anyone seen relevant sessions apart from the two I 
found?   (BTW, The deadline for abstracts is mid-January.)


Stratospheric aerosol, volcanic eruptions and their radiative effects 
(co-organized)

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/session/22189

Soil quality and carbon sequestration in mine spoil
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/session/21852

Best
Nils

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Geo-engineering experiments in two urban ponds to control eutrophication.

[CE News Site]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26725204

Water Res.  2015 Dec 15. 
pii: S0043-1354(15)30396-1. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.070. [Epub 
ahead of print]



 Geo-engineering experiments in two urban ponds to control eutrophication.

Waajen G 
^1 
, van Oosterhout F 
^2 
, Douglas G 
^3 
, Lürling M 
^4 
.



 Author information


 Abstract

Many urban ponds experience detrimental algal blooms as the result of 
eutrophication. During a two year field experiment, the efficacy of five 
in situ treatments to mitigate eutrophication effects in urban ponds was 
studied. The treatments targeted the sediment phosphorus release and 
were intended to switch the ponds from a turbid phytoplankton-dominated 
state to a clear-water state with a low phytoplankton biomass. Two 
eutrophic urban ponds were each divided into six compartments 
(300-400 m^2 ; 210-700 m^3 ). In each pond the following treatments were 
tested: dredging in combination with biomanipulation (involving fish 
biomass control and the introduction of macrophytes) with and without 
the addition of the flocculant polyaluminiumchloride, interception and 
reduction of sediment phosphorus release with lanthanum-modified 
bentonite (Phoslock^® ) in combination with biomanipulation with and 
without polyaluminiumchloride; biomanipulation alone; and a control. 
Trial results support the hypothesis that the combination of 
biomanipulation and measures targeting the sediment phosphorus release 
can be effective in reducing the phytoplankton biomass and establishing 
and maintaining a clear-water state, provided the external phosphorus 
loading is limited. During the experimental period dredging combined 
with biomanipulation showed mean chlorophyll-a concentrations of 5.3 and 
6.2 μg L^-1 , compared to 268.9 and 52.4 μg L^-1 in the control 
compartments. Lanthanum-modified bentonite can be an effective 
alternative to dredging and in combination with biomanipulation it 
showed mean chlorophyll-a concentrations of 5.9 and 7.6 μg L^-1 . 
Biomanipulation alone did not establish a clear-water state or only 
during a limited period. As the two experimental sites differed in their 
reaction to the treatments, it is important to choose the most promising 
treatment depending on site specific characteristics. In recovering the 
water quality status of urban ponds, continuing attention is required to 
the concurrent reduction of external phosphorus loading and to 
maintaining an appropriate fish community.


Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


   KEYWORDS:

Biomanipulation; Dredging; Lake restoration; Lanthanum-modified 
bentonite; Phoslock(®); Polyaluminiumchloride


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Hourdequin, Marion (2015): The ethics of geoengineering

[CE News Site]

Hourdequin, Marion (2015): The ethics of geoengineering. In The 
Philosophers' Magazine (71), pp. 44–50. DOI: 10.5840/tpm201571101.


https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform=tpm=tpm_2015_0071_0044_0050=true

(paywalled)

"What is distinctive about contemporary climate change is that it is 
human caused. significant in magnitude, and exceptionally rapid in 
relation to past climatic shifts. Not only does this pose challenges to 
human society; it is transforming ecosystems and outpacing the ability 
of individual species to adapt to changing conditions."


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Laakso, Anton (2016): Modelling radiative and climate effects of aerosols: from Anthropogenic emissions to geoengineering

[CE News Site]

Laakso, Anton (2016): Modelling radiative and climate effects of 
aerosols: from Anthropogenic emissions to geoengineering (Finnish 
Meteorological Institute Contributions, 119). Available online at 
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/161360.


Atmospheric aerosols have been shown to exert a cooling effect on 
climate by scattering incoming solar radiation back to space or 
increasing cloud albedo by increasing the cloud droplet number 
concentration in the clouds. If greenhouse gas emissions cannot be 
reduced to slow down climate warming, it has been postulated that 
climate could be artificially cooled by increasing atmospheric aerosol 
concentrations. These methods are called solar radiation management or 
geoengineering. This work evaluated two potential solar radiation 
management techniques; 1) where marine aerosol concentrations would be 
elevated to enhance marine cloud albedo and 2) a technique where 
stratospheric sulphur concentration would be increased. The key 
objectives of this thesis were to: 1) Investigate the potential of 
aerosols to cool the climate at the global scale, 2) Evaluate the role 
of the simulation of the aerosol microphysics in the global climate 
models and 3) Identify the possible limits in the effectiveness of the 
Solar Radiation Management techniques as well as the risks related to 
these techniques. Climate is already being affected by our current 
aerosols emissions. This work also examined how the geographical change 
in aerosol emissions has affected the climate and evaluated how the 
climate would change due to aerosols if all electrical energy were to be 
generated by nuclear power is instead of by coal combustion. The global 
aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ was used to study radiation and the 
climatic effects of aerosols. The model simulates the formation, growth, 
transportation and deposition of aerosols and their interactions with 
clouds. In addition, the effects on the climate, assessed as temperature 
changes, were studied using a mixed layer ocean model coupled to the 
atmospheric model ECHAM and Max Planck Institute's Earth System Model 
(MPI-ESM). The results revealed that the geoengineering techniques which 
were studied in this work, have the potential to significantly cool 
climate and thus slow down global warming. However, the cooling effect 
has limitations. Stratospheric sulphur injections would lead to 
relatively less cooling, should the amount of injected sulphur need to 
be increased. Thus for example, a large volcanic eruption would also 
lead to a clearly smaller and shorter period cooling if the volcano were 
to erupt during the stratospheric sulphur injections than if the 
eruption took place in an unperturbed atmosphere. This work also studied 
if ship or air traffic were to be used for geoengineering by increasing 
sulphur concentration in fuel. This would lead to a significant cooling 
effect but would require changes in current legislation. Even if this 
were to occur, the cooling effect would be concentrated around the 
vicinity of routes of the traffic and would thus lead to a regionally 
uneven cooling effect. Furthermore, the cooling effect would be clearly 
smaller compared to injection strategies which were intended to maximize 
the cooling effect of aerosols. The global mean cooling effect 
attributable to aerosols would be rather small due to the geographical 
change in tropospheric aerosol emissions or change in energy production 
studied here when compared to the warming due to the increased 
greenhouse gas emissions. This work shows the necessity of including 
aerosol microphysics into climate modelling since most of the 
conclusions in this work could not be obtained without aerosol 
microphysics or taking into account the interactions between clouds and 
aerosols. Thus, micrometer scale physical phenomena would influence the 
climatic impact on a global scale. Simulating aerosol microphysics led 
also to many unpredictable results.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Understanding potential impacts of marine geoengineering

[CE News Site]

http://www.allaboutshipping.co.uk/2016/05/26/understanding-potential-impacts-of-marine-geoengineering/

*25/05/2016  – A new GESAMP  working group on 
marine geoengineering held its first meeting at IMO Headquarters, 
London, this week (23-25 May). The overall objective of the Working 
Group (WG 41) is to better understand the potential impacts of proposed 
marine geoengineering techniques on the marine environment – including 
social and economic consequences. The Group will also provide advice to 
the London Protocol 
 Parties 
to assist them in identifying those marine geoengineering techniques 
that may be sensible to be considered for listing in the new Annex 4 of 
the Protocol.*


The Working Group, established at the forty-second session of GESAMP, 
held in Paris last year, is being led by IMO with the support from IOC 
of UNESCO and WMO. This first, inception meeting, under the chairmanship 
of Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom) and Professor Philip Boyd 
(Australia), included scientists from Australia, Canada, Germany, the 
United Kingdom and the United States. The Group will deliver an initial 
high level assessment report to the nine UN Sponsoring Agencies which 
make up GESAMP, in 2017.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben (2016): Multi-model dynamic climate emulator for solar geoengineering

[CE News Site]

MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben (2016): Multi-model dynamic climate 
emulator for solar geoengineering. In Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., pp. 
1–14. DOI 10.5194/acp-2016-535.


www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2016-535/

Climate emulators trained on existing simulations can be used to project 
the climate effects that would result from different possible future 
pathways of anthropogenic forcing, without relying on general 
circulation model (GCM) simulations for every possible pathway. We 
extend this idea to include different amounts of solar geoengineering in 
addition to different pathways of green-house gas concentrations by 
training emulators from a multi-model ensemble of simulations from the 
Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The emulator is 
trained on the abrupt 4 x CO_2 and a compensating solar reduction 
simulation (G1), and evaluated by comparing predictions against a 
simulated 1 % per year CO_2 increase and a similarly smaller solar 
reduction (G2). We find reasonable agreement in most models for 
predicting changes in temperature and precipitation (including regional 
effects), and annual-mean Northern hemisphere sea ice extent, with the 
difference between simulation and prediction typically smaller than 
natural variability. This verifies that the linearity assumption used in 
constructing the emulator is sufficient for these variables over the 
range of forcing considered. Annual-minimum Northern hemisphere sea ice 
extent is less-well predicted, indicating the limits of the linearity 
assumption. For future pathways involving relatively small forcing from 
solar geoengineering, the errors introduced from nonlinear effects may 
be smaller than the uncertainty due to natural variability, and the 
emulator prediction may be a more accurate estimate of the forced 
component of the models' response than an actual simulation would be.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] News review of week 07 of 2016

[CE News Site]

   Climate Engineering News Review for Week 7 of 2016

Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·10.02.2015 (deadline), Call for Papers: 
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT) conference


·(new) 18.02.2015 
, 
Lecture: Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering – Benefits and Risks (Alan 
Robock), Illinois/USA


·21.-26.02.2016 
, 
Conference: Ocean Science Meeting 2016, New Orleans/USA


·26.-27.02.2016 , 
Conference: Climate Science and Policy Conference 2016, Santa Cruz/USA


·(new) 29.02.2016 , 
Lecture: Climate engineering in a multi-polar world, Oxford/UK


·22.03.2016 
, 
Lecture: Geoengineering the Climate (Royal Society of Chemistry), London/UK


·17.04.2016 
, 
Conference: EGU General Assembly


·(no deadline) Job 
: 
Risks to global water resources from geoengineering the climate with 
solar radiation management


·(no deadline) Job 
: 
Various research positions at Edinburgh


New Publications

·Pereira, J. C. (2016) 
: 
Geoengineering, Scientific Community, and Policymakers. A New Proposal 
for the Categorization of Responses to Anthropogenic Climate Change


·Lockley, Andrew (2016) : 
Geoengineering: A war on climate change?


·Naudts, K.; et al. (2016) 
: Europes forest 
management did not mitigate climate warming


Selected Media Responses

·Carbon Brief 
: 
Limiting global warming to 1.5C is still possible, say scientists


·Envisionation 
: 
The Road from COP21 - Stepping stones between the COP’s


·Poly Conondrum 
: 
Use Of Iron To Boost Algae Not An Answer For Geo-Engineering


·Civil Eats 
: 
California’s Grand Plan to Fight Climate Change on the Farm


·Flassbeck Economics 
: 
Geoengineering offers no solutions to climate change. A study on ocean 
acidification


·E News : Oliver Morton on 
the 'abiding romance' of geoengineering


·Yale Climate Connections 
: 
Bookshelf: Engineering the Atmosphere


·The Globe and Mail (Video) 
: 
Is a carbon-neutral fuel source possible? This Canadian company thinks so


·Fighting The Biocrisis Blog 
: 
Climate Imperial: Geoengineering and Capitalist Hegemony (Part One)


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Press review of COP21 aftermath including CE/BECCS

[CE News Site]

Find a press review of COP21 and its implications for CE or negative 
emissions below. I might update the version that's online.


Best
Nils

http://www.climate-engineering.eu/single/items/press-review-media-responses-to-cop21-and-climate-engineering-opportunities.html


 [press review] Media responses to COP21 and climate engineering
 opportunities

Media responses to COP21 and climate engineering opportunities; 
contributions that include CE in the climate policy portfolio after the 
Paris climate talks.


*Final Agreement of COP21 (pdf) 
*


*08.12.2015*

Global Forest Coalition 
: 
The Phantom of the COP21 Opera: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage


*10.12.2015*

e360 
: 
Paris COP21: An Unexpected Move Toward Global Target of 1.5 Degrees


*11.12.2015*

Carbon Brief 
: 
COP21: Experts discuss ‘greenhouse gas emissions neutrality’


New Politics 
: 
Statement from new Climate Space initiative about COP21


Road to Paris 
: 
Top scientists weigh in on current draft of Paris climate agreement


Global Justice Ecology Project 
: No 
to 1.5°C with Geoengineering!


*12.12.2015*

New Internationalist blog 
: 
Geoengineering: a boon for big business not the environment


*13.12.2015*

Center for Carbon Removal 
: 
6 things I learned at COP21 about carbon removal


*14.12.2015*

Slate 
: 
Can We Achieve the Paris Climate Goals Without Unproven Technology?


The Guardian 
: 
EU says 1.5C global warming target depends on ‘negative emissions’ 
technology


*15.12.2015*

Die Klimazwiebel 
: 
What Klimazwiebelists have to say on the COP21 result


Bellona 
: 
Bellona calls on European Commission for a negative emissions advisory body


*24.12.2015*

News24 
: 
Two options for implementing COP21 targets


*27.12.2015*

Center for Carbon Removal 
: 
Things I believe about carbon removal: Post-COP21 December, 2015


*06.01.2016*

Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment 
: 
After Paris, time for an honest conversation – Simon Nicholson


*08.01.2016*

Energy Post 
: We 
need to get serious about negative emissions – fast


Independent 
: 
COP21: Paris deal far too weak to prevent devastating climate change, 
academics warn


*13.01.2016*

Shell Blog : 
Exploring the Paris Agreement – the new global goal


*14.01.2016*

Energy Collective 
: 
'Climate Geoengineering': As Contingency Plan Perhaps the Sharpest Tool 
in the World's Climate Tool Box


*15.01.2016*

Geoengineering Monitor 
: 
The hidden agenda: how veiled techno – utopias shore up the Paris Agreement



--
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 

[geo] Slate: Imagining Geoengineering. Why science-fiction writers find it so hard to discuss climate tech.

[CE News Site]

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/kim_stanley_robinson_explains_why_sci_fi_writers_avoid_geoengineering.single.html


 Imagining Geoengineering


   Why science-fiction writers find it so hard to discuss climate tech.

By Jacob Brogan 
Kim Stanley Robinson is one of the few sci-fi writers to seriously 
consider the actual potential and dangers of geoengineering.


Geoengineering 
 
occupies a peculiar space in the scheme of tomorrow’s technologies, at 
once fundamentally practicable and largely untested. A catchall term for 
a wide array of technologies designed to counteract the damage of 
climate change, /geoengineering/ has only gradually found its way into 
mainstream scientific conversations, often over the vehement objections 
 
of prominent researchers. Surprisingly, that general neglect extends to 
works of fiction: While I was researching pop-cultural representations 
of geoengineering for our first Futurography cheat sheet 
, 
I was struck by how scarce they were.


Though geoengineering showed up here and there, it almost always served 
as the ironic cause of the very catastrophes it had been deployed to 
prevent, sometimes bringing on new ice ages, as in /Snowpiercer 
/; sometimes 
accelerating apocalyptic weather patterns, as in this short story from 
*/Slate/*’s Eric Holthaus ; 
and almost always serving as an agent of chaos. Skeptical as scientists 
are of geoengineering, authors and artists seem to be even more so. And 
while there are real reasons to worry about geoengineering, it was 
rarely those practical concerns that showed up in these more fantastical 
sites. How, I wondered, had potentially transformative technologies 
become sources of such widespread disdain?


Some of that cynicism is surely a product of hard-won experience. Chris 
McKay, a NASA planetary scientist who works on Mars mission planning, 
pointed out to me that many of us are all too aware of our poor record 
where the climate is concerned. “There’s a perception in the general 
public that human influence on climate is always a bad thing, an 
implicit assumption that we can’t do anything /but /mess up,” he told 
me. That’s probably why science fiction’s rare attempts at imagining 
positive climate meddling tend to unfold on other worlds, generally as 
stories of large-scale terraforming 
 
rather than simple geoengineering. Here on Earth, McKay joked, we’ve 
been the proverbial bulls in a china shop, but on Mars we’d be “bulls in 
an open field.”


That more positive experimental spirit mostly holds for the novelist Kim 
Stanley Robinson, who’s worked through some of the consequences of 
terraforming in his Mars novels 
 and other works 
. Much of the 
science in his Mars books, he told me, “is applicable to Earth.” As 
McKay would point out, however, extraterrestrial narratives still 
underscore the difficulties of thinking realistically about climate 
modification technologies. We could, McKay explains in a document that 
he sent to me, bring Mars’ temperature to Earth-like levels within 100 
years or so, a time frame that’s comprehensible from the scope of an 
individual human life. Giving it a breathable atmosphere, on the other 
hand, could take 1,000 times as long.


While geoengineering doesn’t present such daunting issues of scale, 
these kind of chronological concerns still present narrative 
difficulties. There are, of course, science-fiction novels that play out 
over centuries or millennia—Olaf Stapledon’s /Star Maker/ 
//comes to mind, 
for example—but even shorter scenarios can be harder to shape into 
stories. “A lot of these things are happening on a decade scale,” said 
Robinson, author of /Green Earth/ 
, one of the few 
science-fiction novels to seriously consider the actual potential and 
dangers of geoengineering. This makes it difficult for authors trying to 
weave scientifically plausible narratives than are also dramatically 
compelling. That’s all the more problematic in relation to the more 
pressing crises of climate change, which are clearly shaping our lives 
here and now in ways 

[geo] How Biofuels Can Cool Our Climate and Strengthen Our Ecosystems

[CE News Site]

DeLucia, Evan (2015): How Biofuels Can Cool Our Climate and Strengthen 
Our Ecosystems. In Eos 96 (4), pp. 14–19. DOI 10.1029/2015EO041583.


Critics of biofuels like ethanol argue they are an unsustainable use of 
land. But with careful management, next-generation grass-based biofuels 
can net climate savings and improve their ecosystems.


Miscanthus and switchgrass, two perennial grasses that could be used for 
biofuels, grow in front of a corn crib. Credit: Evan DeLucia


By Evan H. DeLucia  22 December 2015

As the world seeks strategies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide 
(CO_2 ) into the atmosphere, bioenergy is one promising substitute for 
fossil fuels [/Somerville et al./, 2010]. Currently, the United States 
uses the starch component from roughly 40% of its corn harvest to 
produce ethanol for the transportation sector (see the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service website ).


Currently, the United States uses the starch component from roughly 40% 
of its corn harvest to produce ethanol for the transportation sector.


Cornstarch production is technologically simple—a so-called 
first-generation bioenergy technology. However, growing corn requires a 
lot of fertilizer and field preparation that ultimately depend on fossil 
fuels, tempering the net carbon savings.


Because of this, researchers have focused on developing fuel production 
using more advanced methods and second-generation bioenergy crops. These 
methods make liquid fuel, primarily ethanol, from lignocellulose, which 
composes the structural elements of plants, leaves, stalks, and stems. 
Because many of these crops are perennials (they grow back year after 
year), they often require less fertilizer and tillage, avoiding many of 
the negatives associated with corn and other annual crops that need 
intensive management.


A challenge with second-generation energy crops, however, is that they 
yield much less energy—lignocellulose produces less than one third of 
the energy per unit mass compared to fossil fuels. Because of this low 
energy density, the United States would need to invest a considerable 
amount of land to meet a significant part of national demand, a land 
area almost the size of Wisconsin to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard 
mandate for 32 billion gallons of biofuel [/Hudiburg et al.,/ 2015].


Planting second-generation grass-based biofuel crops on marginal or 
degraded land can reduce our carbon footprint and provide other 
beneficial ecosystem services.


The conversion of current land uses and management practices to the 
cultivation of bioenergy crops directly affects the climate system and 
is a fundamental process underlying the ecological sustainability of 
bioenergy production, as well as the ability of bioenergy crops to 
mitigate climate change. Where conversion of native prairie to corn 
negatively affects climate by releasing CO_2 and other greenhouse gases 
to the atmosphere, planting second-generation grass-based biofuel crops 
on marginal or degraded land can reduce our carbon footprint and provide 
other beneficial ecosystem services.



 *Changing the Landscape Changes Our Climate*

Fig. 1. Terrestrial ecosystems affect the climate system by influencing 
the exchange of greenhouse gases between the land surface and the 
atmosphere (biogeochemical regulation) and by influencing the exchange 
of energy (evapotranspiration and albedo) with the atmosphere 
(biophysical regulation). Biogeochemical processes affect the 
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, influencing global 
climate on decadal time scales or longer, whereas biophysical processes 
cause local cooling or warming over days and months. Credit: Evan DeLucia


Public discussion of climate change often focuses on the atmosphere. As 
greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane 
accumulate in the atmosphere, they warm the planet by absorbing infrared 
radiation. But that’s not the whole picture: those greenhouse gases are 
also constantly cycling between the atmosphere and the land (Figure 1). 
Therefore, changes in land use, vegetation, and how we manage it affect 
climate by altering that exchange.


The metabolisms of plants and soil microbes help to regulate the 
exchange of GHGs with the atmosphere, as these molecules or their 
precursors are stored in biomass and soil. Clearing a native forest, for 
example, releases large quantities of carbon stored in biomass and soil 
to the atmosphere (“storage”; Figure 2). Indeed, creating and managing 
farmland contribute more than 14% of the world’s GHG emissions (U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency 
, global 
greenhouse gas emissions data, 2015).


Fig. 2. (a) Biogeochemical climate services reflect the greenhouse gases 
that would be released from land clearing and the change in ongoing 
exchange with the atmosphere. (b) 

[geo] Eurekastreet: Sulphur sunshade is a stupid pollution solution

[CE News Site]

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=47204#.Vw47qHr53sA

Sulphur sunshade is a stupid pollution solution

Greg Foyster |  13 April 2016


It's a credo of consumer capitalism: never address the cause when you 
can create an industry treating the symptoms.


'Problem' pollution is overrun by 'solution' pollution. Cartoon by Greg 
FoysterThis is the logic behind many profitable businesses, from 
cholesterol-lowering pills that compensate for poor diet and lack of 
exercise to factories that recycle unnecessary packaging.


Now there's a new technofix on the table, and it's called 
geoengineering. Geoengineering means intervening in the Earth's climate 
to counter, or offset, global warming. It's hacking the planet on a 
monumental scale.


Some proposals sound like pure science fiction. Building 'artificial 
trees' to suck in carbon dioxide. Fertilising entire oceans with iron, 
trigging carbon-sequestering algal blooms. Launching a fleet of ships to 
patrol the ocean, pumping seawater into the air to 'brighten' marine clouds.


The most ambitious and widely studied is spraying sulphate particles 
into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight, cooling the planet.


The idea comes from huge volcanic eruptions, which can blast millions of 
tonnes of sulphur into the stratosphere, creating a kind of chemical 
sunshade. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, the 
Earth cooled by about half a degrees Celsius over the next year.


After decades of being taboo, this outlandish scheme, called 'solar 
radiation management', is now being taken seriously. It's been explored 
through scientific papers in major journals, reports of the UK's Royal 
Society, hearings in the US Congress, and a recent report of the US 
National Academy of Sciences.


Some environmentalists and climate scientists say it may be a 'necessary 
evil' to avoid catastrophic climate tipping points. Controversially, the 
most recent IPCC Assessment Report mentioned geoengineering in the 
prominent final paragraph of its Summary for Policymakers.



"Dimming the sun wouldn't solve the other problems caused by carbon 
pollution. Dissolved carbon dioxide would still acidify our oceans. The 
climate would still change."




There are deep pockets behind it too. Techno-philanthropist Bill Gates 
is a leading financer. Venture capitalists are circling, and some 
proposals have already been patented.


A firm called Intellectual Ventures owns the intellectual property for 
the 'StratoShield', an invention to deliver sulphur dioxide into the 
upper atmosphere through a 30-km-long hose supported by balloons. A 
professor at Harvard, David Keith, is pushing for more research and testing.


Neoconservative think tanks have leapt at the technology, arguing it's a 
cheaper solution to global warming than cutting emissions and 
restructuring the economy. Once the post-Paris Agreement buzz wears off 
and governments realise the hard work ahead of them, they might find 
this line seductive.


As a thought experiment to highlight the warped logic behind 
geoengineering, I'm proposing my own climate-hacking invention. It's 
called The Problem-Solution Generator, and it has two parts.


The 'Problem' is a dirty coal power station that spews carbon dioxide 
into the lower atmosphere, overheating the planet. Burning coal also 
releases other forms of air pollution — sulphur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides, soot particles and mercury — responsible for millions of deaths 
worldwide.


The 'Solution' is a 30-km-high smoke stack which separates the sulphur 
dioxide emissions and pumps them into the stratosphere, where they won't 
make people sick and should cool the planet. Thus a single machine 
generates a problem and then solves it — The Problem-Solution Generator!


Of course, we could shut down coal power stations and not create the 
problem in the first place. But that would address the cause — rising 
carbon emissions — which isn't what technofixes like geoengineering are 
about. So let's continue the thought experiment, using some of the same 
arguments as for other sulphur-spraying ideas.


Advocates of solar radiation management say that, unlike other responses 
to global warming, it doesn't upset the economic or political status 
quo. It's as if the current composition of society is more permanent and 
fixed than the composition of the entire upper atmosphere.


The Problem-Solution Generator shares this assumption. Fossil fuel 
companies could continue making money off heating the planet, while also 
making money off cooling the planet. It's a win-win!


There are a few concerns. Previous large volcanic eruptions have been 
associated with lower global rainfall and famine. Climate modelling 
indicates solar radiation management might dry the Amazon and disrupt 
the Asian and African monsoons. The sulphur particles could damage the 
ozone layer.


The biggest fear is switching the off button. Carbon dioxide persists in 
the atmosphere for 

[geo] Center for Climate Science and Policy Research (2016): Policy brief on climate engineering

[CE News Site]

Center for Climate Science and Policy Research (2016): Policy brief on 
climate engineering. With assistance of Victoria Wibeck, Anders Hansson, 
Raffael Himmelsbach, Mathias Fridahl, Björn-Ola Linnér, Jonas Anshelm. 
Linköping (Policy Briefs, 15).


"As these discussions will affect the forthcoming review of pathways 
toward 1.5°C warming, this policy brief takes stock of climate 
engineering. It draws on the expertise of Linköping University’s Climate 
Engineering (LUCE) interdisciplinary research programme. The brief 
provides an overview of the status of academic debate on climate 
engineering regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage 
(BECCS);  stratospheric aerosol injection; and mass media reporting and 
public engagement."


http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A913781=-4266

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] David Keith and Andy Parker. (2015). Will solar geoengineering help us manage the risks of climate change?

[CE News Site]

This has not been on the list so far.
Nils


David Keith and Andy Parker. (2015). Will solar geoengineering help us 
manage the risks of climate change? 
 
/Our world and us: How our environment and our societies will change,/ 
Ed Katinka Barysch, Allianz SE, Munich, 76-92.

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/175.Keith.Parker.WillSolarGeoengineeringHelpUsManageTheRisksofClimateChange.pdf


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] New Research Project: Arab-German Young Academy: Perspectives on Controversially Perceived Technologies and Subjects

[CE News Site]

Not a narrow CE focus but maybe of interest.

Nils

---

http://agya.info/working-groups/energy-water-and-environment/perspective-paper-project/


 Project

Arab and German Perspectives on Controversially Perceived Technologies 
and Subjects


The project aims at *reflecting upon current controversies in the Arab 
world and Germany* on the use of different technologies regarding Nature 
Conservation, Wastewater Treatment, Climate Engineering, Solar Energy 
and Biomass Usage. The considerations on the different technologies are 
organized as 'perspective papers'.


This article series sheds light on different approaches toward the 
application of technologies in Germany and the Arab World. A mutual 
understanding of the commonalities and differences in the perception of 
these technologies should be considered as precondition for the success 
of Arab-German joint developments.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Carbon Brief: Analysis: Is the UK relying on ‘negative emissions’ to meet its climate targets?

[CE News Site]

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-is-the-uk-relying-on-negative-emissions-to-meet-its-climate-targets


 Analysis: Is the UK relying on ‘negative emissions’ to meet its
 climate targets?


The Paris Agreement on climate change pledges to keep warming “well 
below 2C” and “pursue efforts” to limit the increase since preindustrial 
times to no more than 1.5C.


But what rarely gets discussed is that the modelling by scientists 
showing how this might be possible typically assumes that the world will 
deploy “negative emissions” technologies (NETs) later on this century.


In a week-long series of articles, Carbon Brief has been looking at NETs 
– the options, implications, history and feasibility. In the last part 
of our series, we turn the spotlight on the UK to see if – and how – it 
might resort to “sucking” CO2 from the atmosphere, in order to help meet 
its climate targets in the future.

Carbon Brief's series on negative emissions

Explainer: 10 ways ‘negative emissions’ could slow climate change
In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
Timeline: How BECCS became climate change’s ‘saviour’ technology
Guest post: Do we need BECCS to avoid dangerous climate change?
Analysis: Is the UK relying on ‘negative emissions’ to meet its 
climate targets?


Does the UK need negative emissions?

A full seven years before the ink dried on the Paris Agreement, the UK 
was enshrining in law its own national commitment to tackling climate 
change.


In 2008, the UK’s parliament passed the Climate Change Act, which set a 
legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 by 
80%, relative to 1990 levels.


In light of the Paris Agreement’s tightened temperature limit – it was 
nudged from the older “below 2C compared to preindustrial levels” 
commitment to “well below” 2C – the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), 
the UK government’s independent advisory body, recently determined that 
the UK’s fifth carbon budget for the 2028-2032 period should remain 
unchanged. The government will formally respond to the CCC’s advice and 
set out the policies to meet the target later this year.

5th Carbon Budget, CCC, 2015.

Source: The Fifth Carbon Budget – The next step towards a low-carbon 
economy, Committee on Climate Change, 2015.


But, as far back as 2010, the UK’s Department for Energy and Climate 
Change (DECC) recognised that “negative emissions” would likely need to 
feature in the world’s effort to keeping the global temperature rise to 
below 2C by the end of this century. A DECC-commissioned study into the 
potential for negative emissions in the UK concluded:
“It seems increasingly likely that CO2 emissions will overshoot the 
limit on the cumulative total needed to limit a global temperature rise 
to below 2C above pre-industrial levels. It may therefore become 
necessary to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”


Recognising that the UK needed a “robust strategic plan” to uphold its 
part of the bargain, the study examined potential approaches, concluding 
that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) had “the most 
immediate negative emissions potential” in the UK.


Similarly, a 2015 report by the CCC outlining the scientific context for 
the UK’s fifth carbon budget described BECCS as a “sensible way to 
maximise emissions reduction”.


How much could BECCS lower the UK’s emissions?

According to the 2010 DECC-commissioned study, carried out as part of 
the AVOID2 project, a middle estimate for the negative emissions 
potential of BECCS using only domestically-sourced biomass is just under 
50m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2e) by 2030. This 
is equivalent to about 10% of the UK’s current emissions. The authors 
concluded:
“[T]his may provide significant flexibility in delivering long-term GHG 
[greenhouse gas] reduction targets by offsetting emissions that are 
difficult to capture (e.g. from agriculture and transportation point 
sources).”


It would take about 11 years to scale-up BECCS to its full potential, 
the study said. There is also a fair amount of uncertainty around the 
figures, with estimates of negative emissions in the literature ranging 
from 18-80 MtCO2e (or 3-16% of the UK’s emissions in 2015).

Glossary
CO2 equivalent: Greenhouse gases can be expressed in terms of carbon 
dioxide equivalent, or CO2eq. For a given amount, different greenhouse 
gases trap different amounts of heat in the atmosphere, a quantity known 
as… Read More


The 10% figure assumes that all coal plants in the UK are replaced with 
BECCS and that 90% of the CO2 released in combustion can be captured and 
sequestered. It also assumes that biomass plants run at a similar 
efficiency to coal power plants (around 40%).


Importing the bioenergy from elsewhere in the world would increase the 
UK’s access to biomass, the study notes. By how much is uncertain, 
however, since different forecasts of land availability and 

[geo] News review of week 20 of 2016

[CE News Site]

//


   Climate Engineering News Review for Week 20 of 2016

Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·(new, no link) 20.05.2016, Panel discussion: Science Dialogue on 
Climate Engineering. Lessons from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 
Oxford/UK


·06.-08.06.2016 
, Workshop: 
Volcanic Impacts on Climate and Society, Palisades, NY/USA


New Publications

·Merk, Christine; et al. (2016) 
: 
Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation 
efforts


Selected Media Responses

·BoingBoing 
: 
The Planet Remade: frank, clear-eyed book on geoengineering, climate 
disaster, & humanity's future


·Georgetown Journal 
: 
The Global Conversation on Climate Engineering: Five Minutes with Dr. 
Simon Nicholson


·EOS 
: 
Blowin’ in the Wind: Observing Stratospheric Aerosols


·Brown Political Review 
: 
The New Cold War: The Political Problem of Geoengineering


·Geeks on Earth 
: 
Can Solar Geoengineering Be Part Of Responsible Climate Policy?


·Documentary Box 
: What to 
Know about Geoengineering (Video)


Projects

·Project 
: 
Carbon Removal Society


·Technological Proposal 
: 
The ISA Procedure for Climate Cooling


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Feng, Ellias Y.; et al. (2016): Could artificial ocean alkalinization protect tropical coral ecosystems from ocean acidification?

[CE News Site]

Feng, Ellias Y.; Keller, David P.; Koeve, Wolfgang; Oschlies, Andreas 
(2016): Could artificial ocean alkalinization protect tropical coral 
ecosystems from ocean acidification? In Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (7), p. 
74008–74008. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074008.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074008/meta


   Abstract

Artificial ocean alkalinization (AOA) is investigated as a method to 
mitigate local ocean acidification and protect tropical coral ecosystems 
during a 21st century high CO_2 emission scenario. Employing an Earth 
system model of intermediate complexity, our implementation of AOA in 
the Great Barrier Reef, Caribbean Sea and South China Sea regions, shows 
that alkalinization has the potential to counteract expected 21st 
century local acidification in regard to both oceanic surface aragonite 
saturation Ω and surface pCO_2 . Beyond preventing local acidification, 
regional AOA, however, results in locally elevated aragonite 
oversaturation and pCO_2 decline. A notable consequence of stopping 
regional AOA is a rapid shift back to the acidified conditions of the 
target regions. We conclude that AOA may be a method that could help to 
keep regional coral ecosystems within saturation states and pCO_2 values 
close to present-day values even in a high-emission scenario and thereby 
might 'buy some time' against the ocean acidification threat, even 
though regional AOA does not significantly mitigate the warming threat.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Boucher, Olivier; et al. (2016): Opinion: In the wake of Paris Agreement, scientists must embrace new directions for climate change research.

[CE News Site]

Boucher, Olivier; Bellassen, Valentin; Benveniste, Helene; Ciais, 
Philippe; Criqui, Patrick; Guivarch, Celine et al. (2016): Opinion: In 
the wake of Paris Agreement, scientists must embrace new directions for 
climate change research. In Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences of the United States of America 113 (27), pp. 7287–7290. DOI 
10.1073/pnas.1607739113.


http://www.pnas.org/content/113/27/7287


 Opinion: In the wake of Paris Agreement, scientists must embrace new
 directions for climate change research

At each Conference of Parties (COP), scientists hand over the climate 
change problem to diplomats and policymakers. A COP also offers 
scientists a chance to take stock of their research, confront emerging 
policy questions, identify research gaps, and update their research 
agendas. We, as an interdisciplinary group of academic experts who have 
been providing independent insights to the COP21 French presidency and 
negotiation team (1 
), have seen not 
only the importance of science in policymaking but also its limitations 
and sometimes its lack of alignment with the complex environmental and 
societal issues addressed in the negotiations. Here we analyze research 
gaps and identify new directions of research in relation to a number of 
facets of the Paris Agreement, including the new 1.5 °C objective, the 
articulation between near-term and long-term mitigation pathways, 
negative emissions, verification, climate finance, non-Parties 
stakeholders, and adaptation.


The Paris Agreement is an admirable first step, but scientists must come 
to terms with its research and policy implications. Image courtesy of 
Flickr/jmdigne.


The Paris Agreement has sealed several concrete achievements, in 
particular the introduction of a five-year submission cycle for 
nationally determined contributions (NDC), which spells out voluntary 
short-term domestic climate policies and the generalization of a 
measurement, verification, and monitoring (MRV) system to all parties. 
Another objective is to increase finance flows “towards low greenhouse 
gas emissions development” (2 
). These and other 
measures aim to encourage “holding the increase in the global average 
temperature to well below 2 °C” and call for “pursuing efforts to limit 
the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels” (2 
). Furthermore, the 
agreement invites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of a global 
temperature rise of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and global 
greenhouse gas emission pathways leading to this new objective.



   A Controversial 1.5 °C Objective

However, the agreement has left in its wake numerous complex issues with 
which scientists and policymakers must wrestle. For example, the 1.5 °C 
objective offers contradictory perspectives that may be difficult to 
reconcile, and hence may divide the scientific community. Diverging 
short-term interests among signatory countries, socio-economic barriers 
to changes, and technological lock-ins in energy systems question the 
feasibility of such a goal. Furthermore, this 1.5 °C objective may 
distract the community from focusing research efforts on the risks and 
impacts of more severe warming scenarios between 2 °C and 4 °C. These 
scenarios are more likely to happen than the 1.5 °C, and require 
adaptation measures planned well in advance. Focusing on a 1.5 °C 
scenario also constitutes, some argue, a form of hypocrisy, sustaining 
false hope from the public and most vulnerable countries.


Although achieving a 1.5 °C objective may appear as a lost cause, it can 
nevertheless be seen as a necessary baseline for climate negotiations (3 
). There is also an 
ethical issue in play: it is certainly too early in climate negotiations 
to accept the destruction of low-lying islands and other regions that 
may not be capable of adapting to warmer conditions. Finally, we must 
acknowledge that technological progress, together with efforts from all 
stakeholders and widespread changes to individual behaviors, could bring 
enough mitigation to effectively bridge the gap to the 2 °C—if not the 
new 1.5 °C—objective.


Indeed, the Paris Agreement does not specify a date for the long-term 
goal, opening the possibility for overshoot scenarios, whereby global 
warming would "What synergies and trade-offs exist with other policy 
goals (including development, poverty alleviation, air quality, energy 
security, and employment)? Such analyses are necessary to understand how 
ambitious climate policies can strive to be."exceed 1.5 °C or 2 °C 
before being driven down via negative-emission technologies. In this 
view, there is a real risk that such technologies will meet constraints 
that 

[geo] Partanen, Antti-Ilari; et al. (2016): Impacts of sea spray geoengineering on ocean biogeochemistry

[CE News Site]

Partanen, Antti-Ilari; Keller, David P.; Korhonen, Hannele; Matthews, H. 
Damon (2016): Impacts of sea spray geoengineering on ocean 
biogeochemistry. In Geophys. Res. Lett. DOI 10.1002/2016GL070111.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070111/full

Research Letter


 Impacts of sea spray geoengineering on ocean biogeochemistry

 * Accepted manuscript online: 6 July 2016Full publication history
   

 * DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070111 [Titel anhand dieser DOI in Citavi-Projekt
   übernehmen] View/save citation
   

 * Cited by: 0 articles Check for new citations
   

 *
   Article has an altmetric score of 1
   


 * This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full
   peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting,
   pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences
   between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this
   article as doi: 10.1002/2016GL070111 [Titel anhand dieser DOI in
   Citavi-Projekt übernehmen] 


   Abstract

We used an earth system model of intermediate complexity to study the 
effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) by sea spray geoengineering 
on ocean biogeochemistry. SRM slightly decreased global ocean net 
primary productivity (NPP) relative to the control run. The lower 
temperatures in the SRM run decreased NPP directly but also indirectly 
increased NPP in some regions due to changes in nutrient availability 
resulting from changes in ocean stratification and circulation. Reduced 
light availability had a minor effect on global total NPP but a major 
regional effect near the nutrient rich upwelling region off the coast of 
Peru, where light availability is the main limiting factor for 
phytoplankton growth in our model. Unused nutrients from regions with 
decreased NPP also fueled NPP elsewhere. In the context of RCP4.5 
simulation used here, SRM decreased ocean carbon uptake due to changes 
in atmospheric CO_2 concentrations, seawater chemistry, NPP, 
temperature, and ocean circulation.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Gasparini, Blaž; Lohmann, Ulrike (2016): Why cirrus cloud seeding cannot substantially cool the planet.

[CE News Site]

Gasparini, Blaž; Lohmann, Ulrike (2016): Why cirrus cloud seeding cannot 
substantially cool the planet. In J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 121 (9), pp. 
4877–4893. DOI 10.1002/2015JD024666.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024666/abstract

Research Article


 Why cirrus cloud seeding cannot substantially cool the planet

First published: 12 May 2016Full publication history 
 



 * DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024666 [Titel anhand dieser DOI in Citavi-Projekt
   übernehmen] View/save citation
   

 * Cited by: 0 articles Check for new citations
   

 *
   Article has an altmetric score of 8
   



   Abstract

The net warming effect of cirrus clouds has driven part of the 
geoengineering research toward the idea of decreasing their occurrence 
frequency by seeding them with efficient ice nucleating particles. We 
study responses of cirrus clouds to simplified global seeding strategies 
in terms of their radiative fluxes with the help of the ECHAM-HAM 
general circulation model. Our cirrus scheme takes into account the 
competition between homogeneous and heterogeneous freezing, preexisting 
ice crystals, and the full spectrum of updraft velocities. While we find 
that the cirrus cloud radiative effect evaluated from our model is 
positive and large enough (5.7 W/m^2 ) to confirm their geoengineering 
potential, none of the seeding strategies achieves a significant cooling 
due to complex microphysical mechanisms limiting their climatic 
responses. After globally uniform seeding is applied, we observe an 
increase in cirrus cloud cover, a decrease in ice crystal number 
concentration, and a decrease in ice crystal radius. An analysis of 
their respective radiative contributions points to the ice crystal 
radius decrease as the main factor limiting seeding effectiveness.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.